RCD on bathroom circuit

[Risteard]

My understanding is that plastic gas pipe is not permitted within domestic properties. If it changes from plastic to metal before it enters the property, the metal pipe may (but may not) need bonding.

What change in regulations are you referring to?

It is not necessarily the case that something which was compliant with prevailing regs when it was installed will never deserve a C2today.

The requirement for circuits serving bathrooms to be RCD protected has existed for quite a while. It was certainly a requirement of the 2008 edition of the regs, and possibly much earlier (others here probably know). When was this circuit installed?

Indeed. You got your answer to that question in the very first response you received (from EFLI in post #2), upon which I expanded a bit in post #8 and, since you asked the question again, I re-iterated my answer in post #14.

Kind Regards, John

The 17th Edition introduced the requirement. Supplementary bonding was required in all cases under the 16th Edition, and if both are absent then clearly there is an issue. Obviously even with supplementary bonding absence of an RCD is still a non-compliance with current Regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

The 17th Edition introduced the requirement. Supplementary bonding was required in all cases under the 16th Edition, and if both are absent then clearly there is an issue. Obviously even with supplementary bonding absence of an RCD is still a non-compliance with current Regulations.

Yes, I agree with all that. However, I was not talking about the requirement for SB (or the subsequent change which allowed it to be omitted under some circumstances).

Rather, I was talking about the requirement for any circuit serving a bathroom to be RCD-protected (subsequently extended to include circuits which merely 'passed through' a bathroom). That requirement certainly existed in 17th Edition but I was asking where it had also been in 16th, or even early. Can you help me with the answer to that?

 

[ericmark]

As far as I can remember 16th was two different BS numbers, BS 7671:1992 and BS 7671:2001 and the latter asked for RCD protection for all outside, and both asked for it for TT installations. I have got BS 7671:2001 some where.

At the time of BS 7671:2001 we had the old numbering system for the EICR which included code 4, this I seem to remember was would not comply with current edition if new it was a new design.

Since each edition has a clear date as to when designs had to comply, some thing designed in 1992 which complied then will still comply, however the inspector would need to know it was designed in 1992 so he would need to have all the installation and minor works certificates to show the design had not been altered, and would also need a copy of the BS7671 current at the time of the design, this was not really practical, and telling people it did not comply with latest edition was not really helpful.

So the coding changed, and it is now not linked to BS7671, so we need to look for potential danger, as I said I feel a push button as an isolator is potential dangerous, however I have a compliance certificate to say it complies with latest regulations. On commercial premises I have seen where people feel lack of the SPD is potential dangerous, I don't agree, but it is up to the inspector to decide.

It does not matter what we say, it is what the person signing the form said which matters, it seems one with the Land lord laws can take it to the LABC if you don't agree, good look with that, in the main they don't inspect themselves anyway. It is not under Part P so it has nothing to do with scheme providers, some do authorise members to do the EICR under the scheme, and it seems the scheme providers publish two forms one covered by scheme the other not, why anyone would buy forms which are a free down load from scheme providers when not covered by the scheme I don't know, maybe to try to con the client that it is covered by the scheme, the bit which says it's not is not in very large writing.

But the point is this is all a storm in a tea cup, fit a RCD FCU and one can rent without a problem, you have a minor works to show the work has been done, it is not required to have it re-tested, just attach a copy of the RCD FCU receipt and it covers, wrong I know, but that's how the daft law is worded. Since it supplies a room with a bath or shower it may need a compliance or completion certificate I will let other decide if that is required?

 

[JohnW2]

As far as I can remember 16th was two different BS numbers, BS 7671:1992 and BS 7671:2001 and the latter asked for RCD protection for all outside, and both asked for it for TT installations. I have got BS 7671:2001 some where. ...

Yes, I know all that, but everyone seems to be talking about regulations other than the one I was asking about!

I'm not talking about regulations relating to SB or the RCD-protection of sockets ('outside' or otherwise). Rather, I'm talking/asking about the current 701.411.3.3 which requires all circuits serving a bathroom to be RCD-protected. I know that such a requirement existed in the 17th Edition (although it's extension to circuits 'passing through' a bathroom was subsequently added) but I was asking whether the requirement also existed in 16th Ed (or earlier). Does anyone know?

Kind Regards, John

 

[pete01]

Yes, I know all that, but everyone seems to be talking about regulations other than the one I was asking about!

I'm not talking about regulations relating to SB or the RCD-protection of sockets ('outside' or otherwise). Rather, I'm talking/asking about the current 701.411.3.3 which requires all circuits serving a bathroom to be RCD-protected. I know that such a requirement existed in the 17th Edition (although it's extension to circuits 'passing through' a bathroom was subsequently added) but I was asking whether the requirement also existed in 16th Ed (or earlier). Does anyone know?

Kind Regards, John

It couldn't have as 16th edition split load consumer units had non rcd protected lighting circuits.

 

[JohnW2]

It couldn't have as 16th edition split load consumer units had non rcd protected lighting circuits.

That would be logical, but the regs are not necessarily always logical;

In context, don't forget that it is only very recently that RCD protection for lighting circuits (in general) became required, yet long before that there was the requirement I mentioned for any circuit supplying a bathroom (including lighting circuits) to be RCD-protected - so, despite what you suggest, the fact that, per the 16th, lighting circuits did not ('in general') have to be RCD-protected does not necessarily mean that the requirement for RCD-protection of lighting circuits in bathrooms did not exist at that time!

