Hi I want to fit an rcd to the current consumer unit it has mcbs but no rcd protection would this be notifiable or minor work?
Fitting a separate rcd to the main board
- Thread starter tommyl18
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Would depend on how it was installed, if external to the board, which could incorporate a new circuit to the board then yes.
If interrogated to the board then no, but I would recommend that full tests were made on the existing circuits to confirm they are suitable to have RCD protection and full test on the performance of the RCD.
If interrogated to the board then no, but I would recommend that full tests were made on the existing circuits to confirm they are suitable to have RCD protection and full test on the performance of the RCD.
I'm trying to get my head around that. Are you suggesting that, in general, inserting an RCD into an existing circuit results in the creation of a 'new circuit', hence notifiable?
Kind Regards, John
I am say if a new circuit was fitted at the distribution side, it could!
Sponsored Links
I'm still not totally clear as to what you're saying. Do you think that simply inserting an RCD between meter and CU would constitute 'adding a new circuit'?
Kind Regards, John
That's a non sequitur - some minor work is notifiable, some is not. Some non-minor work is not notifiable, some is. Some notifiable work is minor work, some is not. Some non-notifiable work is minor work, some is not.
Adding 1 RCD arguably contravenes the wiring regulations.
You may end up in a world of pain if you don't test beforehand - can you do that? How will you test the RCD afterwards?
How do you propose to isolate the supply to the CU to make it safe to work on?
As you say, "arguably". However, one hopes that common sense would prevail. If the choice is between leaving an installation with no RCD protection and protecting the whole installation with a single RCD, I'd happily argue with anyone that the latter is safer (certainly no less safe, even if one is an 'RCD sceptic'), and hence more in keeping with the spirit of the Wiring Regulations.
Kind Regards, John
True, but work done today should comply with today's regulations.
It's a common concept, which applies to all sorts of areas - no compulsion to bring things up to date, but if you do, then simply "better that it was" may not be good enough.
It's a common concept, which applies to all sorts of areas - no compulsion to bring things up to date, but if you do, then simply "better that it was" may not be good enough.
As you say, it's a common concept, but, I would suggest, not a very convincing one. When one is talking about safety, 'better than it was' is quite obviously desirable, even if not 'as good as it could be' or 'as good as required by current regs'. To fail to improve the safety of an electrical installation 'because it would not be compliant with current regs' would, to my mind, be irresponsible. I can't quite see how such an issue could ever come to be tested in a Court but, if it were, I hope that the Court would see that 'increased safety' (when there was no obligation to increase safety) outweighed 'full compliance with current regs'.
In this case, it is (IMO) particularly 'silly', since the failure of a single RCD to comply with current regs is essentially just in relation to matters of usually minor 'inconvenience'. Although one can talk about people falling off ladders or down stairs, or pouring boiling oil over themselves as a result of lighting failure due to a single RCD, I would suggest that the risk of death or serious injury due to having a single RCD (which was perfectly acceptable/normal in the past) is 'vanishingly small', and greatly outweighed by the protection provided by that single RCD.
Kind Regards, John
Its going to have to be before the consumer unit because there is no more room on the board to fit it in so im guessing this would be notifiable to building control?
That's not a foregone conclusion, since it may be possible to change the 'main' switch to an RCD.
Despite what PBoD has suggested, I personally do not believe that installing a pre-CU RCD would be notifiable - but this (or changing main switch to RCD, if that were possible) is really a job for an electrician. As BAS has hinted, you might find that some (or many) electricians would be reticent to do such work (either way), since an installation with a single RCD covering all circuits is non-compliant with current wiring regulations, which would make it difficult for them to honestly certify it.
Have you considered having your CU replaced with a modern one which does comply with regulations? It might not cost as much as you may imagine.
Kind Regards, John
You may be unconvinced by fact - there is precious little anyone can do about that.
Be that as it may, if the regulations require a particular standard then the regulations require a particular standard.
You could have an exterior wall in your house made out of tissue paper stretched over a latticework of drinking straws, and it would have a pp U-value.
You could improve the U-value by adding a layer of corrugated cardboard, but that would be in breach of the Building Regulations because they lay down minimum standards for the improvement of thermal elements, and just being "better than it was" is not enough.
It actually makes sense - if you want to improve any aspects of the housing stock that's exactly what you need to do, not allow anything at all as long as it's better than it was.
You would have to take a very narrow view of "responsibility" to not see that it is possible to improve safety and comply with the current regulations.
Nor can I, but if we assume the default that in the absence of special, expert-backed pleading for an alternative, compliance with Part P requires compliance with BS 7671, then a court would have little room for manœuvre.
Be that as it may, it is arguably a contravention of the Wiring Regulations to have a single RCD for the whole installation.
Why not ask an electrician?
Of course it's possible, but it's also possible to improve safety without fully complying with current regulations. To my mind, the crucial point is that, in relation to the sort of things we're talking about, there is no requirement to improve safety at all, let alone to bring an installation up to current regs. That being the case, my version of common sense suggests that it should be permissible to voluntarily introduce improvements in safety even if what one ends up with is not compliant with current regs.
As I implied, given the probably negligible number of people who have ever been significantly harmed, or even 'seriously inconvenienced', as a result of the presence of a single installation-wide RCD, I reckon that 314.1.(i) has achieved little other than the lining of the pockets of electricians and manufacturers of CUs etc.! I think it would be impossible to argue that a single installation-wide RCD introduces more risks than it removes, and I would have hoped that (if they were interested in safety) the regulations would recognise that - but, as you say, they arguably don't.
Kind Regards, John
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
