If you mean regs-wise, then I don't see why you should need to - I don't think that there is any requirement to bring all of an installation 'up to currents standards' when replacing a DB, is there? If you believed that was required, where would you stop? Would you, for example, seek out and replace all the inaccessible JBs?
Is that actually an explicit requirement of BS7671 (in relation to the sort of issue we are discussing)?
So where do you draw the line in terms of "bringing the installation up to current standards" when you replace a CU?
Yes, very commonly. However, providing RCD protection for buried cables might be quite low in list of reasons for wanting to add RCD protection. However, I must admit that I wondered why RF asked the question - is there perhaps some reason why he does not want to RCD-protect the lighting circuits (which would obviously be possible with a new DB)?
That's what I thought.
Again, that's what I thought and wrote - but, as I suspected would be the case, there appear to be some contrary views!
Indeed. I still think my 'rule of thumb' would be reasonable - to only feel that something 'must be rectified' (or not connected) if it is something that would get a C1 or C2. If only C3 (or nothing!) I would not personally feel that it was something that one 'must rectify' as part of a CU/DB change.
You're installing a CU. You install it to the latest version of the regs. If you connect a circuit which should be RCD protected and you don't RCD protect it, your CU installation is not in compliance with '7671 (note a departure on the EIC, quote/estimate for fault finding/repair/issue warning notice/paperwork if appropriate and move on).
You don't draw lines, you do the work you are doing to the regs (so, in this case a CU installation), do the bonding & earthing and that's it. You're not there to search for dodgy junction boxes, you're there to replace the CU. By all means, with the clients approval, fix the dodgy socket you find (or whatever) and add some extra to the bill; note & quote to repair defects you find; factor £50 in the CU job for the (inevitable) little repairs ?(or do an eicr beforehand..). It's very simple the work you do, you do to the regs, the rest of the installation you leave alone (if only there to replace CU)
I don't think that is in dispute, but ....
... which is the question we've been asked, and are discussing. As you go on to say, one can argue both ways.
Indeed, and I have already asked that question. If he feels that, for whatever reason, that it would in some way be 'safer' (or, at least, 'no less safe') to omit the RCD than to include it, then he could declare a departure under 120.3.
I'm not sure that it's necessarily as simple as that. Nothing in the regs says that the RCD protection has to be within the CU, so what you seem to be saying is that when replacing the CU it's necessary for the circuits to which it is connected to be fully compliant - and that would included the JBs etc.
I'm not sure you could do that (and still sign the declaration). The standard EIC forms only allow for departures in relation to 120.3 and 133.5 - and I think it would be difficult for you to argue that the installation was 'no less safe' without the RCD protection than with it, wouldn't you? There is, AFAIAA, no provision for declaring a departure which you believe has resulted in the installation being less safe than would be the case with full compliance with the regs.
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
