Reworded RCD Poll

[JohnW2]

"not make reasonable provision" I didn't see that. Where was it?

Nor did I see it - I think it must have been in someone's imagination.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

It would not be reasonable to expect someone to walk past the nearest easily accessible socket, to get to one further away. It would be reasonable to expect the one nearest the door to be used.

Which is why I never understood the claim that it meant all downstairs sockets. (Besides which, if that's what had been intended by the regulation, why not just say so?)

Your window must in some way have been preferable or more convenient.

Yes, the layout just made it more convenient when I wanted to throw an extension lead out to vacuum the inside of the car, or something similar.

I think I still have a box of used RCD protected sockets somewhere.

RCBOs are great!

The combination GFCI/receptacles are common here, but I'm not that keen on them, in part because they're only available in the "Decora" style (large, flat rectangular face with matching cover plate), like this one currently in our garage:

So if you want matching receptacles in a room, you then have to use the Decora-style throughout, as it clashes somewhat to have one GFCI-receptacle like the above in combination with the more traditional types elsewhere:

So for myself, I much prefer the GFCI breaker (equivalent to the British RCBO) back at the panel. Here's one I've already acquired for the changes I'm planning as an example:

 

[JohnD]

those are from the 1950's, right?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

For example:

"The current edition of BS7671 specifies 30mA RCD protection for added safety for new sockets, except in a few specific circumstances."

"O.K., understood, but I really don't want to go to that extra expense and I'm happy for the new socket to be just as safe as the existing ones. I just want to do a good, safe job at minimal cost."

Something like that?

To which the response has to be "I'm afraid you have no choice but to go to that extra expense, because whether you are happy for the new socket to be 'just as safe as the existing ones' or not, things have changed, and it is no longer regarded as safe enough to be continued to be installed".

He has introduced an argument for not implementing 30mA RCD, and it is neither gratuitous nor "going on and on" to tell him he is wrong. Nor is it either if he chooses to continue making his argument.

 

[JohnD]

you have no choice

That's not true.

If he's willing to take the risk of the Building Regulations Police raiding his house in one of their non-compliance sweeps, and fining him or throwing him in prison... no, wait....

 

[PBC_1966]

Like the way you repeat the same assertion that it is lawful to not make reasonable provision for safety etc, in the hope that if you say it enough times people will actually believe it to be fact?

I have never tried to assert any such thing.

Nor did I see it - I think it must have been in someone's imagination.

Perhaps from the above quote?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"not make reasonable provision" I didn't see that. Where was it?

Nor did I see it - I think it must have been in someone's imagination.

You should read PBC's posts.

In many of them he has asserted that it is perfectly OK to not make reasonable provision for safety by deliberately choosing to do things no longer considered safe enough to be promulgated.

 

[JohnD]

You are foolishly pretending that the only interpretation of "reasonable provision" is your own.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have never tried to assert any such thing.

Every time you assert that it is OK to not bother with the current level of RCD protection required when sockets are installed, or new buried cables, you are doing that exact thing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You are foolishly pretending that the only interpretation of "reasonable provision" is your own.

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

 

[PBC_1966]

those are from the 1950's, right?

No, the receptacles are early 1990's, appear to be originals from when the house was built in 1991. But Leviton has made a standard duplex receptacle (second picture) in that same basic style for decades.

The C-H breaker is new-old stock, date coded 1983.

 

[sparkwright]

Are there many cases on this forum then when we have mentioned the importance of RCDs for sockets - and the op has blatantly rejected this advice?

Is it not just a case of we mention the RCD, and the op simply acknowledges this, leaving us totally unaware whether or not he will go along with this advice?

I didn't realise there had been many cases where this forum has had to 'go on and on and on' to an op.

There have been cases where forum members have gone on and on and on to other forum members though...

 

[AndyPRK]

One recent thread which comes to mind (IIRC) is that someone wanted to fit a socket under their stairs to power a router.

I suspect people pointed out rings and radials, spurs etc all the sensible things.

I suspect then some cleaver cloggs points out that it must be RCD protected.

<I could have just made that up>

 

[PBC_1966]

One recent thread which comes to mind (IIRC) is that someone wanted to fit a socket under their stairs to power a router.

And which, apparently, even under the current "holy grail" of BS7671 would still be compliant without RCD protection if he just stuck a Dymo label on it saying "For computer router only - Not RCD protected" or something similar.

 

[sparkwright]

Had a brief look for the thread in question - but can't find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?