17th stuff, 3rd time lucky

[ericmark]

Ban-all-sheds No the two statements do not contradict each other.
Lights in a bathroom require RCD protection.
Lights else where do not require RCD protection and neither does Ali-tube cable.
So completely different.
“Again that last statement seems to contradict the earlier ones. Ignoring for now the possibility that the manufacturer's instructions may call for one anyway, are you saying that if a customer chooses a more powerful shower because he wants to then the requirement to add an RCD is there. but if chooses one because he has to then he doesn't have to have an RCD?“
This is exactly what I am saying. Where the OAP needs a shower and the old one has failed then it would be wrong to stop him having a shower on the other hand where the dotty blond what’s and up-grade because her show is not as good as her daughters there is no need to break the rules your not stopping her showering and you are not causing any hardship by insisting on working to the letter.
As to ESC I was giving an example how other people looked at breaching the regulations.
What I am saying the BS7671:2008 is a guide and from time to time one does need to use some common sense and break the rules but on the other hand they should not be broken lightly and where it is reasonable not to break them you should do as they say. As I said before we are tradesmen and we should take some responsibility and judge where we can and where we can’t break rules or not so much break as bend.
I do agree with FingRinal Fri 8:22am comment. No one can write a rule book on how to break or bend rules each of us has to weigh up what we have at each job and also what we can get the customer to pay for.
But I would consider breaking the rules where the job will affect the quality of life for the customer but not where the work is only for cosmetics.
Eric

 

[Veglen]

To ban-all-sheds “If you were adding lights to an existing bathroom circuit, do you think that you would have to add RCD protection to that circuit?” yes as it is an addition if the customer does not want the expense he/she has no need to add to the circuit. If however I was replacing a faulty existing lamp then no.

I do see a problem if a new lamp wired in Ali-tube cable is added to a circuit which has some areas where the cable is buried to less than 50mm then since the new bit conforms no you don’t need to add RCD protection.

Those two statements contradict each other.

In the first one you say that adding lights triggers the requirement to update the whole circuit to the 17th standard, and in the second you say that if you add new fixed wiring and the new section complies (which it wouldn't in a bathroom) then you don't have to update the whole circuit.

Anyway - good luck persuading your customers that in order for you to install a couple of downlighters in their bathroom you've got to change some or all of the CU, or add a standalone RCD...

Some guidance is offered by the Electrical Safety Council on this subject.

http://www.esc.org.uk/forum/index.html

It may provide answers to some of your questions and in particular, Alterations and Additions in Domestic and Similar Premises!


V

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ban-all-sheds No the two statements do not contradict each other.
Lights in a bathroom require RCD protection.
Lights else where do not require RCD protection and neither does Ali-tube cable.
So completely different.

No - all circuits in a bathroom require RCD protection, and the lighting one requires it whether it has 1 luminaire or dozens. So why when you replace a light do you don't need to update the circuit but when you add a light you think you do?

Elsewhere I think you can pretty much guarantee that all the other circuits also require it as I think you can pretty much guarantee that they will have concealed cables at a depth of less than 50mm.

So whether the reasons for the circuits needing RCD protection are the same or different, the need is the same, so shouldn't your criteria for when you update the protection be the same?

As to ESC I was giving an example how other people looked at breaching the regulations.

I thought they were guidelines on how to remove breaches of the regulations by rewiring/adding a cpc/using only Class II items, and that if the customer persisted in maintaining a breach the advice was to have nothing to do with it?

What I am saying the BS7671:2008 is a guide and from time to time one does need to use some common sense and break the rules but on the other hand they should not be broken lightly and where it is reasonable not to break them you should do as they say.

A not unreasonable position, but...

No one can write a rule book on how to break or bend rules each of us has to weigh up what we have at each job and also what we can get the customer to pay for.

Indeed, but...

But I would consider breaking the rules where the job will affect the quality of life for the customer but not where the work is only for cosmetics.

I commend your sense of social responsibility, but how far would you go in not just leaving breaches untouched, but in carrying out work which breaches the regulations if the customer can't afford to have it done properly?

And, the but... - what do you do about certificates? Do you list your departures?


PS - any chance you could start to use the Quote button?

 

[FingRinal]

Elsewhere I think you can pretty much guarantee that all the other circuits also require it as I think you can pretty much guarantee that they will have concealed cables at a depth of less than 50mm.

BAS, I said this right at the outset but you disagreed. I said unless you can prove otherwise, you have to assume that cables will require RCD protection. I don't think you can take any other view, especially when changing a CU.

I commend your sense of social responsibility, but how far would you go in not just leaving breaches untouched, but in carrying out work which breaches the regulations if the customer can't afford to have it done properly?

