17th complying

[ericmark]

If your addition/alteration is not a CIRCUIT then the regulations for CIRCUITS don't apply to it.

But if it is not a CIRCUITS then it will not work. That's why we use switches to break the CIRCUIT

Yes I know under BS7671:2008 they define a circuit as being all protected by one device which means with the bathroom fan if you use a FCU it would be a new circuit.

As to complying with BS7671:2008 anything designed after 30st June 2008 are to comply. And it does not matter if it is an addition to old circuit or new circuit it is the date when the work was designed that matters.

The question asks "adding a new shower and extractor fan" so clearly it is designed after 30st June 2008 however had it read "adding a replacement shower and extractor fan" then your comments would be valid.

 

[Spark123]

The term adding is implying adding something to the fixed wiring that wasn't there before hence will need certifying to BS7671:2008 hence the addition needs to comply with todays regs re bathrooms.

Replacing on a like for like I'd agree doesn't require anything to be changed to the circuit, doesn't even need a MWC.

 

[ericmark]

The term adding is implying adding something to the fixed wiring that wasn't there before hence will need certifying to BS7671:2008 hence the addition needs to comply with todays regs re bathrooms.

Replacing on a like for like I'd agree doesn't require anything to be changed to the circuit, doesn't even need a MWC.

I agree and hope that is how my post reads!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But if it is not a CIRCUITS then it will not work. That's why we use switches to break the CIRCUIT

So is a spurred socket a circuit?

If you took on a job, and the specification said "install circuit to supply <thing>" and you spurred off from the nearest convenient existing circuit, would you think that you'd fully met the spec?

Yes I know under BS7671:2008 they define a circuit as being all protected by one device which means with the bathroom fan if you use a FCU it would be a new circuit.

No it wouldn't, not if you also read the definition of "origin".

As to complying with BS7671:2008 anything designed after 30st June 2008 are to comply. And it does not matter if it is an addition to old circuit or new circuit it is the date when the work was designed that matters.

Indeed.

Anything designed after 30th June 2008.

The existing circuit was not designed after 30th June 2008.

What was designed after 30th June 2008 is the addition of the fan, so it's that addition that has to comply, not what's already there.

The question asks "adding a new shower and extractor fan" so clearly it is designed after 30st June 2008 however had it read "adding a replacement shower and extractor fan" then your comments would be valid.

So if someone wanted you to add a new light switch in their bedroom, using surface mounted cable, would you want to put the circuit on an RCD?

What if they wanted a light put in the cupboard under the stairs where their CU was, and they wanted it on a socket circuit (pre-17th, no RCD) so that they could still see to reset the breaker of the lighting circuit when it tripped. All the cables are on the surface, and they're quite happy with surface mounted accessories. Would you want to put the socket circuit on an RCD?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The term adding is implying adding something to the fixed wiring that wasn't there before hence will need certifying to BS7671:2008 hence the addition needs to comply with todays regs re bathrooms.

What's your view of this?:

so in that case if i add sockets to a circuit then they dont need rcd, is that right?

No, as there is a separate regulation that states that all general purpose socket outlets must be protected by a 30ma RCD, and this would apply to your new sockets. You don't necessarily have to protect the whole circuit (although this is probably the cheapest way of doing it), you could put in a new socket with an integral RCD for example (assuming the new cabling doesn't require RCD protection).

 

[Spark123]

For the addition to comply with the 17th edn regs the addition will need to have RCD protection for the new socket outlets (unless they are for a specific purpose etc).
If the added cables are unprotected and concealed <50mm in a wall or partition then the cable needs to be RCD protected.
If you wired the sockets in for example pyro then you wouldn't need to RCD protect the cable, you may use SRCDs.

 

[ericmark]

So if someone wanted you to add a new light switch in their bedroom, using surface mounted cable, would you want to put the circuit on an RCD?

no as you know it's not required

What if they wanted a light put in the cupboard under the stairs where their CU was, and they wanted it on a socket circuit (pre-17th, no RCD) so that they could still see to reset the breaker of the lighting circuit when it tripped. All the cables are on the surface, and they're quite happy with surface mounted accessories. Would you want to put the socket circuit on an RCD?

Here again there is no requirement to supply any lights from an RCD which the exception of bathrooms so no.

So is a spurred socket a circuit?

Maybe if from FCU then it would be new circuit but if not the no it is not a new circuit.

If you took on a job, and the specification said "install circuit to supply <thing>" and you spurred off from the nearest convenient existing circuit, would you think that you'd fully met the spec?

How many times have you pointed out one has to be sure any additions do not compromise the existing installation and you may as well ask the length of piece of string.

Circuit = An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same position at which electrical energy is delivered to an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).

