Does Every Home Require RCD Protection?

[securespark]

Just wondered, there may have been a reason.

 

[ebee]

Perhaps the contributor wondered if the road traffic acts and the Highway Code have a similar relationship to the wiring regs. And a various laws here.
Obviously the landlord legislation refers to testing in accordance with one certain version of BS7671 itself but other than that reference is it a legal requirement?I think that the answer to both of these things is that we would be well advised to treat them both as if they were actually mandated in law even if we think/know they are not.

 

[ericmark]

Sorry, there was a link to an English law, but the problem is in Scotland, and I find my Google tends to show Welsh things, so finding what is permitted in Scotland I find a problem.

The EICR was split into 4 codes, but the IET said that code 4 was misleading, so the new 3 codes came in with a C in front of the number to show the new system is being used. The basic EICR is looking for danger and potential danger, but the English landlord law states which version of BS 7671 should be used, but unless a law gives the version number, then we should work on the one current when designed.

The problem arises where the design has been changed, like earthing in bathrooms for example, or not using filament lamps, so something which was safe, is no longer safe, due to something like the supply changing for TN-S to TN-C-S etc.

I simply do not know the Scottish laws.

 

[morqthana]

so I am non the wiser!

Maybe not, but better informed.

But seriously - did the second link pre-date the national change in Wales?

 

[ericmark]

In around 1987 my son took his RAE and passed, so started to play with electrics, I was worried he could injure himself, so fitted an adaptable box with two RCD's that fed the two Wylex fuse boxes, well before we were even required RCD's for outside sockets. I assessed the risk, and took appropriate action.

With a rental property, one has not a clue what the tenant may do, and fitting RCD's is not something the tenant can do, we have seen huge fines where a landlord did not correct faults on time, before a tenant was killed, she had engaged an electrician, he had just not got around to the job on time, so RCD protection also protects the landlord, be it required or not.

I can see the reluctance in changing to metal, but as far as RCD protection goes, looking more at the morrow responsibility to what is legally required.

 

[chivers67]

I live in Croatia but own a small cottage in Scotland that I rent out. My Landlord Registration is due for renewal soon and I have to provide various documents including an electrical safety report. I got an electrician to inspect the property but he has found various defects. His estimate for rectifying these is £1650 including VAT. A big chunk of that is for renewing 3 consumer units. There is one for the main house, one in the garage and one in an attached outbuilding which houses the gas boiler. The one in the garage is a purpose made Screwfix garage CU with RCD and MCBs for lights and sockets. He says that should have a metal enclosure and the RCD and MCBs should be the same make (one MCB is Volex, I think the rest is Protek). The other 2 are older and I think are still fuseboxes, with no RCD. He says RCD protection is required because of regulation 522.6.202/203. This regulation concerns cables behind plaster, panelling or whatever. Has this regulation been applied retrospectively, to old installations? If so, it implies that every home with no RCD protection is deemed unsatisfactory.

Getting back on topic:

Post photos of your Consumer units. The garage one imho sounds like it just requires the correct make of RCBOS/MCBS. No biggy having a plastic consumer unit as it's not habitable or is it directly linked to the house?

The regulation quoted is so if anyone drills into a cable they can't see or is immediately obvious the circuit has RCD protection to avoid electrocution, someone did that who was related to a politician and that's how all this started to avoid another death.

 

[ericmark]

The regulation quoted is so if anyone drills into a cable they can't see or is immediately obvious the circuit has RCD protection to avoid electrocution, someone did that who was related to a politician and that's how all this started to avoid another death.

I did that, the cable was not following a safe route, even with RCD protection, I was knocked out, I likely became disconnected in less than 40 mS so the RCD afforded no protection at all.

With a burst pipe etc, yes the RCD will likely trip before we touch live parts, but drilling into a cable, unlikely to help, I sawed through the cable making a channel for a water pipe. Would be better to have an earthed drill.

 

[ebee]

Chives - I suspect that you might be referring to the Tragic death of Mary Wherry
, daughter of Jenny Tongue , and folklore suggests it started Part P but in reality it did not do so.
However it might have had some influence such as most folk suspected that Part P might have been delayed a bit just like the installation of windows was given extra time for the trades to catch up and yet with Part P there was not such a delay in it’s implimentation.

 

[ericmark]

There was also the Emma Shaw death, blamed on the wrong person doing the inspection and testing, but the report shows had an RCD been used, she would not have died.

It was the end of using electricians mates, many firms use semi-skilled for a good hunk of the work on new builds, as repetitive and once shown, little skill was required, same wires pulled for every house in the estate, so the electrician only did the inspection and testing. My son started that way, now a better degree to mine, but that does not take much doing.

But an RCD does not stop one getting an electric shock, with a gradual fault, water ingress for example, it may trip before you touch a live part, but if you touch a live part, it can take 40 mS to trip, and believe me, that's too long.

The problem is, we have RCD in the home, but not the means to test them, OK I have, but that's not normal, so it means we need to get the home tested at set intervals.

 

[Murdochcat]

Mix and max MCB = C3 unless the odd one(s) have been butchered in and / or have any form of damage

 

[ericmark]

Mix and max MCB = C3 unless the odd one(s) have been butchered in and / or have any form of damage

Not sure, I know there was a problem with bus bars, where some tightened down, and tightened up, so it seemed as if all nice and tight, but really was not. Result could be over heating and fire. There was also a problem with some, where the tongue on the bus bar could end up wrong side of the terminal clamp, so just lightly pressed against the bus bar, not clamped.

Latter, the terminals were forced open, so could not end up wrong side, fitting MCB on the bench with CU on its back great, but on the wall it was all too easy to make a mistake, poor design really, and likely the reason for the CU fires.

If the device does not connect to the bus bar, then unlikely to be a problem. But not sure why we use consumer units? I know type tested, but if the MCB does not match, then it is no longer a consumer unit, it is only a distribution unit, sure this has come up before, but can't remember why we use consumer units, and what rules are broken if we don't use a consumer unit when in control of an ordinary person?