Does bonding need to be installed?

[RF Lighting]

Here's a discussion that came up at work this week. We couldn't reach a decision.

Here's the hypothetical scenario:

You are called to a job to wire a room stat to a combi boiler. The boiler is fed from an existing FCU, and the new stat will be powered from the load terminals.

There is no existing bonding to the gas or water service.

Do the services require bonding before the stat can be installed?

Your thoughts please....

 

[EFLImpudence]

I presume you mean "should you refuse to do the thermostat if they refuse to have the bonding installed".

I would say you could fit the thermostat as it will make no difference to the overall situation but note that they have been informed and refused.

 

[RF Lighting]

I was meaning for us to fully comply with BS7671 and issue a certificate do we have to install install bonding if the customer (plumbing contractor) or home owner does not want it doing for what ever reason (read cost)?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Put it the other way round; does 7671 say you cannot fit a thermostat if there is no main bonding?

I think if you note on the certificate that it was declined by the customer that will cover you.
However, if this customer is a plumbing contractor who has responsibility for the installation then he should not refuse to pay you for the work so it may be better to walk away but that is nothing to do with the regulations as such.

A householder refusing because he can't afford it may be a different matter.

 

[RF Lighting]

Where do you draw the line? Can an extra socket be wired without installing bonding for example?

 

[Spark123]

To comply with the iee regs to the letter you shouldn't alter or add to an installation if the bonding isn't up to scratch.
On the other hand what if the bonding was removed after you left
I'm wondering when it is going to stop, will we need to start replacing consumer units with metal ones before we can add or alter an installation, given the householder might have only paid for a new cu recently?

 

[Adam_151]

I think if what you are doing requires only a minor works cert and does not involve any special installations or location then I wouldn't feel too worried about noting the lack of bonding.

If you have to fetch the installation cert pad from the van or the job includes work in special locations, then I think it requires more careful consideration but may still be be justifiable. Example being 9kw shower in 6mm clipped direct on a 30A re-wireable wylex board which has burnt the fuseway out. You move the circuit onto a 1 way unit with 30ma RCD and 40A breaker but the gas isn't bonded and it would be disruptive to do so. The installation has clearly been made safer

 

[JohnW2]

To comply with the iee regs to the letter you shouldn't alter or add to an installation if the bonding isn't up to scratch.

Which particular letter (number) of the "iee regs" (do I take it you man BS7671?) did you have in mind?

If one comes across an installation without main bonding, then one should obviously do everything one can to persuade the customer to have it installed, and document the situation if, despite advice, they refuse to have it done - but I'm not sure that the absence of bonding is a reason for not doing other work. I can think of extremely few situations in which the installation (still with no bonding) would be any less safe after work had been done than it was before.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

I'm not sure that the absence of bonding is a reason for not doing other work. I can think of extremely few situations in which the installation (still with no bonding) would be any less safe after work had been done than it was before.

It doesn't matter that it is no less safe. Work you carry out must not imp-air the safety of the existing installation, but it is also a requirement that the existing installation must not impair the safety of your work. Essentially this means that no work can be carried out without main protective bonding where required, or earthing, as these will impair the safety of your work, i.e. render it unsafe.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure that the absence of bonding is a reason for not doing other work. I can think of extremely few situations in which the installation (still with no bonding) would be any less safe after work had been done than it was before.

It doesn't matter that it is no less safe. Work you carry out must not imp-air the safety of the existing installation, but it is also a requirement that the existing installation must not impair the safety of your work. Essentially this means that no work can be carried out without main protective bonding where required, or earthing, as these will impair the safety of your work, i.e. render it unsafe.

I can accept that as a viewpoint, but I think it's fairly debatable, and suspect that opinions will probably vary.

What if 'the work' was definitely going to improve safety (e.g. replace a broken socket with exposed live parts, adding an RCD to an unprotected shower circuit, replacing undersized cable, maybe even replacing VIR, etc. etc.). Would you refuse to do even those sort of jobs if main bonding were absent and the customer refused to have it installed?

I think that, as with so many things, a pragmatic case-by-case 'risk assessment' is probably the only sensible course.

Kind Regards, John

 

[deadshort]

I'm not sure that the absence of bonding is a reason for not doing other work. I can think of extremely few situations in which the installation (still with no bonding) would be any less safe after work had been done than it was before.

It doesn't matter that it is no less safe. Work you carry out must not imp-air the safety of the existing installation, but it is also a requirement that the existing installation must not impair the safety of your work. Essentially this means that no work can be carried out without main protective bonding where required, or earthing, as these will impair the safety of your work, i.e. render it unsafe.

I can accept that as a viewpoint, but I think it's fairly debatable, and suspect that opinions will probably vary.

What if 'the work' was definitely going to improve safety (e.g. replace a broken socket with exposed live parts, adding an RCD to an unprotected shower circuit, replacing undersized cable, maybe even replacing VIR, etc. etc.). Would you refuse to do even those sort of jobs if main bonding were absent and the customer refused to have it installed?

I think that, as with so many things, a pragmatic case-by-case 'risk assessment' is probably the only sensible course.

Kind Regards, John

When it's your livelihood there is no debate. If the customer says no, walkaway because when it goes wrong, they come a hunting

DS

 

[JohnW2]

<a quote of my last post>

You appear to have omitted to write anything

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

Would you refuse to do even those sort of jobs if main bonding were absent and the customer refused to have it installed?

I think that, as with so many things, a pragmatic case-by-case 'risk assessment' is probably the only sensible course.

Essentially, whatever my feelings on the matter, I would have no choice as if a RECI inspector discovered this then it would be marked as a major non-compliance and the client would be informed and I would be in the poo.

However, even when working to BS 7671 where I would not have such oversight it is still not something that I would consider doing.

 

[JohnW2]

Would you refuse to do even those sort of jobs if main bonding were absent and the customer refused to have it installed? ... I think that, as with so many things, a pragmatic case-by-case 'risk assessment' is probably the only sensible course.

Essentially, whatever my feelings on the matter, I would have no choice as if a RECI inspector discovered this then it would be marked as a major non-compliance and the client would be informed and I would be in the poo.

That's all very well, but life's not quite as simple or as compartmentalised as that. You're worried about the RECI inspector, but what about the Coroner and what he might pass on to the CPS or police, or those 'investigative journalists'? Would you really walk away from a frankly dangerous problem that needed immediate attention to protect life and limb in the house of say, a stubborn and/or confused elderly person who wasn't willing/able to agree to having bonding installed?

If it were relative of mine and (s)he died or was seriously injured as a result of your refusing to deal with the dangerous situation, I'd be onto the phone to the Coroner, the police and probably the BBC and the Sunday papers before you even knew what your (in)action had resulted in - is the RECI inspector a greater concern than that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

When it's your livelihood there is no debate. If the customer says no, walkaway because when it goes wrong, they come a hunting

See my response to Risteard. I agree thet "when it goes wrong, they come a hunting", but there's more ways than one of 'going wrong', hence more than one reason why they might 'come a hunting'. How about "Elderly woman suffers horrific death following refusal of electrician to rectify a dangerous fault" appeal to you as a newspaper headline?

Kind Regards, John