shower fan help

[ban-all-sheds]

So that would mean surely 701.411.3.3 is supplementary or a modification of any other requirement?

It is. But that does not mean that it is retroactive.

It is strange BAS when you disagree with someone, you have the urge to call them and make assumption on there abilities to understand things.

Not strange at all - people giving poor advice because they are unable to understand the subject they are advising on need to be challenged.

Unfortunately it is something that you really need to let go of, it will make a better man of you!

I do not need to let go of trying to stop you (or anybody) giving incorrect advice.

 

[JohnW2]

Nor does any regulation say that one has to provide RCD protection for all existing circuits which are at least partially serving bathrooms.

What does 701.411.3.3 say then? Early you said this was true! So does it now no longer exist then?

Like every other regulation in the book, it says what is required to achieve compliance with Amd3 of BS7671:2008. It does not say that there is any requirement for existing installations, or existing parts of installations, to be brought into compliance with those current regulations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I think my advise is correct, can you state a regulation that states when altering or adding to circuits entering this location, says you do not comply to section 701?

 

[JohnW2]

I think my advise is correct, can you state a regulation that states when altering or adding to circuits entering this location, says you do not comply to section 701?

As I said, it's your call, and for your judgement and conscience to decide how to interpret the regs and what advice to give. However, as I've said, I do think that you need to consider how wide-ranging are the implications of the approach you are taking. For example, is adding an RCD socket to a circuit whose other sockets are not RCD-protected non-compliant with the regs?

Echoing the above, come next January, I will be able to ask you to "state a regulation that states when altering or adding to [any] circuits" connected to a CU that you do not have to comply with 421.1.201. What will your answer be? If you cannot quote such a regulation, and if you stick to your present approach, it will presumably mean that you will not be able to do any work on a domestic installation without also changing the CU (unless it's already 'non-combustible').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - you know it doesn't - and that presumably remains true even if one makes extensive changes/additions to circuits fed from that CU.

So why mention it?

Because if you are to be consistent then your belief that changes to a circuit serving a bathroom means that you have to retroactively implement the current requirements for a circuit serving a bathroom, you must also believe that changes to an installation which has a CU would mean that you have to retroactively implement the current requirements for CUs.

Nor does any regulation say that one has to provide RCD protection for all existing circuits which are at least partially serving bathrooms.

What does 701.411.3.3 say then?

It says

Additional protection by the use of one or more RCDs having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1 shall be provided for all low voltage circuits

(i) serving the location
(ii) passing through zones 1 and/or 2 not serving the location.

But it does not say that you have to provide additional RCD protection to existing circuits, so there is nothing in it which overrides the general principle that there is no requirement to bring existing installations up to current standards.

The OP was making alterations and changing the characteristic of a circuit within the bathroom.

So?

If he was doing something to a circuit which didn't serve the bathroom at all but just passed through zones 1 or 2, would you tell him he had to add RCD protection to it?

If he were adding a socket to a non-RCD circuit, and not putting in any new buried cabling, would you tell him that using an RCD socket was not good enough, and that he had to RCD protect the entire circuit?

After 1/1/16, if somebody was creating a new circuit by installing a new MCB in a spare space in his CU, will you tell him that he may not do that, and that he has to replace the entire CU with one which is manufactured from non-combustible material or enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of non-combustible material etc?

Are fittings and switches metal or plastic?
This would help give a clear answer, if metal yes an earth (aka CPC) must be installed regardless! or fittings changed to plastic/double insulated ones.

The problem as far adding new or altering/extending parts of the existing circuit with a CPC, would be that the electrician will require continuity of this conductor back to the CU and the earth arrangement back to supply, to comply with standards.
That does not mean the existing lighting must be earthed, just what the electrician fits. But to be honest whilst you have access to do this earth the whole system.

How can you say that? The current regulations don't allow the circuit to not have a cpc, so why didn't you tell him that the whole lot had to be rewired?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

It does not say that there is any requirement for existing installations, or existing parts of installations, to be brought into compliance with those current regulations.

And neither have I, the original topic posted indicated alteration/addition!
And my reply was in respect of that!

