Do I bother or should I ignore? No RCD protection.

[ericmark]

Social services have kindly paid for the intercom at my mothers door to be mains powered instead of battery.

The contractor arrived and fitted a 12vac transformer to replace the original 12vac transformer in spite of me telling them many times it needed 12vdc.

They then returned to swap to DC but could not source a 12vdc wall mounted transformer so fitted a 13A socket and a plug in inverter to replace it.

Today I decided to test the socket. ELI at 0.23 ohms so earth is connected but testing the RCD at 30ma and 1/2, full and 5 times both positive and negative all fail to trip the RCD clearly taken from the non RCD side of the consumer unit.

There is no label to say for door intercom only but to comply with regulations really that's all that would be required. Also no minor works or installation certificate issued.

Socket is under stairs and my mother in her wheel chair could never access it.

So in real terms no real danger just a little sloppy in the way they have done it. A simple label saying for door intercom only and a minor works certificate and it would comply.

So should I.
1) Do nothing.
2) Phone contractor.
3) Phone social services.

What does the team think?

 

[JohnW2]

Today I decided to test the socket. ELI at 0.23 ohms so earth is connected but testing the RCD at 30ma and 1/2, full and 5 times both positive and negative all fail to trip the RCD clearly taken from the non RCD side of the consumer unit.

Do I take it that you confirmed that it is running from the non-RCD side of the CU (e.g. by operating that RCD)? If not, in terms of just what you've told us, a possibility would obviously be that it was connected to the RCD-side, but that the RCD was non-functioning - clearly a far greater potential worry than the other issues you mention.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Kitchen, Garage, Showers, and loft were RCD protected the sockets had problems which my dad would not allow me to correct.

Now I also have a problem as no disabled access to under the stairs where the consumer unit is located so to put the sockets on a RCD would mean some major re-wire so the consumer unit was accessible. To reset RCD for shower or garage is a 15 mile drive for me.

The garage and two electric showers plus loft are not used by my mum so it tripping is a minor problem only the underfloor heating in bathroom really affected so she has one cold foot. She only has one leg so says it's a waste to use underfloor heating for just one foot.

Kitchen has it's own CU which she can access.

If I was doing job I would just print a label saying door intercom only but clearly the electrician doing the job did not know that my mother could not assess it and the other two people who may use it are both electricians. Me and my son. So for us not really a problem. Whole re-wire on the to do list. But question is should the guys boss be made aware that he made an error and should social services be made aware of the error as next time it may not be in a house where it does not matter.

 

[SimonH2]

Well, I've watched as a friend has had a number of adaptations provided for here - and to say the people doing it (or at least specifying the work) don't really care might be putting it mildly. For example, they quite happily built a ramp which more or less prevented use of the drive - until they came back, knocked the capping and couple of bricks off at the lower end (which were more of a trip hazard than a safety feature), and ramped the edge off down to drive level.

From the description it sounds like they've failed to follow BS7671, and it could be argued that they've failed to comply with Part P. Personally I think you should raise the issue - after all, if they're prepared to ignore the regs for something like this, what other "dodgy" wiring are they doing for disabled people ?

 

[sparkwright]

It sounds like if there was an RCD protecting all or most of the sockets it could be a nightmare as no one can reset it if a fault occurs.

As we are only interested in the new intercom socket, would the best solution have been to fit a new socket with a built in RCD, so the rest of the circuit wouldn't be affected? Possibly the intercom socket is more accessible than the consumer unit.

This is a problem with old people - RCDs tripping, and even MCBs tripping if a lamp blows.

 

[JohnW2]

From the description it sounds like they've failed to follow BS7671, and it could be argued that they've failed to comply with Part P. Personally I think you should raise the issue - after all, if they're prepared to ignore the regs for something like this, what other "dodgy" wiring are they doing for disabled people ?

From what I've understood of eric's description, there is nothing inherently 'dodgy' about any of the wiring they've done. Neither they nor anyone else has any obligation to bring the sockets circuit in general up to current BS7671 standards by RCD protecting it. Under most circumstances, the new socket they added would have to have RCD protection (which could have been provided by using an RCD-protected socket) but, as eric has suggested, an alternative is probably to label the socket for its dedicated use only. If you agree with that, then the only thing 'dodgy' was the failure to label the socket.

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree that this should be brought to someone's attention - since, as you say, without the label the work was probably not compliant with BS7671, hence quite possibly not compliant with Part P.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Provided the isolation between input 230 and output 12 is adequate and ensured then there is no need for the socket to be RCD protected.

The risk of the intercom being put out of action by a false trip of the RCD is probably higher than the hazard of shock from the intercom system.

