RCD Test button wont trip

[EFLImpudence]

What I do, and do not, notify is my business

You have said that several times lately but I am surprised that you say that.
Where do you draw the line with ignoring and apparently condoning breaking and disregarding the law.

Is there a terr0risrn forum?

 

[Click4]

What I do, and do not, notify is my business

You have said that several times lately but I am surprised that you say that.
Where do you draw the line with ignoring and apparently condoning breaking and disregarding the law.

Is there a terr0risrn forum?

it is probably more important to follow the regulations, and do things to current regulations and test for safety.

While it is also a legal requirement to notify, work in a persons own home, it is more important to be safe.. and notification would in most cases come 2nd with safety and regulations coming first.

because if 2 installations are done, to same standard and regulations.

1 is notified, 1 is not... but both are tested.

then the one which is notified is no more safe than the 1 which isnt... the only difference is 1 person has broken the law, and 1 hasnt... and while laws should be upheld, im sure the oppinion of most homeowners is.. what goes on in my own home is not likely to get discovered unless the house is sold or rented. However I do not feel that non notification is an excuse for not upholding current regulations, because at the end of the day they are there to protect and keep us safe... not upholding them would be endangering ourselves and our families.

But the line should probably be drawn at doing work in other peoples homes without notification.

I think gas takes a similar view on this.

while not widely publicised.. it was the case a homeowner could do gas work in their own home, but they could not do work in other peoples homes.. even for free.

of course if a homeowner did gas work in their own home and it went wrong then in a court of law you would have the book thrown at you as you cant prove competency... but it could also be assumed that if it was done correctly in the first place it would not have gone wrong.

 

[Monkeh]

It is possible to test (not fully, but the basic operation, much the same way as the test button does) an RCD without expensive test equipment.

If you know how one operates, and know ohm's law, you can work it out for yourself. If you don't, you shouldn't try.

 

[Click4]

I apologise to the original poster for the harsh tone of myself and some others who have replied.

The only reason for it is, when it comes to electrics like you appreciate and have said safety is paramount... and the thing is there are so many regulations and sometimes also involve other building regulations also... that it has to be done correctly, its too late to say after I should have done this, I could have done this once somebody has been killed or seriously injured.

You also did not help yourself, but implying this consumer unit only has 1 RCD.. Split Load consumer units with dual RCD exist for a reason.

Part of this reason is because, if certain requirements arent met, circuits should all be RCD protected... unless they meet the requirements for not being RCD protected.. so that means in most cases having all circuits on an RCD (unless an all RCBO setup) but that imposes a problem, because if the downstairs sockets trip, it takes the whole house lighting with it and upstairs sockets.

So by having a dual RCD setup, you can have say downstairs sockets on same RCD as upstairs lights... visa versa.

Or you could probably have downstairs sockets and upstairs lights on RCD, and their opposites on individual RCBOs.

But you have not indicated the existence of any RCBOs and only a single RCD.

You had also powered up these circuits without prior testing, which with the availability of hired test equipment is not really excusable.

Then it was implied with your use of "site" and not being there that this was somebody elses home... at which point myself and possibly others started seeing warning bells going off...as it would be endangering somebody else and their family.

If I was incorrect about that last point about it being your home, then im willing to accept being wrong and apologise for it.

But below, is a reason which I came accross which demonstrates just 1 reason why DIY electrics can be so dangerous when carried out by some individuals who lack forward thinking and common sense.

It was missing a blanking plate on the end, through that hole you can clearly see the busbar... that consumer unit was also mounted in reach of a small child and regularly had the cover down...now I dont need to say what would of happened if a child put their finger or an object in there.. what could have happened... no excuse for it, but again a lack of forward thinkig and common sense.. its got a cover so they obviously felt the risk was low enough to save the expense of another blanking plate.

worse still... the RCD did not function on it when test button was pressed... and the upstairs sockets minus 1 bedroom was wired into a 40amp MCB for the shower...so when shower mcb was switched off 75% of the upstairs sockets went with it with the 1 bedroom wired on its own circuit into the proper MCB labelled "sockets".. but the rest were wired into the shower MCB.

