RCD requirements poll

[AndyPRK]

What is the point and expense in making 1 socket in a living room RCD protected just because it is new.

I understand professionals have to do this, however for a diyer money is better saved to make the whole installation RCD protected at a later date.

 

[JohnW2]

If their proposal is not going to comply to the regs, they should be told.

Of course - and I think we have all said that ....

... but the question is "should we go on and on about it" - and, as I've said, my personal answer to that is 'no'. Tell them once, clearly, and if they then choose to ignore the regulations and what they have been told about the desirability of RCD protection, then that's their prerogative - and, as far as I am concerned, that is the end of my "going on about it".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

What is the point and expense in making 1 socket in a living room RCD protected just because it is new.

Statistically speaking, very little point, but ....

I understand professionals have to do this, however for a diyer money is better saved to make the whole installation RCD protected at a later date.

Maybe, but as I and others have said, we should make them aware of what the regulations require (hence what professionals are usually obliged to do), and also about the theoretical desirability of RCD protection, so that they can then make their own choice. However, we should, IMO, tell them once, and certainly no "go on and on about it" - we are neither school teachers nor 'law enforcement officers'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I've used this before:

"I want to kill my wife. What is the best way of doing it?"

Tell me once it is against the law and then tell me how to do it, after all, you're not law enforcement officers, it has nothing to do with you.

The reason, you take the stance that you do must, surely, be because you disagree with the regulation.

 

[JohnW2]

The reason, you take the stance that you do must, surely, be because you disagree with the regulation.

Not at all. My 'stance' has got nothing to do with the specific issue mentioned in the poll, nor any specific regulation. If, in relation to anything, I have told an OP what the regulations (or common sense) requires, if they argue or indicate that they are going to ignore what I've said, then that's their business - I am not going to "go on and on about it" (which is the issue about which we were asked to vote).

Do you really think that "going on and on" about something is ever useful or effective? I thought there was only one regular contributor to this forum who believed in that approach!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And trying to tell people that it's illegal - Definitely no

Why not, when it is illegal?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What is the point and expense in making 1 socket in a living room RCD protected just because it is new.

Because you are responsible for installing the new socket, and responsible for the safety of your work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, we should, IMO, tell them once, and certainly no "go on and on about it" - we are neither school teachers nor 'law enforcement officers'!

And some of us are not people with no principles or morals.

 

[PBC_1966]

I'd agree that BS7671 confuses people by using the term "regulations" when it means "requirements". However, recommendations are different.

Within the framework of BS7671, perhaps. But in general, everyday terms, if there is no compulsion to abide by every regulation/requirement of BS7671, then effectively they are no more than recommendations.

I'm a spark, and cannot install (typical) sockets without RCD protection. Why would a DIYer be any different?

Because you're likely constrained to abide by all of those regulations/requirements of BS7671 by virtue of your scheme membership (although if not working within the confines of such a scheme that would be different). A DIYer doing work on his own house is only constrained by the legal requirement to make "reasonable provision for safety."

Why is a DIYer in their own home different from any other situation?

As above.

Electrical installations either comply with BS7671 or they do not.

Taken as a whole, agreed. But that doesn't stop them from complying with certain regulations within BS7671 while not complying with others.

Picking and choosing some parts to comply with and some to ignore is not an option, and how exactly would you determine which parts are 'basic safety issues' ?

Knowledge and experience? Obviously there is a certain amount of subjectiveness involved and there are things some people might be happy with which others wouldn't.

But if you're looking for some sort of official guidance, don't the notes in the Approved Document for Part P say something along the lines of the regulations being satisfied if one follows the fundamental requirements for safety set out in one particular chapter of BS7671?

What is the point and expense in making 1 socket in a living room RCD protected just because it is new.

I understand professionals have to do this, however for a diyer money is better saved to make the whole installation RCD protected at a later date.

Precisely.

 

[PBC_1966]

And trying to tell people that it's illegal - Definitely no

Why not, when it is illegal?

In your opinion, for which you will not (because you cannot) provide a citation to anything which supports your claim.

As far as I can tell, you are trying to use BS7671 to support your argument by referring to its 30mA RCD regulation and insisting that not providing such is therefore "not reasonably safe" because the committee has specified it for new installations. Yet at the same time you choose to ignore the guidance for inspections within BS7671 from the same committee which does not indicate that absence of such protection should warrant a code suggesting either immediate or potential danger.

I do not intend to rehash that argument here, but summarize it only for reference in this particular topic.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I'd agree that BS7671 confuses people by using the term "regulations" when it means "requirements". However, recommendations are different.

But Part P is a regulation and the understanding is that to comply to part p that guidance offered in BS7671 should be followed and that reasonable provisions for safety should be in place. I personally would consider it reasonable to follow the guidance in BS7671 and install RCD protection as recommended.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

When a diyer want to add a socket should we go on and on about RCD Protection

Any poster regardless of what the situation is, should be made aware and fully understand the requirements they are expected to meet to perform the task at hand. Whether that means going on and on about it until it has sunken in, so be it!

 

[DaveHerns]

Reminds me of the saying about leading a horse to water......

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Reminds me of the saying about leading a horse to water......

Well if the horse refuses to drink, do you let it die?

 

[sparkwright]

I think we can all be a bit 'selective' in which bits of the current regs we mention.

Some of us think back to say the 16th Edition, and think if it was ok then it'll be ok now - unacceptable.

For example, I don't think many here would go on and on and on about, for example, someone adding an extra switch cable buried in a wall at less than 50mm with no RCD. Someone may mention it - but to go on about it until we're convinced the op has added an RCD seems unlikely.

Someone may write a post about adding a socket in a bedroom. I can't imagine I'd say much about RCD protection.

However, when someone mentions altering shower wiring I think I always mention RCD protection - and stress if they've not got it they really need to get it.

I think this is where common sense comes into it (again).

But certainly shouldn't set out to ignore things - and always a good idea to mention RCDs where applicable.

Of course, in many instances, the adding of an RCD will result in what could have been a simple DIY job turning into a bigger job where a professional is needed.