Stuck in the middle - 16th to 17th editions - Opinions?

[Fireball40k]

I am currently wiring an extension on my home with a view to getting it tested and signed off by an electrician (when I find one) in order to comply with part P. Up to now I have been working to the 16th edition regs and accordingly have installed lots of supplementary bonding in the bathrooms and placed the downstairs rings on a 30mA RCD.

I intend to have this project done, dusted, tested and signed off before the 16th to 17th deadline later this year but wherever possible I would like to comply with any new sensible bits of 17th edition. One change that I have heard about is the increased use of RCD protection in bathrooms and, as I understand it, less reliance on supp bonding. I have not read the 17th edition regs so I wondered if anyone out there who has, could please give advice on these matters.

The situation is that to place the lighting circuits for the two bathrooms on the RCD I will have to move a fair chunk of the whole house lighting over as well. Up until now I have been trying to keep the RCD (an 80A MK unit) as clear as possible to avoid the chances of false trips. I intend to run a separate non-RCD protected ring for all the nasty motor-y stuff in the kitchen: fridge, freezer, washing machine and tumble dryer.

I can't imagine that placing all of the lighting on the RCD would cause any problems but I would like to hear people's opinions. Also, I can't imagine that there's any problem in combining increased RCD protection with lots of supplementary bonding, but any advice would be welcome. Also, if there are any other sensible new bits of 17th ed. that would be useful to include for future purposes, I would be grateful to hear about them.

One last thing (as my guides don't cover this clearly) can someone please confirm that it's OK to run a 20W shaver socket directly from the lighting circuit without the use of a switch or a fused connection unit?

Many thanks

 

[ricicle]

You will be hard pressed to find a professional electrican who will sign off work that someone else has done

 

[Click-Sure]

Not to sound condecending, but you obviously don't know enough about 16th edition to even start thinking about 17th.

You will be hard pressed to find a professional electrican who will sign off work that someone else has done

Very true, I certainally wouldn't! You can, however notify your LABC of the works and they will inspect and test at first and second fix stages.

Get a spark in, if you want to save and learn at the same time, offer to labour for him/her on the job.

 

[securespark]

wherever possible I would like to comply with any new sensible bits of 17th edition.

You CANNOT work to both editions. 16th or 17th, but not cherry-pick bits from both.

 

[Fireball40k]

Thanks securespark, your comment about not mixing the two regs helps me. I will stick with 16th.

As for Click-Sure, your comment doesn't help - and yes you do sound condecending [sic]. I am doing my utmost to carry out an installation in line with regulations and I will get it properly tested and approved. I don't claim to know everything, but in those areas where I am unsure, it is a comfort to know that there are forums like this in which one can ask questions and hopefully get decent answers from knowledgeable people to set yourself back on track. I have read many posts in this and other community sites where serious DIYers have asked reasonable questions only to have the 'you don't know what you're doing' sneer from one or more 'pros'. In my line of work I often get people coming to me with requests of help and sometimes they may be misguided, but I would always try to help them in a constructive manner, rather than just tell them they don't know what they're doing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can't imagine that placing all of the lighting on the RCD would cause any problems

Then you lack imagination.

Try imagining what would happen if something tripped the RCD outside the hours of daylight...

I am doing my utmost to carry out an installation in line with regulations and I will get it properly tested and approved.

How?

And when you submitted your extension plans to LABC for Building Regs approval what did you tell them about how you'd be complying with Part P.

I don't claim to know everything, but in those areas where I am unsure, it is a comfort to know that there are forums like this in which one can ask questions and hopefully get decent answers from knowledgeable people to set yourself back on track. I have read many posts in this and other community sites where serious DIYers have asked reasonable questions only to have the 'you don't know what you're doing' sneer from one or more 'pros'. In my line of work I often get people coming to me with requests of help and sometimes they may be misguided, but I would always try to help them in a constructive manner, rather than just tell them they don't know what they're doing.

The problem is that you've already started the work, so it's too late to find that you don't know something. What if you've got an unknown unknown?

 

[sunsno]

Quite right Fireball. After all if you knew everything you wouldn't need to ask. I thought the whole point of a forum such as this was to seek out advise, not put yourself up for ridicule?
I fairness to Clic-sure, his advise, if a bit curt, is at least constructive.
As for adding RCD protection to a circuit with sup bonding, no problem. Same for lighting circuits. What you have to avoid is the whole house on one RCD, because then when you get a fault the whole place is plunged into darkness, Ban all sheds point.
Individual RCBO's on each circuit might be an answer.
But as the others have pointed out it has got to comply with the building regs which, as I'm sure you know, are the law.
You can DIY Part P work but you have to notify LABC before you start.

 

[Fireball40k]

Thanks Ban and Sunsno, your comments help.

I will continue to keep the RCD only for the ring circuits that are likely to be used for outside devices as per the existing regs. Either that or leave lots of torches lying around the house...

Now, about that shaver socket - any problem to feed it straight from the overhead lighting circuit?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - shaver sockets are almost always on lighting circuits because there tend not to be socket circuits in bathrooms...

...yet.

It is the type with an isolating transformer in it, I take it?

 

[Fireball40k]

Yes, it's an isolating type and it makes perfect sense for there to be no FCU necessary on the outside of the bathroom for it.

Just making sure that this known unknown, became a known known. As for the unknown unknowns, I'm working on it! Good old Mr Rumsfeld, if only everything in life was as easy as guiding Iraq to democracy.

Thanks Ban

 

[ban-all-sheds]

if only everything in life was as easy as guiding Iraq to democracy.

That's not hard.

It's guiding them to a democracy that the US likes that's hard, as the Palestinians can confirm...

 

[JohnD]

One sensible way of RCDing the bathroom circuits, is to place an RCD FCU above the bathroom door, outside the bathroom, where it is visible for maintenance, but unlikely to be accidentally touched, and feed the bathroom through that. If you feed it from an RCD socket circuit a plain DP switched FCU with a 5A fuse cartridge will do.

 

[saxondale]

so you`ve got your questions answered but ignored the one actual piece of advice you recieved -

"if you carry on wiring it with knowledge learned from forums and havnt notified BC before you started ( and I dont think you did - did you?) your going to have to rip it all out and start again....."


same old, same old - just ignore the bits you dont like

 

[Fireball40k]

I did notify BC as part of the notification for the extension as a whole and then had a long chat with the local chief BC inspector about it. It was his surprisingly pragmatic approach (for a civil servant) to this whole subject that gave me renewed confidence to take on the work myself - the proof will obviously be in the eating, which we will find out in about a month's time.

 

[FingRinal]

There is a distinction to be made.

A Part P electrician can not sign off someone else's work an notify it via his Part P Scheme. Whatever the 'pedantic' interpretations of what Part P and the Building Regs and next door's cat actually say from a statutory point of view...blah...blah...his Scheme won't let him do it unless he lies to them.

He can issue an Electrical Installation Certificate if he inspects at 1st fix, but he can only sign as the Inspector and not as the Designer or Constructor.

He can issue a Periodic Inspection Report which requires the same or similar electrical tests. A Periodic Inspection Report being a 'Report' and not a 'Certificate' of an 'Existing' installation.