RCD changed when work done

[AlexUK]

2 years ago I had a garage conversion. I've only just noticed that they have moved my upstairs lights off of the RCD breaker.

My up and down sockets and downstairs lights are on the RCD and trip when I press the test button.

My cooker, boiler, smoke alarms and upstairs lights are on the left on the MCB....no rcd......is this dangerous not having lights on RCD?

I presume they moved upstairs off of RCD to accomodate new lights / sockets on downstairs RCD?

Thanks for any advice as you can probably tell I do not know much about electrics.....just concerned upstairs lights should be on an RCD?

 

[AndyPRK]

It's not dangerous. It's not what modern regulations would like.
At least you will have some working lights in the house if the rcd trips and can't be reset

 

[AlexUK]

Thanks for quick response so when they did this work in 2012 should they have left it like that?

Thanks again

 

[EFLImpudence]

I am wondering if the upstairs lights were on the rcd or are you certain they were?

I presume the RCD was installed to protect the new work in the garage (sockets and lights) and the upstairs sockets were included.

The regulations required RCD protection for new sockets and new concealed unprotected cables - not lights, cookers etc.

 

[ericmark]

2008 was when the new rules came in on RCD protection but they are not retrospective.

So in 2012 if the lights were not RCD protected you could leave them that way.

However any new cables buried less than 50 mm would need to be either special cable (Ali-tube) or RCD protected.

To swap lights from RCD to non RCD in most of the house in 2012 although not strictly complying is not really that bad. But to swap the bathroom lights from RCD protected to non RCD protected could be dangerous because other items in the bathroom may not comply with pre 2008 regulations as the bonding in bathrooms was re-lacked when all items in bathroom are RCD protected.

Clearly your bathroom may be wired to pre-2008 regulations, but bonding is not always visible and as a result it would worry me if a bathroom with lights on RCD protection was to have that protection removed.

Personally having Cooker not RCD protected may be a good thing and unless battery backed Smoke alarms should not really be RCD protected as to boiler think I would like to see that on a RCD although easy enough to use a RCD FCU and add RCD protection.

So big question is the bathroom up-stairs?

 

[AlexUK]

Yes bathroom upstairs, house built in 2001....maybe no lights were on RCD originally is that more likely like EFLImpudence said?

In 2001 would only sockets be on RCD and builder of garage conversion has moved downstairs lights to RCD? The garage had 8 spot lights installed and 4 sockets.

Sorry for confusion, but is above more likely?

Thanks again

 

[AndyPRK]

That sound more Likly and explainable.

Yes in 2001 lights wouldn't be on a 30ma rcd

 

[JohnW2]

To swap lights from RCD to non RCD in most of the house in 2012 although not strictly complying is not really that bad. But to swap the bathroom lights from RCD protected to non RCD protected could be dangerous because other items in the bathroom may not comply with pre 2008 regulations as the bonding in bathrooms was re-lacked when all items in bathroom are RCD protected. ... Clearly your bathroom may be wired to pre-2008 regulations, but bonding is not always visible and as a result it would worry me if a bathroom with lights on RCD protection was to have that protection removed.

Whilst that is all strictly true, to put it into context I would personally say that, if the only things on the lighting were lights/fans, then the 'dangerous' is more a 'theoretical/regulatory danger' than one worth losing any sleep over. You would, IMO, have to scrape the barrel very deeply indeed to find (I suspect 'vanishingly improbable') scenarios in which the absence of RCD protection of the lights/fans in a bathroom which had no supplementary bonding would present any meaningful hazard. If the lighting circuit supplied 'touchable' items (and the only thing I can think of would be a shaver socket), then things might be (slightly) different.

Having said all that, I agree with you that it would seem undesirable that existing RCD protection for the lighting circuit should be removed. I suspect that such a change might also be non-complaint, even if the RCD protection was not actually required at the time the lighting circuit was installed. Whilst the regulations are not retrospective, to actually undertake 'work' (removal of RCD protection) which changes the situation from one which is compliant with current regs to one which is not compliant with current regs sounds to me like 'non-compliant work'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

If that has actually occurred.

What the Op has now said sounds more feasible. Ie had a garage conversion and the downstairs lights are now rcd protected.

Also it's not exactly complient to have all the house lights and sockets on one 30ma rcd

 

[JohnW2]

If that has actually occurred. What the Op has now said sounds more feasible. Ie had a garage conversion and the downstairs lights are now rcd protected.

Yes, that does seem like a reasonable speculation.

Also it's not exactly complient to have all the house lights and sockets on one 30ma rcd

So many believe, yes.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

Why's that not reasonable ?
Had a garage conversion in 2012. Added some lights with cables in walls less than 50mm and therefore put downstairs lights on rcd to be complient.

 

[JohnW2]

Why's that not reasonable ? Had a garage conversion in 2012. Added some lights with cables in walls less than 50mm and therefore put downstairs lights on rcd to be complient.

Who said it was 'not reasonable'? Certainly not me ... on the contrary ...

Yes, that does seem like a reasonable speculation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

Oops, sorry, must have mis read

 

[AlexUK]

So overall if, as seems likely the lights were originally not on the RCD, I have nothing to worry about?

Thanks for all the great advice and help so far.

 

[AndyPRK]

You have nothing to worry about