Removal of supplementary bonding in bathroom?
- Thread starter JohnnyG
- Start date
Sponsored Links
There's a good chance that the bonding wasn't actually required in the first place, but done 'because it was done'. However, the decision to remove supplementary conductors should only be made by somebody with a full understanding of the principles.
Let me guess, you want the cables removed for cosmetic reasons, right?
Let me guess, you want the cables removed for cosmetic reasons, right?
You're correct that the owner wants them removed for cosmetic reasons however I'm not the owner.
I've been asked to remove them if possible which I'm not prepared to do if they're removal is not permitted even if the requirements are subsequently met.
As I mentioned, I know what the requirements and regulations are (and why) but there's no point me doing any testing if I can't remove them in the first place, I've had a decent look at the relevant regs btw but can't find a definitive answer.
I've been asked to remove them if possible which I'm not prepared to do if they're removal is not permitted even if the requirements are subsequently met.
As I mentioned, I know what the requirements and regulations are (and why) but there's no point me doing any testing if I can't remove them in the first place, I've had a decent look at the relevant regs btw but can't find a definitive answer.
Look in your 16th Edition Regs at Reg 413-02-28.
Compare this with 17th Edition Reg 415.2.2
Then consider the actual purpose of supplementary bonding and consult Reg 544.2.4
That should help you decide.
Compare this with 17th Edition Reg 415.2.2
Then consider the actual purpose of supplementary bonding and consult Reg 544.2.4
That should help you decide.
Sponsored Links
My point is that it says the same thing. Despite all the fuss made about it, the rules have not really changed significantly. The resistance between parts that may need to be bonded must be less than 50V/Ia and if you can prove this by measurement then the bonding is effectively achieved by the permanent and reliable conductive parts and supplementary conductors are not necessary.
If you don't understand this principle then you probably shouldn't touch what's already there.
I understand the principles, and that wasn't my question.
My question is simply whether one can remove bonding (which may well have been installed as a matter of course and not needed initially) if all the requirements, regulations and principles are proven to be met.
I don't know who installed it or why, what I'm trying to clarify is is it ok to get rid of it once it's been installed.
All I can find is the use of the term 'may be omitted' which doesn't really say I can remove it which just seems a bit daft.
To put it another way as I know you know what you're talking about, would you remove it?
My question is simply whether one can remove bonding (which may well have been installed as a matter of course and not needed initially) if all the requirements, regulations and principles are proven to be met.
I don't know who installed it or why, what I'm trying to clarify is is it ok to get rid of it once it's been installed.
All I can find is the use of the term 'may be omitted' which doesn't really say I can remove it which just seems a bit daft.
To put it another way as I know you know what you're talking about, would you remove it?
If I could prove that the 'stripey wires' were not necessary, yes.
Just because it's already there does not mean it is either necessary or correct. (In fact, it's more than likely that supplementary bonding has been carried out incorrectly in the first place.) A better solution than either leaving or removing it would be to assess whether or not it meets current standards. As you are obviously thinking about Reg 701.415.2, why not read it again and include the note at the bottom of the page, which refers you back to 415.2.2
The answers are all there, honest.
If I could prove that the 'stripey wires' were not necessary, yes.
Just because it's already there does not mean it is either necessary or correct. (In fact, it's more than likely that supplementary bonding has been carried out incorrectly in the first place.) A better solution than either leaving or removing it would be to assess whether or not it meets current standards. As you are obviously thinking about Reg 701.415.2, why not read it again and include the note at the bottom of the page, which refers you back to 415.2.2
The answers are all there, honest.
Thanks.
I hoped I'd made it clear that I too would've proved whether they were necessary or not in my question
I read through all of 415.2 as (as you say) it was referenced in 701.415.2 along with a couple of others.
I *think* where you're coming from is that the existing bonding may be redundant anyway.
The requirement to remove the bonding would be that:
all circuits in the bathroom are protected by 30mA RCD(s) and that the water and gas are equipotentially bonded correctly.
You do not need a "17th edition" consumer unit - there is no such thing
and there is no such thing as earth bonding.
That's the fella.
He's got a split load with a dual fuel towel rail on the rcd side apparently although the lights aren't, so an RCBO would be installed.
I've no idea about the main bonding yet (neither has he), as there was no point (imo) going any further on his request until I was sure it was acceptable to carry out the work.
I've no idea about the main bonding yet (neither has he), as there was no point (imo) going any further on his request until I was sure it was acceptable to carry out the work.
Life's just not fair is it.....
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