OK that's it in full and it would still mean anything from a FCU will be a circuit.

Anything designed after 30th June 2008.

The existing circuit was not designed after 30th June 2008.

What was designed after 30th June 2008 is the addition of the fan, so it's that addition that has to comply, not what's already there.

That's what we said the fan needs RCD protection. As will the shower.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For the addition to comply with the 17th edn regs the addition will need to have RCD protection for the new socket outlets (unless they are for a specific purpose etc).
If the added cables are unprotected and concealed <50mm in a wall or partition then the cable needs to be RCD protected.
If you wired the sockets in for example pyro then you wouldn't need to RCD protect the cable, you may use SRCDs.

But you know full well that the other sockets already there aren't RCD protected, and that the 17th requires them to be.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

You know full well that the existing circuit has unprotected cables concealed at <50mm depth in walls or partitions, and that the 17th requires them to have RCD protection.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So if someone wanted you to add a new light switch in their bedroom, using surface mounted cable, would you want to put the circuit on an RCD?

no as you know it's not required

But what if (as is nearly always the case) that lighting circuit also goes into the bathroom?

You've added to a circuit supplying the bathroom, so why don't you have to bring it up to the requirements of the 17th?

You know full well that the existing circuit has unprotected cables concealed at <50mm depth in walls or partitions, and that the 17th requires them to have RCD protection.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

What if they wanted a light put in the cupboard under the stairs where their CU was, and they wanted it on a socket circuit (pre-17th, no RCD) so that they could still see to reset the breaker of the lighting circuit when it tripped. All the cables are on the surface, and they're quite happy with surface mounted accessories. Would you want to put the socket circuit on an RCD?

Here again there is no requirement to supply any lights from an RCD which the exception of bathrooms so no.

But what if that socket circuit supplied a heated towel rail in the bathroom - would you need to put it on an RCD?

Also you know full well that the sockets already there aren't RCD protected, and that the 17th requires them to be.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

You know full well that the existing circuit has unprotected cables concealed at <50mm depth in walls or partitions, and that the 17th requires them to have RCD protection.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

So is a spurred socket a circuit?

Maybe if from FCU then it would be new circuit but if not the no it is not a new circuit.

But according to you there'd be no point in ever having a spurred socket not coming from an FCU, as that's not a circuit, so according to you it won't work:

But if it is not a CIRCUITS then it will not work.

If you took on a job, and the specification said "install circuit to supply <thing>" and you spurred off from the nearest convenient existing circuit, would you think that you'd fully met the spec?

How many times have you pointed out one has to be sure any additions do not compromise the existing installation and you may as well ask the length of piece of string.

That's not an answer to the question.

If you were asked to install a circuit, and instead you installed a spur (fused or not) would you think you'd done what was asked?

Circuit = An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same position at which electrical energy is delivered to an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).

That's not the definition in BS 7671.

Anything designed after 30th June 2008.

The existing circuit was not designed after 30th June 2008.

What was designed after 30th June 2008 is the addition of the fan, so it's that addition that has to comply, not what's already there.

That's what we said the fan needs RCD protection. As will the shower.

I'm not disagreeing about the new shower circuit.

But where's the regulation which says that the fan needs RCD protection?

 

[Spark123]

For the addition to comply with the 17th edn regs the addition will need to have RCD protection for the new socket outlets (unless they are for a specific purpose etc).
If the added cables are unprotected and concealed <50mm in a wall or partition then the cable needs to be RCD protected.
If you wired the sockets in for example pyro then you wouldn't need to RCD protect the cable, you may use SRCDs.

But you know full well that the other sockets already there aren't RCD protected, and that the 17th requires them to be.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

You know full well that the existing circuit has unprotected cables concealed at <50mm depth in walls or partitions, and that the 17th requires them to have RCD protection.

You've added to the circuit, so why don't you have to bring the whole of the existing circuit up to the requirements of the 17th?

Apart from ensuring that the existing supply is adequate for the addional load there is no requirement to start upgrading the existing installation. However any additions I am carrying out and certifying to the 17th edn regs will need to be to those regs, otherwise amongst other things it is fraud.

Similar concept with bathrooms and RCD protection- if I carry out an alteration or addition to the circuit that addition/alteration needs to be protected by an RCD as the 17th edn regs requires it. That RCD may be installed to protect the whole circuit or it may just be installed locally to protect the addition or altered part of the circuit.
I do not have to start upgrading circuits within the bathroom which I have not carried out any alterations or additions to, however I do need to take them into account when specifying wether or not supplementary bonding is required.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Apart from ensuring that the existing supply is adequate for the addional load there is no requirement to start upgrading the existing installation.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

However any additions I am carrying out and certifying to the 17th edn regs will need to be to those regs, otherwise amongst other things it is fraud.