Kind Regards, John

 

[pete01]

That would be logical, but the regs are not necessarily always logical;

In context, don't forget that it is only very recently that RCD protection for lighting circuits (in general) became required, yet long before that there was the requirement I mentioned for any circuit supplying a bathroom (including lighting circuits) to be RCD-protected - so, despite what you suggest, the fact that, per the 16th, lighting circuits did not ('in general') have to be RCD-protected does not necessarily mean that the requirement for RCD-protection of lighting circuits did not exist at that time!

Kind Regards, John

Mmmm....yes maybe...why can't things just be simple.

 

[JohnW2]

Mmmm....yes maybe...why can't things just be simple.

Quite - but life would be much more boring if everything was 'simple''

Kind Regards John

 

[plugwash]

I'm 99% sure that under the 16th edition the only circuits required to be RCD protected in a typical TN installation were those supplying socket outlets that could reasonably be expected to supply equipment outside the equipotential zone.

There were various other RCD protection requirements but they related to more unusual installations.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm 99% sure that under the 16th edition the only circuits required to be RCD protected in a typical TN installation were those supplying socket outlets that could reasonably be expected to supply equipment outside the equipotential zone.

Thanks. I was aware of that one in 16th (for sockets) but wondered whether the requirement for RCD protection of any circuit 'serving a bathroom' was also there. From what you say, it seems that it wasn't, in which case it must have first appeared in the 17th (and then subsequently extended to include circuits which were merely 'passing through' a bathroom - which has always seems a bit OTT to me ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

From what you say, it seems that it wasn't, in which case it must have first appeared in the 17th (and then subsequently extended to include circuits which were merely 'passing through' a bathroom - which has always seems a bit OTT to me ).

Assuming the regulation is still the same in the latest edition - i.e.:

"701.411.3.3 Additional protection by RCDs
Additional protection by the use of one or more RCDs having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1
shall be provided for low voltage circuits:
(i) serving the location
(ii) passing through zones 1 and/or 2 not serving the location."

Rather than being OTT, it is to me more surprising that it was deemed necessary to consider cables being installed in such a location.

Do you think it was to require RCD protection for surface-mounted visible cables that would otherwise have been exempt; not to mention cables in the likes of steel conduit?

After all, cables buried at less than 50mm. anywhere in the bathroom's walls would (now) require RCD protection because of that even though they might not be technically passing through the zones.

 

[ericmark]

I find the "passing through zones 1 and/or 2 not serving the location." strange, I only have 17th which says "For electrical equipment in parts of walls or ceilings limiting the zones specified in Regulations 701.322 to 701.32.4, but being part of the surface of that wall or ceiling, the requirements for the respective zone apply." so it seems to be clarifying rather than some thing new? So once buried the it's not part of the zone.

But there is the point should one need to force people to use protective measures? I see the problem, I had solar panels fitted which included an UPS and the supply to the boiler is no longer RCD protected, I tried fitting a RCD FCU but it tripped as soon as boiler started, but the RCBO which did feed boiler never tripped, swapped back with intention of looking into it further, but daughter thinks she has Colvid so investigation will have to wait. I think it may need type F, but need to put the clamp on around the wires to see if there is any leakage.

I thought it would be so easy to fit a RCD FCU, but one could only find a type A although the RCBO was also type A, and two it is tripping, when I realised I was more concerned with getting the heating running, I have a medical condition which means cold is a real problem, I think down to being supplied from the inverter?

But I will get it sorted, and likely would be more worried if rented out, as one has no idea what tenants are doing. I fitted RCD's to all circuits in early 90's, I did not wait to be told, and a tenant does not have the ability to add RCD protection, he has to rely on the landlord doing it for him, be it a slippy set of outside steps, or a RCD the landlord needs to ensure his tenants are safe, all the tenant can do is leave.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I find the "passing through zones 1 and/or 2 not serving the location." strange, I only have 17th which says "For electrical equipment in parts of walls or ceilings limiting the zones specified in Regulations 701.322 to 701.32.4, but being part of the surface of that wall or ceiling, the requirements for the respective zone apply." so it seems to be clarifying rather than some thing new? So once buried the it's not part of the zone.

Yes, but that refers to equipment; what we are talking about is just a cable surface-mounted (or even in steel conduit) traversing a wall within the zones but NOT serving the location which would otherwise not require RCD protection.

It does seem to me it would have been far simpler just to prohibit such cable runs.
I can't think of any occasion where such an installation method would not be avoidable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But there is the point should one need to force people to use protective measures?

Maybe not - eventually - but there has been a never ending supply of new safety devices over time.

How long after such an invention should it be compulsory to have them fitted everywhere?

Do the police inspect people's electrical installations? I hear they are rather busy patrolling the internet.

 

[Risteard]

Yes, I agree with all that. However, I was not talking about the requirement for SB (or the subsequent change which allowed it to be omitted under some circumstances).

Rather, I was talking about the requirement for any circuit serving a bathroom to be RCD-protected (subsequently extended to include circuits which merely 'passed through' a bathroom). That requirement certainly existed in 17th Edition but I was asking where it had also been in 16th, or even early. Can you help me with the answer to that?

I did answer that - "the 17th Edition INTRODUCED the requirement."