This is a tricky position that most electricians find themselves in. Often, they are accused of being dim, or ignorant or both because they may be at a loss for words. The reason may have nothing to do with technical issues/competence or compliance/non-compliance with the Regs and everything to do with a potential 'legal' interpretation of their actions (paid work). This is when the advice of their 'club' comes in. Such advice will not be against the Regs in any way, though some may argue it may be slightly overly zealous or pedantic. However, it gives the electrician a means of getting on with things.

It must also be noted that an electrician may be contracted to do a defined(limited) scope of work. So why should they do anything for free that is outside the scope of the contract? The 'give and take' that often works well for both client and contractor could be eroded by endless small works contracts. Clients could grow suspicious and electricians lose valuable word of mouth. However, this is not the same as an electrician knowingly limiting his scope of works to avoid things (like bonding) just to keep the price down and his life/liability simple.

 

[ericmark]

Thank you to Veglen a very useful link. “No - all circuits in a bathroom require RCD protection, and the lighting one requires it whether it has 1 luminaire or dozens. So why when you replace a light do you don't need to update the circuit but when you add a light you think you do? “ This is answered with Veglen’s link
“EDQ4 A switched, fused 13 A connection unit is to be added to an existing circuit. The work is not being carried out in a special location and the existing circuit has no RCD protection. The incoming services are bonded and the new switched fused connection unit is to be flush mounted 150 mm horizontally from an existing socket, and connected with wiring concealed in the wall. What is the reasonably expected for the installer to do to comply with the 17th Edition?
EDA4 The connection unit does not require additional protection by RCD, though at least the extended part of the existing circuit will need to be suitably protected (by RCD or other means).”
Although not a bathroom this is showing how original can remain without RCD and new item requires RCD. I also note the following:-
“EDQ10 If I replace an existing electric shower, do I now have to provide RCD protection for it?
EDA10 No, unless RCD protection is required by the manufacturer’s installation instructions, or a new circuit is required (to provide for increased load, for example).” This also came up in our discussion.
As to paper work I agree this is a problem up to date I have not lied and I have not been required to do any remedial work. I hope it stays that way.

Eric

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, I said this right at the outset but you disagreed.

Actually, you didn't, and I didn't.

I said unless you can prove otherwise, you have to assume that cables will require RCD protection. I don't think you can take any other view, especially when changing a CU.

And if you look at what I wrote earlier you'll see that I agree that when replacing a CU you should make that assumption, and use RCDs accordingly.

The reason I highlighted the assumption to Eric was that he seemed to have an illogical and inconsistent approach to when he acted on it when doing other sorts of alterations.

The reason may have nothing to do with technical issues/competence or compliance/non-compliance with the Regs and everything to do with a potential 'legal' interpretation of their actions (paid work). This is when the advice of their 'club' comes in. Such advice will not be against the Regs in any way, though some may argue it may be slightly overly zealous or pedantic. However, it gives the electrician a means of getting on with things.

I can see how such advice is useful and practical, but really an electrician shouldn't have big worries that what he wants to do is against the regulations.

People may well take a different stance on where on the spectrum between replacing a socket front and replacing a CU the need to update kicks in, but wherever they draw the line their reasoning must be consistent and logical, and they really should not do work which in their view contravenes the regulations.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A great big lump of text without any spacing and without proper quotes, despite the fact that nobody else refuses to format their posts sensibly.

So I'm not going to spend too much time trying to fight my way through it, except to say that you're wrong about the ESC guidance explaining why if you replace a light in a bathroom you don't need to add an RCD to the circuit whereas if you replace it with two lights next to each other you do.

 

[FingRinal]

BAS, I said this right at the outset but you disagreed.

Actually, you didn't, and I didn't.

then you really are ignorant, obtuse and obdurate It's in one of the previous threads that was locked.

I said unless you can prove otherwise, you have to assume that cables will require RCD protection. I don't think you can take any other view, especially when changing a CU.

And if you look at what I wrote earlier you'll see that I agree that when replacing a CU you should make that assumption, and use RCDs accordingly.

I'm glad you finally see sense?

I can see how such advice is useful and practical, but really an electrician shouldn't have big worries that what he wants to do is against the regulations.

Firstly, you wouldn't do as you're not a professional electrician - but then I would have thought most people could see the sense in that so I guess you're being deliberatley obdurate. Secondly, you might not worry about doing things against the Regs, but other people are.

People may well take a different stance on where on the spectrum between replacing a socket front and replacing a CU the need to update kicks in, but wherever they draw the line their reasoning must be consistent and logical, and they really should not do work which in their view contravenes the regulations.