Which is also what I've been saying all along.

Similar concept with bathrooms and RCD protection- if I carry out an alteration or addition to the circuit that addition/alteration needs to be protected by an RCD as the 17th edn regs requires it.

No they don't.

701.411.3.3 says "Additional protection shall be provided for all circuits of the location, by the use of one or more RCDs...."

So if your alteration or addition is not a circuit then it doesn't need RCD protection as specified by 701.411.3.3.

Changes to an existing circuit there no more generate a need to update the circuit than adding a socket generates a need to put all the existing sockets on an RCD.

I do not have to start upgrading circuits within the bathroom which I have not carried out any alterations or additions to

But you think you have to upgrade circuits within the bathroom which you have altered or added to?

Even though you don't apply the same rule to working on any other circuits anywhere else in the house?

 

[Spark123]

701.411.3.3 says "Additional protection shall be provided for all circuits of the location, by the use of one or more RCDs...."

So if your alteration or addition is not a circuit then it doesn't need RCD protection as specified by 701.411.3.3.

If I am modifying a circuit within the location either by adding or altering it, then signing something to say that it complies with the 17th edn regs then it needs to have RCD protection - wether I choose to protect it at circuit level or protect it locally is another matter. Fact is it will probably be less mess to do it at circuit level.

Changes to an existing circuit there no more generate a need to update the circuit than adding a socket generates a need to put all the existing sockets on an RCD.

You appear to grasp from the above regarding the sockets that the new sockets (addition) require to comply with the 17th edn regs therefore that part of the circuit will either require RCD protection if there are concealed cables <50mm or if using surface mounting or using concealed pyro or similar, SRCDs can be used.
Yet you still seem to think that even though the regs ask for "all circuits of the location in bathrooms need to be RCD protected", that anyone adding/altering to a circuit in that location doesn't need to leave that part of the circuit protected by an RCD for it to comply with the 17th edn regs.

I do not have to start upgrading circuits within the bathroom which I have not carried out any alterations or additions to

But you think you have to upgrade circuits within the bathroom which you have altered or added to?

Yep, as the 17th edn regs requires it, and I am putting my name to them to say that they are complying with the 17th edn regs. Failure to ensure that they comply with the 17th edn regs therefore is fraud.

Even though you don't apply the same rule to working on any other circuits anywhere else in the house?

Yes I do, even on socket circuits it is probably far easier to provide RCD protection at circuit level, however only the addition needs to be done to the 17th edn regs. Same in a bathroom, only the addidion/alteration needs to be done to the 17th edn regs.

 

[mattylad]

Cool, I think if I search on all threads that have the 17th quoted & write all the quotes down, I wont be far from having a hand written edition myself

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I am modifying a circuit within the location either by adding or altering it, then signing something to say that it complies with the 17th edn regs then it needs to have RCD protection -

That's not what the regulations say.

They say that the circuit needs protection, not the cabling within the location.

Since your work is not the installation of a circuit there are no circuit-level regulations which apply to it.

There just aren't.

Yet you still seem to think that even though the regs ask for "all circuits of the location in bathrooms need to be RCD protected", that anyone adding/altering to a circuit in that location doesn't need to leave that part of the circuit protected by an RCD for it to comply with the 17th edn regs.

That is indeed what I think because that is indeed what the regulations say.

Yep, as the 17th edn regs requires it, and I am putting my name to them to say that they are complying with the 17th edn regs. Failure to ensure that they comply with the 17th edn regs therefore is fraud.

But the regulations don't say what you think they say.

They impose a requirement on the circuit, not on a particular bit of cable.

You're not installing a circuit so the regulations applying to circuits do not apply to your work.

Yes I do, even on socket circuits it is probably far easier to provide RCD protection at circuit level, however only the addition needs to be done to the 17th edn regs. Same in a bathroom, only the addidion/alteration needs to be done to the 17th edn regs.

Indeed, but since the 17th regulations impose a requirements for circuits, if you aren't installing a circuit then you only have to comply with the regulations which apply to what you are doing.

A cable spurred off a lighting circuit is not a circuit itself, and therefore a regulation which imposes a requirement on circuits cannot apply to that spur.

It simply cannot, as that spur is not a circuit and therefore cannot be within the scope of a regulation which applies to circuits.

 

[Spark123]

It says circuits of the location, so I take that to mean all circuits within the location. Wether you class that as the whole circuit back to the CU or just the bit of the circuit within the location is up to you.
Maybe you are right and we need to ensure that the whole circuit is RCD protected back at the consumer unit, or back at the sub station, or back at the power station??
My stance still stands tho, if you are adding or modifying a circuit within a bathroom then it needs to be RCD protected to be signed off to the 17th edn regs.