Putting a label on the socket to deter its use for other purposes would be a good idea.

You could write to the council and offer them the advice how to improve their service to people. Not as a complaint but as helpful thank you.

 

[Lectrician]

A socket under the stairs which is to have a transformer connected at all times is hardly "for use by ordinary persons and for general use". I don't see a need for RCD protection, and perhaps it is seen as better without as the intercom will continue to work if the RCD trips. I don't think a label is particularly required in this situation.

The lack of minor works (assuming tagged off an MCB already in use) or an EIC cert if a new circuit is the worst thing IMO, but perhaps this paperwork is yet to be done, or has gone to the person who requested the work? I know my note book has several test results etc still to put onto certs and send (although, so busy at the moment that the invoices wont have gone either).

 

[viewer]

Agree with Bernard. The intercom system failing is the more important and more likely risk. Using a separate RCD enabled socket would (IMHO) not be a good solution as it is unlikely to be noticed if tripped.
The biggest shock from a non-RCD protected intercom is likely to be that caused by half a dozen firemen breaking down the door because nobody could get an answer.
I may have missed it, but, is there a built in fuse in the transformer?

 

[JohnW2]

A socket under the stairs which is to have a transformer connected at all times is hardly "for use by ordinary persons and for general use". I don't see a need for RCD protection, and perhaps it is seen as better without as the intercom will continue to work if the RCD trips.

I think we're probably all more-or-less agreed on that ...

I don't think a label is particularly required in this situation.

Is not a label really the only way to make it clear that this socket is not "for use by ordinary persons and for general use", hence compliant? (you are assuming that everyone who enters the house will exercise common sense, which could be a dangerous assumption). At the very least, quite apart from regs, I would personally like to see a 'do not unplug' label on it - in case 'the cleaner' (or whoever) decided that it was a convenient place to plug in the 'hoover'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have re-read 411.3.3 and the bit in question states:-

An exception to (i) is permitted for:
(b) a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment.

I would have to admit the fact that the inverter plug is inserted into the socket would likely be considered as identifying its use. As already said really a notice saying do not unplug or for door intercom only would have been a good idea but it would be hard to force the issue.

So the only real thing is the lack of the minor works certificate. This is so minor I think I will just forget about it.

 

[JohnW2]

I have re-read 411.3.3 and the bit in question states:-

An exception to (i) is permitted for:
(b) a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of equipment.

I would have to admit the fact that the inverter plug is inserted into the socket would likely be considered as identifying its use.

I really don't think I can agree that plugging something into a socket represents rendering it "otherwise suitably identified" as being exclusively for that particular item of equipment. Someone coming into my house would often find phone/camera/tablet/whatever chargers plugged into various sockets (some in cupboards or otherwise 'out of the way' places), but that would not mean that the sockets concerned were thereby identified as being exclusively for that load - and nor, I would have thought, an adequate excuse for omitting RCD protection. That's why I've been saying (agreeing with you) that labelling probably is required for true compliance.

I suppose one other way of "otherwise suitable identification" (as being for a specific dedicated use) would be to make it physically impossible to remove the plug/wallwart without use of a tool (e.g. with some sort of retaining strap).

As already said really a notice saying do not unplug or for door intercom only would have been a good idea but it would be hard to force the issue.

For 'functional peace of mind' you could presumably add a label yourself - but that would be letting the perpetrator off the hook!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

So should I ask social services if they have a machine to make labels and if so could they pop the label in with the minor works certificate when they forward it?

 

[JohnW2]

So should I ask social services if they have a machine to make labels and if so could they pop the label in with the minor works certificate when they forward it?

Yes, I suppose you could do that. I don't really think that there is any requirement for the label to be produced by any special machine - even a handwritten one, if adequately clear and prominent, would probably be compliant (AFAIAA, the regs do not specify any required format for a label of this type).

If you agree with my position, I suppose what you should point out to them that installing a new socket which does not have RCD protection does not appear to be compliant with BS7671 (hence probably not compliant with Part P) in the absence of a label.

Whether any of this is worth the fuss/hassle to you is something which only you can really decide.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Another thought occurs to me ...
Should the label, as well as saying that it's for a specific use, also specify that it's not RCD protected ?

I'm thinking that when (hopefully not for some time yet) the occupier "moves on", the first thing a new owner is likely to do is remove all the adaptations. So the intercom PSU would get removed, the point of the label not seen, and then the user is left with a general purpose socket that they may assume is RCD protected like the rest.

I know you can't plan for all eventualities, but this is a fairly foreseeable change of use.