Exactly my point. The 'risk' (of whatever a magnitude - I continue to fail miserably to find out!) always exists, so long as there are any sockets that things can be plugged into (and, in practice, there will already be many of them), and there is absolutely no way that the work on the circuit itself could "introduce DC leakage".
Up to a point. It's obviously true that no-one knows, or has control over, what gates plugged in to a sockets circuit. However, a designer is expected to take account of 'likely' loads. Whilst that can never be much more than guesswork, that guess will be influenced by the location of the sockets and, in particular, the (current - although even that may change) use of the rooms (or whatever) where the sockets are located.
Surely if the house goes 'on rent later' it will need a new EICR due to the change of tenancy?
Indeed - but a C3 has no impact on renting.
It may appear 'clear' at first sight, but I still thing there is plenty of scope for debate, not the least for he need (at least, in my opinion) for a modicum of common sense.
I am about to suggest below that, even if you don't recognise the fact, you seem to be selectively interpreting the regs. Even in the above statement, you appear to be being 'selective' (and 'reading what you want to read', even if that is not what the word of the regs says)- since 110.1.2(vii) [which was 110.1.2(vi) prior to Amd2) says nothing about 'circuits' - it talks of 'installations' and 'parts of installations' - and, as I'm about to write, I would be very surprised if Mr Jobsworth did not regard, say, the enclosure of a CU as being 'part of the installation'.
"Installed to 16th ed." is a bit vague. Other than for the plastic case, about the only other possible issue relates issue is the current requirement for virtually all circuits to have RCD protection. The absence of SPD protection is not a problem if the owner of the installation agrees to that absence.
As above, I think you are (albeit presumably in the name of common sense) being 'selective' in your interpretation of the regs. In another context, you are saying that an RCD needs to be upgraded to current requirements "because the installation has been altered". You now appear to be saying that one can "alter the installation" without invoking the current requirement for it no be 'non-combustible'.
That's ok. He isn't planning to have an EICR.
I don't understand that analogy. I'm merely saying that users are the people who decide what loads (some of which may well creatwe non-sinusoidal currents) are plugged in, and they will already have enough socket outlets (with the help of adapters and extension cables if necessary!) to accommodate all the loads they wish to plug in. Adding one or two sockets to a circuit will therefore make absolutely no difference to anything.
I know, but don't blame the messenger - I've merely been responding to the person who introduced that term
Up to a point. As I keep saying, I have yet to gain much of an understanding of the behaviour or any of these 'Types' of RCD
So it seems, although I can't believe that there is as little information available as I have so far been able to find. I would suggest that, since it's crucial to this whole debate, it's about time that some decent attempts were made (and the results made available) to address the fact that the behaviour of Type AC RCDs with non-sinusoidal currents is "undefined and mostly unknown".
I'm a "DIYer" - does that make me something other than 'competent'?
Do you want to edit that?
Oh that's OK as a new rental requires a new EICR so it will be found when that arises.
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
