A distinction not made by the regulations for several years.
Looks like there are more people who need to accept that things change.
RCD requirements poll
- Thread starter AndyPRK
- Start date
Looks like there are more people who need to accept that things change.
Sponsored Links
As I've attempted to say numerous times, I suspect the reason is that those who have voted 'Yes' are thinking more about the context of the question than about it's actually wording. In other words, I suspect that the 'Yes' votes mean "Yes, I believe that an OP should be made fully aware of the regulatory requirements for new sockets to be RCD protected (and possibly also the 'desirability' of such protection)" - and I think that most of us (certainly myself) would agree with that. If the words "go on and on about" in the poll question has been replaced with "make sure that the OP is aware of", then I would have voted "Yes".
What I doubt is that many of the "Yes" voters really intended to be giving their blessing to the concept of "going on and on about" anything, RCD protection of sockets or otherwise!
Kind Regards, John
Yes, certainly if some people are taking "going on and on" as meaning just should it be mentioned each time the question arises, not as meaning "going on and on at the same poster in the same thread" that would distort the result.
I must confess that I hadn't even considered the possibility that "going on and on" might refer to telling each (of many) OPs just once each (which is what I personally think should happen).
To me, the phrase implies (unnecessarily) 'labouring of the point', which would, in turn, imply "going on and on" repeatedly about the issue to the same OP in the same thread - which is what I do not think should happen..
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
That's how I interpreted it as well, and I agree entirely: Mention that the current generally worked-to standard in the U.K. specifies RCD protection, explain that adding such provides a slightly increased level of safety over 100mA/300mA/none etc., but without trying to introduce "scare" tactics about how supposedly dangerous it will be without given the rest of the wiring in the house and certainly without misinformation about it being illegal, then let the person decide for himself whether he feels that the extra cost and/or work involved is justifiable in the circumstances.
Re the exception for dedicated outlets, if somebody is asking about adding a socket for a specific purpose (e.g. "I want to add a socket for my new wall-mount TV"), if it's considered proper to point out the RCD requirement in the current edition of BS7671, surely it is also proper to point out the exemption? Stick a Dymo label on the socket saying "For TV only - No RCD protection" and it's compliant anyway. How often is that pointed out to people?
The rest of the wiring in the house is irrelevant.
You are not responsible for the wiring already there, and it is outwith the scope of the legislation.
What is in the scope of the legislation is the work that you do, and it is in that where you are required to make reasonable provision for safety of that, and that alone. It is {what-you-do} not {what-was-already-there + what-you-do} which has to comply.
But then you know that - it's another thing you don't want to accept.
It is not misinformation - it is illegal.
You are telling people that they may break the law just because YOU don't like it and YOU refuse to accept that things change. That is not acceptable, and never will be, no matter how long you continue your ridiculous, and, frankly, disgusting campaign.
You would have to show that it was reasonable to need a non-RCD protected socket. I doubt that that would be possible, given that "I cannot stand the way things change and therefore I refuse to accept that they do, and therefore I will take no notice of any changed requirements" would not be a reasonable justification.
So, ignoring the disagreement over whether the particular things being discussed here are illegal or not anyway, you don't think it is ever acceptable to advocate that somebody breaks the law?
What, for example, do you think of suggesting that somebody breaks the law by not notifying a notifiable electrical job to his local authority, assuming that the work itself is perfectly safe by any of our standards and thus compliant with the basic requirement of Part P?
Would you? I don't have a copy of the current edition of BS7671, but I assume that the quoted regulation on the IET's own website is accurate:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/54/rcd-protection-of-sockets/index.cfm
Doesn't say anything about having to demonstrate that it's reasonable to have a need for one, just that it's intended for a particular piece of equipment and is identified as such.
Last edited:
Sometimes not only is it acceptable to do and to advocate that, it is morally required.
But Building Regulations legislation isn't really on a par with that requiring you to hand your neighbours over for extermination, for example.
Shouldn't be done.
The test of reasonableness is because of the law, not the Wiring Regulations.
The IET article linked to goes on to state "Unless the electrical installation designer is convinced that the socket-outlet cannot reasonably be expected to be used for other purposes, RCD protection for that socket-outlet should not be omitted." You can't justify omitting the RCD just because it's convenient to do so.
But that's clearly a recommendation in the article; the actual regulation quoted from BS7671 contains nothing along those lines. It just says that RCD protection may be omitted "for a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment."
So if somebody runs a new socket to behind where that wall-mount TV is going and the socket is provided specifically to power that TV, or somebody adds a socket in the back of a cabinet specifically to power a small home server which is going to reside there, and the socket is appropriately labeled, I don't see how the result isn't compliant with BS7671.
So you accept it would be compliant with BS7671, but think it would not satisfy the law, even though the government's own guidance on how to comply with the law indicates that compliance with BS7671 is to be regarded as compliance with the law. Just like with your argument over using red/black cable.ban-all-sheds said:
Really, you seem to want to use the argument that "It complies with BS7671 and is therefore to be deemed reasonably safe" when it suits you (e.g. 30mA RCD protection vs. the increased safety of 10mA), but then ignore that same argument when it comes to things you personally don't agree with (use of brown/blue to extend a red/black system if red/black is available instead, RCD exemption etc.).
Well, at least we can agree on that point.
ban-all-sheds said:
Like this, for example?
On 14-Oct-2003 somebody said:
Or this?
On 4-Jan-2005 somebody said:
that's a cost effective way of resolving it.
It really doesn't help when you don't pay attention.
My position, all along, is that non-compliance with BS 7671 over something like RCD protection is non-compliance with the law.
I don't know whether to be flattered that you went to all the trouble to go back to things I wrote decades ago, or worried.
But I will point something out to you:
What was considered OK in the past is not always considered OK today.
Things change.
That's the way it works.
Get over it.
Never.
The cables to the socket will require RCD protection in the majority of circumstances, and while certain installation methods could be used to avoid installing an RCD, DIYers will not be using steel conduit or MICC as they will not have the tools or ability to install it.
Doubtful any professional would either due to the cost and time involved compared to installing an RCD.
Waits for PBC to say that people don't need to bother with RCD protection for buried cables either.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
