Recent Electircal Work Questions

[JohnW2]

You are not forced to bring the rest of the installation upto current regs, but the part you install must comply. Connecting a new circuit into an existing board with an upfront RCD will leave your new curcuit not compliant.

I suspect that there is at least some room for debate about that but, for the time being, I'll assume that is the case. Would you say the same if one was only modifying an existing circuit (rather than 'installing a new circuit')? I ask because I presume that there was previously a kitchen sockets circuit, in which case maybe the recent work has been a 'modification' of what was there before, rather than a 'new ciorcuit'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't see why, even if it is a new circuit, it does not comply.

It is the CU which is not to the 17th.

You cannot expect people to replace the CU just for one new circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't see why, even if it is a new circuit, it does not comply. It is the CU which is not to the 17th. You cannot expect people to replace the CU just for one new circuit.

Having previously looked into my crystal ball, I wrote:

I suspect that there is at least some room for debate about that but, for the time being, I'll assume that is the case...

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suspect that there is at least some room for debate about that but, for the time being, I'll assume that is the case...

I don't think there is any room for debate. It is protected by an RCD.
If installed correctly it must comply.


I call my first witness. (bit cheeky )

You are not forced to bring the rest of the installation upto current regs, but the part you install must comply.

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect that there is at least some room for debate about that but, for the time being, I'll assume that is the case...

I don't think there is any room for debate. It is protected by an RCD. ... If installed correctly it must comply.

Oh!! I didn't think the issue which was concerning RF (and others) was RCD protection of the sockets (which, as you say, is present) - I thought they were worried about 314.1

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Yep, installing these sockets onto the existing CU leaves you with an installation none compliant with 314.1 / 314.2

If you don't install a seperate CU or replace / rejig the existing, then a fault on your circuit could leave the entire installation inoperable, which is none compliant.

 

[JohnW2]

Yep, installing these sockets onto the existing CU leaves you with an installation none compliant with 314.1 / 314.2

No argument with that.

If you don't install a seperate CU or replace / rejig the existing, then a fault on your circuit could leave the entire installation inoperable, which is none compliant.

No argument with that, either. The area where I feel there is probably some scope for debate is whether there is a requirement to bring the installation up to compliance with 314.1 & 314.2 because one final circuit has been 'modified' (or maybe one new circuit installed).

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

As long as your new circuit or alteration is compliant, then all is well.

Supplying it from the existing CU, it won't be.

You have to either supply it from a seperate CU, or carry out alterations to the existing CU so that a fault on your new circuit or alteration will not leave the rest of the installation inoperable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

314 relates to the 'installation' (whole).


So, if
"You are not forced to bring the rest of the installation up to current regs."

then does it make sense that you are
"forced to bring the rest of the installation up to current regs.".

by the introduction of a new circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

314 relates to the 'installation' (whole). So, if "You are not forced to bring the rest of the installation up to current regs." then does it make sense that you are "forced to bring the rest of the installation up to current regs.". by the introduction of a new circuit.

That was precisely my thinking when I spoke of 'room for debate'. I admit that it is a very grey one, in that the new circuit does have an impact (in the 314.1/314.2 sense) on 'the installation as a whole', but I'm still inclined to share you thoughts/approach.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

314 relates to the 'installation' (whole).


So, if
"You are not forced to bring the rest of the installation up to current regs."

then does it make sense that you are
"forced to bring the rest of the installation up to current regs.".

by the introduction of a new circuit.

You can put your new circuit in a new seperate CU if you want to keep your new circuit fully compliant without bringing the rest of the installation up to current regs.

For your new circuit to be fully compliant, you can not connect it to the existing CU without modifying it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You can put your new circuit in a new seperate CU if you want to keep your new circuit fully compliant without bringing the rest of the installation up to current regs.

Which characteristic(s) of the new circuit do not comply?

The 'installation' is unchanged and therefore no less safe than it was.

 

[JohnW2]

Which characteristic(s) of the new circuit do not comply?

OK, since I can see both sides of this argument, I can give a sort-of answer to that one (even though it goes against my 'inclination'). One of the charactieristics of the new circuit is that it could be 'taken out' by a fault on any of the other circuits.

I do think this is a very 'borderline' question, so I'm not surprised to see two electricians disagreeing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

You've added an additional circuit which in the event of a fault could render the entire installation inoperable, so the installation has been altered. Also your new circuit could be rendered inoperable by a fault on one of the existing circuits,


The only way the existing installation is not made less safe, and also your circuit is kept compliant is by you not connecting your circuit to the existing CU.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You've added an additional circuit which in the event of a fault could render the entire installation inoperable, so the installation has been altered.

I would say the installation was like that before and so not, in effect, altered.

Also your new circuit could be rendered inoperable by a fault on one of the existing circuits

That would be the case with a dual RCD, compliant, board.

The only way the existing installation is not made less safe, and also your circuit is kept compliant is by you not connecting your circuit to the existing CU.

Will have to agree to disagree.