work in houses with no rcd protection

[ban-all-sheds]

I would install a RCD, FCU on the supply or supplies into the bathroom if, i cannot fit a rcbo in the existing CU.

Why?

Do the regulations require you to bring existing installations up to current spec?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Normally RCD FCU would be my preferred method.

Why?

Which regulation says that you have to bring existing installations up to the current version?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Either install an RCD or RCBO for the circuit(s) in question, or if the consumer unit can't take those, then install another one or replace the existing one.

Why?

Which regulation requires you to do that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

but as you say if its required to be rcd protected

It's not, unless you are installing a circuit.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So fitting an RCBO, or an RCD on the upstairs lighting circuit covers the requirement.

Which requirement is that? Does it apply to you if you are not installing a circuit?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Depending on the answer to the question I posed (well my repeating of a question I have often seen asked), it might 'save confusion' but it could result in bad/incorrect advice.

It certainly seems to be.

Presumably all the people wittering on about adding RCDs, or introducing RCD FCUs would also refuse to install RCD sockets, claiming that the regulations require them to put RCD protection on every existing socket if they add one more.

 

[RF Lighting]

It gets a bit more complicated if there are multiple circuits in the bathroom.

If you're just adding a powered vanity light via an RCD FCU, but there are already existing non-RCD circuits such as a shower and a towel rail fed from the socket circuit then supplementary bonding must be installed in the bathroom to all circuits and ECPs to comply with BS7671.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you're just adding a powered vanity light via an RCD FCU

Why do you think you need an RCD FCU?

 

[deadshort]

The OP has not mentioned any other circuits, i generally just answer the OP's question, they tend to appreciate that It saves confusion.

Hmmmm. Depending on the answer to the question I posed (well my repeating of a question I have often seen asked), it might 'save confusion' but it could result in bad/incorrect advice.

To "just answer an OP's question" without first asking about issues which could be important to the answer (but which 'have not been mentioned') does not strike me as a very satisfactory approach.

Kind Regards, John[/quote

The OP seems happy enough,that's all that matters to me, and he clearly knows what is required.

Kind regards,

DS

 

[JohnW2]

It gets a bit more complicated if there are multiple circuits in the bathroom. If you're just adding a powered vanity light via an RCD FCU, but there are already existing non-RCD circuits such as a shower and a towel rail fed from the socket circuit then supplementary bonding must be installed in the bathroom to all circuits and ECPs to comply with BS7671.

That's all true, but you're talking about the requirements for supplementary bonding, rather than the requirement for RCD protection of all circuits serving the room or passing through zones 1/2 of the room (701.411.3.3), which is what I though was the primary issue being discussed. Indeed, if the wiring was installed at a time when RCD protection of all bathroom circuits was not required (i.e. pre-17th ed) then there presumably would have been a requirement for SB, so it could well already be present.

As BAS has pointed out (rather repetitively!), most people have given answers which imply that they believe that the regulations require RCD protection of any new equipment/appliances installed in a bathroom (analogous to the requirement for RCD protection of a new socked added to an existing circuit). However, that's not what 701.411.3.3 actually says - it requires RCD protection of circuits serving the room (and even circuits passing through zones 1 or 2 without serving any loads in the room). As BAS has pointed out (by asking rhetorical questions), there is no general requirement to bring existing parts of an installation into compliance with current regulations, and, in any event, the suggestions that one should add RCD protection just to the circuit being extended would not bring the installation into compliance with current regs if there were any other circuits in (or passing through the zones of) the room.

In the case of the mirror, one might argue that, regardless of the presence/absence of a regulatory requirement, there is a common sense reason for having (adding, if necessary) RCD protection of that equipment. However, if it were just a fan I suspect the answers from most people would have been the same, even though any common sense argument for a need for RCD protection would, IMO, be extremely weak, don't you agree?

Of course, if (as is likely, particularly for the mirror) the new work involves buried cables, it is likely that there would be a requirement for RCD protection of that buried cable, but that is a totally different matter (which would be equally true in any room), and one which hasn't been mentioned by the OP (or anyone else).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The OP seems happy enough,that's all that matters to me, and he clearly knows what is required.

He may be happy, but (as BAS has also asked, rather repetitively!) has he actually been given the correct information/advice as regards "what is required" (to satisfy the regulations)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[deadshort]

You would be better asking the OP. Only he knows how he has decided to install the new equipment.

Kind regards,

DS

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As BAS has pointed out (by asking rhetorical questions)

They aren't rhetorical.

 

[JohnW2]

You would be better asking the OP. Only he knows how he has decided to install the new equipment.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting the OP should be asked. There's presumably no point in asking him whether the answers to his question and advice given are correct. If he could answer that, he wouldn't have needed to ask his question in the first place.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As BAS has pointed out (by asking rhetorical questions)

They aren't rhetorical.

That sounds like a bit of semantic quibble to me. You, and (probably) the people to whom you directed your questions, know the answer(s), and you clearly asked the questions in order to 'make a point'. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that satisfies a strict definition of rhetorical".

Kind Regards, John