Replacing oven with no RCD protection

[oo7]

I've been having a bit of a discussion with a mate of mine and the topic was replacing an oven on a dedicated circuit that doesn't have RCD protection. (The house is wired on an old 1980s CU.)

He's saying that the circuit now needs to have an RCD put on it before a sparky can replace the oven. I don't agree with this as we're just replacing like for like, same as if we were to replace existing switch's, sockets or light fittings (NOT EXTENDING THE CIRCUIT). If the manufactures instructions demand RCD protection then that's a different matter.

I would of course recommend that the CU gets upgraded and put forward a prices for this work meet current regs regarding cable protection.

So do you guys agree that as the circuit hasn't be changed in any way to replace the appliance your not obliged to upgrade the circuit?

Cheers,
Chris.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I agree with you.

You are also correct regarding the manufacturer's instructions but it could be argued that they are overstepping their remit in demanding circuit requirements if they state this.

 

[slippyr4]

I agree with you.

You are also correct regarding the manufacturer's instructions but it could be argued that they are overstepping their remit in demanding circuit requirements if they state this.

I don't know; the manufacturer is uniquely qualified to know how poorly designed their oven is!!!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Theres is no requirement to update the circuit with RCD protection.
I doubt that the MI would insist on the presence of RCD protection.
Your mate is taking out of his arse!

 

[securespark]

You could argue the circuit should have RCD protection if the cooker switch incorporates a socket outlet, but even then it is not a new or altered circuit, you are just replacing an existing fixed appliance.

 

[JohnW2]

You could argue the circuit should have RCD protection if the cooker switch incorporates a socket outlet, but even then it is not a new or altered circuit, you are just replacing an existing fixed appliance.

In fact, I think one might even be able to argue if it were a new, almost dedicated, cooker circuit with just the one socket on the cooker control box - does that necessarily qualify as a socket "intended for general use"? Of course, a new circuit nearly always would require RCD protection, because of buried cable, but that's a different matter.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I would agree using SWA or Ali-tube cable even with a new circuit there is no requirement for RCD protection to a fixed appliance like an oven.

 

[JohnW2]

I would agree using SWA or Ali-tube cable even with a new circuit there is no requirement for RCD protection to a fixed appliance like an oven.

I think we're all agreed with that (or ordinary cable, if none of it is buried in walls), provided it is literally a dedicated cooker circuit. The question is whether the existence of a socket in the cooker control unit (switch/isolator) invokes the need for RCD protection, even if the cable does not require such protection. As I said, in terms of the regs it seem to all depend upon whether or not such a socket qualifies as one 'intended for general use'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think you would find it difficult to argue that having this one socket not protected, when all the others in the kitchen were, was acceptable.

Even disputing that the definition of 'general use' meant either 'general use', i.e. for use generally for multi-purposes or 'general use' by other than instructed persons would be difficult.

It would be much simpler to fit a switch without a socket.

 

[JohnW2]

I think you would find it difficult to argue that having this one socket not protected, when all the others in the kitchen were, was acceptable.

Difficult to argue logically yes, but the regs aren't necessary about logic. Don't forget that the converse of what you describe is exactly the situation which would arise if one added a socket in the kitchen to an existing non-RCD protected circuit, and therefore had to use an RCD socket or feed it via an RCD FCU - one would then have one socket protected, and the rest not!

Even disputing that the definition of 'general use' meant either 'general use', i.e. for use generally for multi-purposes or 'general use' by other than instructed persons would be difficult.

Ah - but I didn't quote the reg in full. Sockets which require RCD protection are those ≤20A which "... are for use by ordinary persons and are intended for general use". So we're definitely talking about 'non-instructed' persons.

It would be much simpler to fit a switch without a socket.

I can't disagree with that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Difficult to argue logically yes, but the regs aren't necessary about logic. Don't forget that the converse of what you describe is exactly the situation which would arise if one added a socket in the kitchen to an existing non-RCD protected circuit, and therefore had to use an RCD socket or feed it via an RCD FCU - one would then have one socket protected, and the rest not!

Ah but that would be apparent and may even encourage people to use that socket - if they knew what it was.

Ah - but I didn't quote the reg in full. Sockets which require RCD protection are those ≤20A which "... are for use by ordinary persons and are intended for general use". So we're definitely talking about 'non-instructed' persons.

Right. I wondered where I got the idea.

 

[JohnW2]

Difficult to argue logically yes, but the regs aren't necessary about logic. Don't forget that the converse of what you describe is exactly the situation which would arise if one added a socket in the kitchen to an existing non-RCD protected circuit, and therefore had to use an RCD socket or feed it via an RCD FCU - one would then have one socket protected, and the rest not!

Ah but that would be apparent and may even encourage people to use that socket - if they knew what it was.

Not if it were a plumb-standard socket fed via an RCD FCU hidden away somewhere (perhaps not even know to, or understood by, the users)

Kind Regards, John

 

[oo7]

Not sure where you guys got the added socket on the ccu from but it's an interesting discussion none the less.

My question/interpretation has been confirmed, thanks for all the input again.

 

[JohnW2]

Not sure where you guys got the added socket on the ccu from but it's an interesting discussion none the less.

even if there's not one in this case, they are very common ....

My question/interpretation has been confirmed....

Indeed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Plantoid]

Does not the fact that the CU & most likely the wiring in the place is nearly 35 years old indicate the serious need for a complete new system in any case rather than keeping it?

I'd certainly sympathetically point that out to the customer and also advise them that not renewing the system could affect their insurance protection should a claim need to be made.
It's not conning the customer but good business sense surely.

I'm no longer a compliant electrician I didn't go past the 15 edition regs. on paper ,. as I had no need for it anymore . I'd have thought that not only is there a requirement for regular tri annual inspections or so which should include metered readings of each circuit the whole system has a known working life & by 35 years it would be up for replacement. .