new ring, RCD tripping

[ban-all-sheds]

Hang on guys , no one said that the work wont be signed off and certified.

Who has said that it will?

Did you apply for Building Regulations approval before you started, or have you got someone lined up to lie about having done the work himself?

Or are you just assuming that you'll be able to get someone to sign it off and certify it? If so, prepare to be grievously disappointed.

No one said that the CB wont be changed for a 32A version or another 4 sockets and one fused spur are to be added to the circuit.

So did it pass all of the dead tests before you energised it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That is it. It doesn't say supplied through a RFC protected by a 32A or lower rated device. If you want to use a RFC to supply accesories then a 30A or a 32A device are the only sizes recognised by BS7671.

Nonsense.

The only time 433.1.5 comes into play is when you need an exemption from 433.1.1.

2.5mm² on a B16 doesn't need an exemption.

 

[muffindell]

Wow. you guys get really wound up about things.
All I did was to replace a faulty system with upgraded cable and outlets. My sparky didn't have time to do it himself when the CU was replaced but was happy for me to complete the work and would come back to check my work. It was a radial circuit beforehand using 1.5 T&E. I come from the old school where you always over rate equipment, even if doing so it incures higher costs. Having a lower rating RCD cannot be a bad thing, it simply means that it will trip sooner, thus is safer even if not in line with current cotton wool regs it is inline with a house of over 40years old which normally has the old fuse wire fuse box. No matter it will be replaced with the 32A CB version. In fact the cable is clipped to the wall and will remain visible, so putting the circuit on a RCD, inceasing the cable from 1.5 to 2.5mm and creating a ring main as far exceeded any load requirement it will ever have and as such by definition is at a much higher specification than current regs, in turn, it will be much safer.
Anyway, you will be pleased to hear that repositioning the Neutrals as worked and no more trips.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

All I did was to replace a faulty system with upgraded cable and outlets.

Unless you applied for Building Regulations approval that was unlawful.

My sparky didn't have time to do it himself when the CU was replaced but was happy for me to complete the work and would come back to check my work.

"Check" is one thing.

"Signed off and certified" is something else altogether.

Is your sparky going to lie on official documentation for you?

current cotton wool regs

What are you talking about?

 

[muffindell]

No, not unlawful
Non notifiable works building regs:

Although you should take guidance from the Building Control department generally these would include repairs, replacements and maintenance; and additions or alterations to existing circuits outside kitchens and bathrooms: Replacing power sockets (white laminate with chrome for example), replacing a damaged power cable, replacing a light switch or ceiling rose, adding lighting points, sockets and fused spurs to existing circuits as long as they are not in a special location or special installation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You should perhaps read the actual law: Schedule 4.

 

[JohnW2]

If you want to use a lower rated OCPD, then there would be no point in installing a RFC in the first place

Agreed. 433.1.5 and appendix 15 are for 'bog standard RFCs' without thinking. However, this does not preclude other configurations which comply with the regulations.
Indeed - as we've discussed at length in the past.

so a radial should be used.

Look at it another way - you are saying that if a 16A MCB is fitted then the return leg MUST be removed even though it is not doing any harm and is the equivalent (approximately) of using 5mm² cable.

I suspect what EFLI (Edit: RF Lighting, not EFLI) meant to say was "could be used" or "might as well be used", rather than "should (or must) be used". In other words, apart from 'unnecessarily' increasing the CSA from 2.5² to approx 5mm², there is no real point/advantage (other than the 'redundancy of an RFC, which is a mixed blessing) in having the return leg if the circuit is protected by a 16A or 20A MCB. However, as you imply, the existance of the return leg certainly does not do any harm - and, therefore, surely cannot be regarded as non-compliant?

Kind Regards, John

 

[muffindell]

Re Schedule 4, as I thought, no problem if you read it correctly, there is no problem with replacing faulty cables etc, it's only if a brand new circuit is created where there wasn't one beforehand when Building need to be informed.

 

[Wontdothatagain]

No, not unlawful

You have taken a radial circuit and converted it to a RF, you have increased the cable size and thus altered the parameters of the circuit.

That is notifiable.

 

[JohnW2]

You have taken a radial circuit and converted it to a RF, you have increased the cable size and thus altered the parameters of the circuit. That is notifiable.

It doesn't seem as if the OP said that's what has been done but, if it were, I would agree with you that it would probably be notifiable. You might think this is playing with words/pedantic, but my reason for saying this would not be exactly the same as the reason you've given (Schedule 4 doesn't mention 'altering the charactreristics of a circuit', other than in the context of enclosures) - but, rather, because I dont't think that converting a radial final to an RFC counts as 'extending an existing circuit'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Wontdothatagain]

I've put a simple ring from the CU in the garage using all new 2.5mm cable etc. consisting of 2 double sockets before returning to the CU.

It was a radial circuit beforehand using 1.5 T&E.

 

[muffindell]

Building regs are open to interpretation, I feel that I have followed them. I would never put my own home or my family at risk. Why are you guys so precious about things, it's not as if I never achieved the required standard for electrical installation.
You know, I always thought forums were for like minded people trying to help each other, I may revise my opinon with regards to this forum.

 

[JohnW2]

It was a radial circuit beforehand using 1.5 T&E.

Ah - missed that; my apologies. No matter how one looks at it, this is clearly notifiable - essentially on the basis of it being a new circuit.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[muffindell]

If that's the case John I will take the one peg off, it's now a radial circuit!

 

[riveralt]

Building regs are open to interpretation, I feel that I have followed them. I would never put my own home or my family at risk. Why are you guys so precious about things, it's not as if I never achieved the required standard for electrical installation.
You know, I always thought forums were for like minded people trying to help each other, I may revise my opinon with regards to this forum.

I will always endeavour to help DIYers who ask for assistance on this forum.
That doesn't mean I will condone what is illegal activity which could lead to your demise.
In this case you have changed the parameters of the circuit from a radial final circuit to a ring final circuit - that is notifiable - not subject to interpretation.
You have also completed this work before informing Building Control - illegal.
You have changed this circuit and failed to conduct any of the dead/live tests required - you have not completed the necessary documentation in clear breach of BS7671 - while not illegal - it would not help your case should something go horribly wrong.
So I am sorry if you wish to revise your opinon on this forum - but the information you have given and your responses so far suggest that your knowledge of current wiring and building control regulations leaves a lot to be desired.