 

[JohnW2]

What I do, and do not, notify is my business

You have said that several times lately but I am surprised that you say that. Where do you draw the line with ignoring and apparently condoning breaking and disregarding the law.

I have, indeed, said that, or similar things, a few times recently but usually not for the reason, or with the implication, you seem to assume (we all know about assuming!).

I am, as I think you will accept, probably about as knowledgeable as anyone else as regards the legal requirements for notification. It may be the case that I notify everything that that the law requires me to notify. It may be the case that I notify nothing, even when I know that the law requires me to notify. It may be somewhere in the middle. However, whichever of those three things represents the truth (and the same for anyone else), I do not think that is anyone's business other than my own and I make statements like the above in an attempt to assert that.

As I've discussed in my exchanges with BAS, provided one is happy that a poster understands the legal requirements (and, if relevant, what they may have said/implied in an application to LABC) whether or not someone intends to comply with the law is of no relevance to someone contemplating responding to a post - all that matters is their perception of the knowledge, capabilities and competence of the poster. Yet we keep on seeing posters asked if they have notified.

I would never suggest/advise, least of all in a public forum, that anyone should break the law regarding notification (or any other law, come to that!) and nor would I normally say or imply that I would. The only recent occasion on which I can recall having said something which may have appeared like that was a very special case. I said that I would 'happily and comfortably' break (someone's interpretation of) the law about notification if that someone was interpreting the law to mean that an otherwise non-notifiable job became notifiable because the circuit involved a JB in a kitchen. As I explained at the time, the reason I said that was that I did not believe such was the intent of the law, and that I would be able to convince a Court of that, and therefore that I had not, in fact, broken the law. In other words, I was saying that I would happily break some people's interpretation of the law, because I felt that a Court would find that I hadn't broken the law.

Hope that might clarify things a bit!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It is possible to test (not fully, but the basic operation, much the same way as the test button does) an RCD without expensive test equipment. If you know how one operates, and know ohm's law, you can work it out for yourself. If you don't, you shouldn't try.

All very true, but surely pointless - since you would merely be reproducing what the test button does. Even if your ad hoc test caused the RCD to trip, but the test button did not, you would still have to replace the RCD, because it is not acceptable to leave an RCD with a non-functioning test button in service.

I suppose you could do a series of such ad hoc tests at different 'leakage' currents to partially reproduce what a proper tester does - but what you would not be able to tell was whether the device was functioning satisfactorily in terms of the speed of disconnection at those various currents - which is a crucial part of proper/adequate testing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Monkeh]

It is possible to test (not fully, but the basic operation, much the same way as the test button does) an RCD without expensive test equipment. If you know how one operates, and know ohm's law, you can work it out for yourself. If you don't, you shouldn't try.

All very true, but surely pointless - since you would merely be reproducing what the test button does. Even if your ad hoc test caused the RCD to trip, but the test button did not, you would still have to replace the RCD, because it is not acceptable to leave an RCD with a non-functioning test button in service.

It would at least tell you whether you need a replacement RCD now or not.

 

[Click4]

It is possible to test (not fully, but the basic operation, much the same way as the test button does) an RCD without expensive test equipment. If you know how one operates, and know ohm's law, you can work it out for yourself. If you don't, you shouldn't try.

All very true, but surely pointless - since you would merely be reproducing what the test button does. Even if your ad hoc test caused the RCD to trip, but the test button did not, you would still have to replace the RCD, because it is not acceptable to leave an RCD with a non-functioning test button in service.

It would at least tell you whether you need a replacement RCD now or not.

if button doesnt work, but RCD does then it still requires changing because the test button is faulty... so there is no not about it.

 

[JohnW2]

It would at least tell you whether you need a replacement RCD now or not.

