- 27 Jan 2008
- Reaction score
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
I would agree with you, personally I would replace the whole CU, I expected to either find really expensive or unavailable with an internet search, however that was not the case, £22.19 is more than I would pay for even a type A fusebox RCBO, but not a silly price £17 for typical fuse box type A. But Wylex around £30, I have often considered why some makes are that much more expensive they all have to conform with same BS EN standard.
But back in around 1992 I fitted a pair of RCD's to my old Wylex fuse boxes with the fuses swapped to MCB's and it was still like that when I moved out in 2019. It was on my to do list, but never got around to doing it. And had there been RCBO's which could have fitted in the boxes likely I would have done that.
The old Wylex fuse box only had a 60 amp isolator, so today really they do need replacing so one can have a larger DNO fuse, however this house still on a 60 amp, and likely to stay that way unless it fails. I have no desire to move to an electric car, just use e-bikes.
Several things wrong with that CU. Why is the boiler on a 32 amp MCB, 6 would be ample? Likewise I would expect the water heater to be on a 16 amp MCB not 32 and the alarm should be on a 6 amp not 16.
I would not say wrong, as @JohnW2 points out, but it does ring alarm bells, I have seen how some one has bought a populated consumer unit and simply used the MCB/RCBO's fitted without really looking at the cables used. However since we can see a FCU under the CU clearly marked "Boiler" the boiler can't have over a 13 amp over current device and clearly less than the 3 meters permitted before the over current protection.
BS7671:2001 may have come out before or after the flat was designed, and it is design date not commissioning date that matters, and BS7671 is not retrospective, so unless alterations are made, the existing CU does not need changing to comply, however an EICR does not have to follow BS7671, it is a personal recommendation by inspector.
Personally I can't see how lack of RCD is potentially dangerous unless some thing like the removal of bonding in a bathroom has also taken place, 701.415.2 in BS7671:2008 allowed supplementary equipotential bonding to be omitted if there is RCD protection, and where plastic fittings are used it becomes hard to ensure supplementary equipotential bonding is not omitted, so this is the main reason for a code C2 to be issued.
But back in 1992 when I was a proud dad when my 16 year old son passed his RAE and became a radio ham, I wanted to protect him, so I fitted RCD protection to all circuits. So I can hardly say some one else should not install RCD protection, but unless it falls foul of 701.415.2 then it would be a code C3 in most cases.