Residual Current Protection and all that!

[ban-all-sheds]

I thought that adding sockets and lights to existing circuits but not in kitchens and bathrooms was an explicit DIY exemption under Part P so that Local Authority Building Control do NOT need to be notified.

Part P is nothing to do with notification.

This is Part P:

it makes no mention of notification.

If that is correct, there would be no point making the exemptions if the CU has to be altered and notified.

The exemptions are to do with notification, and have nothing to do with Part P.

Part P applies to ALL work on fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter which operate at low or extra-low voltage and are etc etc, not just notifiable work.

The exemptions from notification are not exemptions from the requirement to comply with P1, so if your chosen route to compliance with that is compliance with BS 7671:2008, and if the latter requires you to alter or replace the CU then that's what you have to do, because by extension the exemptions from the requirement to notify are not exemptions from the requirements of BS 7671:2008.

 

[Paul_C]

If you are going to have a departure from the regs you need to be able to demonstrate that your design "shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations", which is not the same as saying you pick and choose which regs you want to comply with!

Fair point, I suppose, although in this example I feel that it's so trivial as to be of no great importance. Of course, the whole "departures from BS7671" issue is purely a facet of BS7671 anyway, and as there is no obligation to follow BS7671, it becomes largely academic.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't want to be classed as a cowboy for installing something that could warrant an unsatifactory result on a PIR.

I know that some people carrying out a PIR have started taking things to extremes, but has it really reached the point that somebody is going to give an unsatisfactory report on an installation just because of no extra RCD protection on sockets and cables? Has anyone really started to put this down as anything more than a code 4, given the millions of existing installations without it and the fact that it was fully compliant with the then-current edition of BS7671 a mere 3 years ago?

What I was trying to establish was whether there was a necessity for RCD protection as opposed to a desirability
I thought that I had understood from the responses that RCD protection was essential. Now I am not so sure. (Not that it will change my recommendation to my son to add RCD protection.)

It is not essential for basic safety. Adding it might add an extra degree of protection, but that's not to say that omitting it will result in the installation being unsafe in any way. It will be just as safe as the existing part of the circuit which has no RCD protection on the sockets and cables (and which, as noted already, was in full compliance with BS7671 anyway until the 2008 edition).

The exemptions from notification are not exemptions from the requirement to comply with P1, so if your chosen route to compliance with that is compliance with BS 7671:2008, and if the latter requires you to alter or replace the CU then that's what you have to do, because by extension the exemptions from the requirement to notify are not exemptions from the requirements of BS
7671:2008.

But as there is no legal compulsion to follow BS7671, you don't need exemptions from the requirements of BS7671 anyway.

 

[Adam_151]

I know that some people carrying out a PIR have started taking things to extremes, but has it really reached the point that somebody is going to give an unsatisfactory report on an installation just because of no extra RCD protection on sockets and cables? Has anyone really started to put this down as anything more than a code 4, given the millions of existing installations without it and the fact that it was fully compliant with the then-current edition of BS7671 a mere 3 years ago?

It depends on the building to be honest; Take a school for example with no RCD protection to sockets within the building (for the sake of simplification, lets assume there is no use of sockets outdoors from the school, and an RCD protected socket in the groundsmans hut is used), what do you do, code 4?... doesn't comply but no less unsafe?.. ah, but is that really the case what about cookery labs, you might have twelve year olds plugging food mixers in with wet hands... now is it still the case that lack of RCD protection doesn't make the installation less safe?...you might struggle to argue that one. Granted it complied with BS7671 3 years ago, but would any competant designer in say the last two decades have considered that it was a good idea to omit RCD protection?...someone conducting a PIR under these conditions might decide to point out the issue, assign it a recommendation code 2, and go onto say that the client should conduct a risk assessment as to where danger from portable appliances could arrise, and install RCD protection in anyplace the risk assessment says its required, noting that the allocation of a code 2 to the item does not neccessarily require that all socket outlets in the premises are RCD protected, and that this is probably not desireable anyway

A factory may expect to receive simmerally worded observation but may well be coded as a recommendation code 4 instead

 

[sparkiemike]

Fair point, I suppose, although in this example I feel that it's so trivial as to be of no great importance. Of course, the whole "departures from BS7671" issue is purely a facet of BS7671 anyway, and as there is no obligation to follow BS7671, it becomes largely academic........

.......But as there is no legal compulsion to follow BS7671, you don't need exemptions from the requirements of BS7671 anyway.

If you are not going to use BS7671 to demonstrate "reasonal provision" how do you intend to do it then? Or do your qualifications and experience exceed those listed as contributing to BS7671 and do you have your own set of regs that would stand up to scrunity by your peers?

 

[bernardgreen]

and go onto say that the client should conduct a risk assessment as to where danger from portable appliances could arrise, and install RCD protection in anyplace the risk assessment says its required

It gets difficult when there are conflicting risks in a single room. In a laboratory processing non replacable samples there was need for some equipment to be protected and for some equipment to be NOT put at risk of losing power due to a RCD tripping due to something related to other equipment in the room. The risk of a sample being lost or contaminated / destroyed due to power failure was considered too high to allow RCD protection if it was also protecting other equipment.

 

[ajrobb]

In a laboratory it is reasonable to expect that operators are skilled or trained in use of sockets without RCD protection, also portable appliances are regularly tested. Even dedicated household sockets for fixed appliances like freezers and boilers do not require RCD protection (although the cabling might) as the risk of food poisoning or hypothermia are possibly greater than that of electric shock.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But as there is no legal compulsion to follow BS7671, you don't need exemptions from the requirements of BS7671 anyway.

The exemptions from notification are not exemptions from the requirement to comply with P1, so if your chosen route to compliance with that is compliance with BS 7671:2008 , and if the latter requires you to alter or replace the CU then that's what you have to do, because by extension the exemptions from the requirement to notify are not exemptions from the requirements of BS 7671:2008.