I presume you're suggesting that if the test button didn't result in a trip, then if your ad hoc test (reproducing what the test button should do) did result in a trip, then you'd conclude that the RCD was working OK, but that the test button function was faulty - and therefore that immediate replacement was not required?

If so, then (a) I suspect it's incredible rare for test button functionality to die in a satisfactorily functioing RCD, so that scenario is virtualloy never going to happen and (b) as I said, you still would not know if it is disconnecting in times which optimised the chances of saving lives (a particular concern if you already knew that one aspect of the device had failed).

... in other words, a very bad, and potentially dangerous, idea. If the test button doesn't result in tripping, then the RCD does require replacing 'now'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

of course if a homeowner did gas work in their own home and it went wrong then in a court of law you would have the book thrown at you as you cant prove competency... but it could also be assumed that if it was done correctly in the first place it would not have gone wrong.

The same is true of electrical work, and I don't think that having notified would save you from conviction. LABC might possibly get in trouble as well, for 'having allowed it to happen', but if it could be shown that some negligent act in undertaking electrical work had resulted in injury or death, I think that the 'perpetrator' would still probably be convicted, even though LABC had 'signed it off'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Monkeh]

So, do you test plug-in RCDs to make sure they're not half a ball hair outside the published tripping times?

Nobody tests MCBs, either.

And no, I'm not looking for a long, drawn-out discussion from the armchair brigade on either subject.

 

[JohnW2]

So, do you test plug-in RCDs to make sure they're not half a ball hair outside the published tripping times?

You should - or, at the very least, throw them out if the test button does not result in a trip. However, you were talking about a homebrew (and itself potentially dangerous) test which would only have any point at all if the test button didn't result in a trip - in which case the RCD should be thrown out and replaced - whether it's a plug-in one or a hard-wired one. These things only exist to provide a degree of safety - what's the point in carrying on using one in which one cannot have much confidence?

Nobody tests MCBs, either.

Indeed - and that's a problem. If there were a practical and safe way to do it routinely, it would undoubtedly be mandatory. There is a belief, which may be a myth, that RCDs are less reliable (are often found to be faulty when tested) than MCBs - but since the latter are virtually never tested, I don't see how we can be at all confident about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Duplicate removed

 

[Monkeh]

So, do you test plug-in RCDs to make sure they're not half a ball hair outside the published tripping times?

You should.

Nobody does. Nobody can afford the equipment to do so. For the majority of us, there are two categories:
1: Those who do not know, and simply assume they work as advertised.
2: Those of us who understand the operation and simply have to be confident they do work as advertised. As we do with nearly every electrical appliance we purchase, our cars, and so on.

However, that's not what we're talking about - you were talking about a homebrew (and itself potentially dangerous) test which would only have any point at all if the test button didn't result in a trip - in which case the RCD should be thrown out and replaced - whether it's a plug-in one or a hard-wired one. These things only exist to provide a degree of safety - what's the point in carrying on using one in which one cannot have much confidence?

Apparently I'm seeing a distinction which is lost on you. I suppose making a 60 mile round trip over a non-urgent matter doesn't bother some.

But I'm not advising such tests, nor do I expect those without the knowledge and confidence to make a decision based on them to even consider it.

 

[JohnW2]

So, do you test plug-in RCDs to make sure they're not half a ball hair outside the published tripping times?

You should.

Nobody does.

I realise that - which is why I added " - or, at the very least, throw them out if the test button does not result in a trip"

Apparently I'm seeing a distinction which is lost on you. I suppose making a 60 mile round trip over a non-urgent matter doesn't bother some. But I'm not advising such tests, nor do I expect those without the knowledge and confidence to make a decision based on them to even consider it.

As I've said, even if one were prepared to leave it in service (which one really shouldn't be - even to avoid a 60 mile trip), I strongly suspect that it's almost unknown for the test function of an otherwise satisfactorily functioing RCD to fail - so it's doubtful whether your test would ever achieve anything other than wasting your time in confirming that a dead RCD was dead!

Kind Regards, John