But I have yet been given any solid proof, that states that altertion/addition to existing circuits do not need to comply to the current standards.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But I have yet been given any solid proof, that states that altertion/addition to existing circuits do not need to comply to the current standards.

Does the guy have to make his alterations and additions compliant with the requirements for circuits in explosive atmospheres? If not, why not?

And instead of repeating your desire for solid proof that what it says in the introduction to BS 7671 does not apply, will you please answer the questions about what advice you would give to someone adding something to a circuit elsewhere in the house if the circuit passed through zones 1 or 2, but didn't actually serve anything in the bathroom? Will you please answer the question about adding a socket to a non-RCD circuit? And will you please answer the question about adding circuits to existing plastic CUs next year?

 

[JohnW2]

It does not say that there is any requirement for existing installations, or existing parts of installations, to be brought into compliance with those current regulations.

And neither have I, the original topic posted indicated alteration/addition! And my reply was in respect of that!

Fair enough.

But I have yet been given any solid proof, that states that altertion/addition to existing circuits do not need to comply to the current standards.

I don't think that anyone has denied that. What everyone has been commenting on is your initial blanket assertion, namely ....

Do you have RCD protection on this lighting circuit? Circuits entering the bathroom/shower-room will require this.

Strictly speaking, the new fan (and associated new wiring) would have to be provided with RCD protection, even though, assuming it's Class II and of an appropriate IP rating, the electrical (as opposed to regulatory) argument for needing it is very weak. However, since regulations are not retroactive, there would not be a requirement to RCD protect the entire existing "circuit entering the room". Even the existing light, if not 'modified' would not have to be provided with RCD protection (although it would be difficult not to, if the new fan was to be protected).

Edit: EFLI has just reminded me that it is not even addition of a new fan - it's merely a moving of an existing fan, using the same electrical connection as before.; If that's the case, then I don't believe that even the fan would require RCD protection.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would go further and say it's not an addition nor an alteration - electrically.

Edit - I see I have confused a supplementary question (to which this applies) and the original (to which it does not).

 

[JohnW2]

I would go further and say it's not an addition nor an alteration - electrically.

Much as I'd like to be able to agree with you, I would find it hard to argue that undertaking work which caused a fan which was not previously present to appear in the bathroom, connected to the lighting circuit, was not an 'addition' - just as I would say similarly if you added additional light fittings

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would go further and say it's not an addition nor an alteration - electrically.

Much as I'd like to be able to agree with you, I would find it hard to argue that undertaking work which caused a fan which was not previously present to appear in the bathroom, connected to the lighting circuit, was not an 'addition' - just as I would say similarly if you added additional light fittings

I thought he was just replacing and moving it.

Have I confused the threads?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Strictly speaking, the new fan (and associated new wiring) would have to be provided with RCD protection, even though, assuming it's Class II and of an appropriate IP rating, the electrical (as opposed to regulatory) argument for needing it is very weak. However, since regulations are not retroactive, there would not be a requirement to RCD protect the entire existing "circuit entering the room".

And since 701.411.3.3 imposes a requirement for circuits, not parts of circuits, or appliances on circuits, or cables of circuits, there is no requirement to RCD protect the new fan and wiring (unless the wiring needs if because of 522.6.202).

 

[JohnW2]

I thought he was just replacing and moving it. Have I confused the threads?

Ah - you may be right (and I the one who is 'confusing the threads'). In that case, I agree that one could certainly try arguing that it was nether an addition nor a modification.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

And since 701.411.3.3 imposes a requirement for circuits, not parts of circuits, or appliances on circuits, or cables of circuits, there is no requirement to RCD protect the new fan and wiring (unless the wiring needs if because of 522.6.202).

As EFLI has just reminded me, this is a bit moot, since it isn't really a 'new fan' at all.

However, if it were a new fan, whilst I accept that what you say is strictly true in terms of the wording of the regs., I would be inclined to believe that the actual intent was that anything (any 'appliance') in a bathroom should have RCD protection - not retroactively, but applying toi anything 'new'. However, I'm sure there is scope for arguing about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

230 volts in a fan
condensation in a fan
standing on chair to clean the front of a fan
holding on to a pipe to steady one's self while standing on the chair.