I have a fan in the wall above the bath.but it doesn't suck enough out to keep the room clear of condensation. I want to put a fan above the shower. Can I fit it. Disconnect the wire to the fan in the wall and use that to the fan above the shower???
shower fan help
- Thread starter freeman9243
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It won't; they don't. That's not how the world works.
Yes but If the ceiling is lower than 2.25 metres the Local Authority Building Control must be notified before you start OR you can employ a registered electrician.
Yes if done correctly. Is there a loft above?
Yeah there is loft. The old fan is in zone 1. So will the new fan. So I can just use the existing wite from the wall fan to the new one?
So let me see if I've got this right.I don't think those anybodies views are all wrong, just think mine are right!
You don't think that people are wrong when they tell you that the regulations are not retroactive, but you think you are right when you say that they are.
Sponsored Links
In short without making too much of a debate on this, I will interpret this particular requirement as I see fit and safe. You may disagree with this, but I will install and advise according to my interpretation.
To me the requirement quite clearly says all circuits, no mention of rertroactive or any additions to the circuit do not need to comply, no sub-requirement attached to say that RCD protection can be excluded.
So all have that! You do as you wish!
So can I use the existing wire from the fan in the wall for the new fan in the cieling? ?
That's entirely fair enough. Many of the regs require some degree of interpretation and personal judgement - and the important thing is that you are comfortable with what you advise and do.
I have to say that I believe that the great majority of people interpret the regulations in the way that BAS has indicated.
The more rigorous interpretation you are making can result in wide-ranging consequences. In the present context, as has been pointed out, it's very unusual for a bathroom to have a dedicated lighting circuit. Does that mean that you believe that any work undertaken on a lighting circuit in some other room invokes the need to RCD protect the circuit if it also supplies a bathroom. ... and how far do you go? If you just replaced a light fitting in a bathroom (or, I suppose, just replaced the lamp/bulb!) (without changing the wiring in any way), do you believe that this would generate the need for RCD protection?
More generally, we often see people here being advised that, when extending an existing circuit (of whatever sort), only new buried wiring (and, where appropriate, new sockets) needs to be RCD protected - do I take it that you disagree with that?
As a matter of interest, how are you going to feel next year when the new requirements for CUs come into force? Are you going to interpret the regs as saying that if you undertake any work on any final circuits, that the regs will require that you replace the CU with a 'non-combustible' one?
Kind Regards, John
You are interpreting it with serious lack of comprehension.
You are giving people bad advice because of your inability to read and think at the same time.
It does clearly say all circuits.
For some reason you seem unable to grasp the fact that if you're not responsible for installing the circuit you cannot be responsible for making the circuit comply with the requirements which apply to circuits.
Why did you squirm away from answering this?:
Because you are scared that answering it would expose your intellectual bankruptcy?
What about adding sockets to a circuit? Imagine one wired in surface cabling, and no RCD protection. Care to explain to us why adding an RCD socket would not comply with the regulations, and why you would be required to RCD protect the entire circuit?
What if you weren't adding a socket, what if you were just replacing a length of surface clipped cable from one socket to another because it was damaged. Would you insist that the circuit had to go onto an RCD?
I shall.
And what I wish is to continue to say that you are wrong when you are, and to try to stop people taking your incorrect advice.
He's either going to have to say "yes" to all of those, or learn to live with cognitive dissonance.
701.411.3.3 Additional protection by 30 mA RCDs is required for all circuits serving equipment in the location.
700 General
The particular requirements for each section (special installation or location) in part 7 supplement or modify the general requirements contained in other parts of the regulations.
The absence of reference to the exclusion of a part, a chapter, a section or a regulation means that the corresponding general regulation is applicable.
It does say supplement or modify?
So that would mean surely 701.411.3.3 is supplementary or a modification of any other requirement?
It is strange BAS when you disagree with someone, you have the urge to call them and make assumption on there abilities to understand things. Unfortunately it is something that you really need to let go of, it will make a better man of you!
700 General
The particular requirements for each section (special installation or location) in part 7 supplement or modify the general requirements contained in other parts of the regulations.
The absence of reference to the exclusion of a part, a chapter, a section or a regulation means that the corresponding general regulation is applicable.
It does say supplement or modify?
So that would mean surely 701.411.3.3 is supplementary or a modification of any other requirement?
It is strange BAS when you disagree with someone, you have the urge to call them and make assumption on there abilities to understand things. Unfortunately it is something that you really need to let go of, it will make a better man of you!
All true. However, come next January the regs will unambiguously 'require' that all domestic CUs be 'non-combustible', without any qualifications or 'exclusions'. Are you similarly going to interpret that as applying ('retrospectively') to all CUs?
Kind Regards, John
I will wait and see, once I have read the new requirements on Consumer Units, I will take action as required.
Does the proposed requirement, actually say you need to replace all combustible consumer units?
Does the proposed requirement, actually say you need to replace all combustible consumer units?
What make/model fan do you have?
And what wires are coming out of your wall, number and colours are these from a fan that you have removed?
Have you sized the fan up, so it can deal with your issue?
No - you know it doesn't - and that presumably remains true even if one makes extensive changes/additions to circuits fed from that CU.
Nor does any regulation say that one has to provide RCD protection for all existing circuits which are at least partially serving bathrooms.
Kind Regards, John
So why mention it?
What does 701.411.3.3 say then?
Early you said this was true!
So does it now no longer exist then?
The OP was making alterations and changing the characteristic of a circuit within the bathroom.
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