Yet above you contradict yourself People should draw the lines in accordance with the Regs and not what 'they' think. Replacing a socket is completely different to changing a CU. One requires a Minor Works Cert ( ) and one requires an EIC - a massive difference in responsibility, knowledge, skill, danger, liability, inspection & testing, knowledge of the Regs, notification etc. etc.

BAS, I can see you're now trying to turn this thread into a pedantic scrap so it's perhaps best that this one is locked now.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, I said this right at the outset but you disagreed.

Actually, you didn't, and I didn't.

then you really are ignorant, obtuse and obdurate It's in one of the previous threads that was locked.

Unlike you I don't try to bring disagreements from other threads into the one I'm currently in.

So it would be a shame if you ended up destroying this topic in the way that you have so many others, but nowhere in here: //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=149633 (which was the topic about replacing CUs that got locked) did I disagree that you have to assume the cables would require protection.

I said unless you can prove otherwise, you have to assume that cables will require RCD protection. I don't think you can take any other view, especially when changing a CU.

And if you look at what I wrote earlier you'll see that I agree that when replacing a CU you should make that assumption, and use RCDs accordingly.

I'm glad you finally see sense?

I've never said otherwise.

I can see how such advice is useful and practical, but really an electrician shouldn't have big worries that what he wants to do is against the regulations.

Firstly, you wouldn't do as you're not a professional electrician - but then I would have thought most people could see the sense in that so I guess you're being deliberatley obdurate. Secondly, you might not worry about doing things against the Regs, but other people are.

Why you keep accusing me of being hard-hearted, and not easily moved by feelings or supplication or moral persuasion I don't know...

But you've interpreted what I wrote completely incorrectly. I meant that an electrician shouldn't be doing things which he worries are against the regulations.

People may well take a different stance on where on the spectrum between replacing a socket front and replacing a CU the need to update kicks in, but wherever they draw the line their reasoning must be consistent and logical, and they really should not do work which in their view contravenes the regulations.

Yet above you contradict yourself

No, but you chose to think I did rather than look again at my first statement and wonder if you'd misunderstood.

People should draw the lines in accordance with the Regs and not what 'they' think.

The whole point, or problem, though is that often the regulations are not explicit enough, and people have to make judgements. Nowhere do the regulations explicitly say when an existing circuit needs to have RCD protection added during the course of additions or changes to it.

Replacing a socket is completely different to changing a CU. One requires a Minor Works Cert ( ) and one requires an EIC - a massive difference in responsibility, knowledge, skill, danger, liability, inspection & testing, knowledge of the Regs, notification etc. etc.

I agree that they are vastly different, which is why I used them as extreme examples of what changes might be made to a circuit with concealed cables less than 50mm deep and without mechanical or RCD protection, to illustrate that it isn't the case that anything you do triggers the requirement to add an RCD - that happens further down the line heading towards CU replacement.

Quite what relevance you pointing out that the two jobs have significant differences in responsibility, knowledge, skill etc etc has to the question of where between the two the threshold of RCD addition is crossed I really don't know.

BAS, I can see you're now trying to turn this thread into a pedantic scrap so it's perhaps best that this one is locked now.

It's not I who is trying to turn it into a scrap, pedantic or otherwise, but it's interesting to note that this is another topic that you want to see locked.

 

[ColJack]

so to summarize...

changing a broken light fitting, switch, socket outlet etc = no RCD **
changing the socket fronts or light switches from white plastic to chrome = no RCD * + **
adding 2 new sockets to an existing circuit = RCD ( or RCBO )
adding new light points to an existing circuit = RCD ( or RCBO )
adding new circuits to a CU = RCD for new circuits
and changing a CU obviously you'd put rcd's in then..

does this sound reasonable?

* - assuming that the earthing of the switches etc is adequate..
** - assuming that the earth loop readings are adequate to insure operation of the protective device within the required times..

 

[GaryMo]

Yes Col.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ccrowe]

so to summarize...

changing a broken light fitting, switch, socket outlet etc = no RCD **
changing the socket fronts or light switches from white plastic to chrome = no RCD * + **
adding 2 new sockets to an existing circuit = RCD ( or RCBO )
adding new light points to an existing circuit = RCD ( or RCBO )
adding new circuits to a CU = RCD for new circuits
and changing a CU obviously you'd put rcd's in then..

does this sound reasonable?

* - assuming that the earthing of the switches etc is adequate..
** - assuming that the earth loop readings are adequate to insure operation of the protective device within the required times..

Another one...
Add a socket with in-built RCD to a non-RCD protected circuit?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ericmark]

BAS seems we have got mixed up between replace and add. I though you were adding a second lamp in a bathroom not replacing and you are right no difference in replacing one lamp to replacing two lamps.
There is of course a difference between adding an extra lamp to replacing a lamp.
Eric