work in houses with no rcd protection
- Thread starter thomo27
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I might be wrong, hence the request for correction.
If all the people who say that RCDs have to be added think they are right, then they must know of a regulation which I don't.
If they don't think they are right then why are they saying what they do?
No - I asked the questions because I would like the people to whom I addressed them to answer them. They are busy telling the OP what to do - they must, must, MUST have good reasons.
Does that comply with 701.411.3.3 though?, which requires all circuits of the location to be RCD protected (rather than just part-of the circuits)
It seems picky, but when you consider the intention of the regulation... to reduce fault clearance times down to 40ms and enable sup bonding to be omitted if other conditions are met, it starts to make sense. If you have a fault on the light in the room next to the bathroom, you could have a raised potential on class 1 fittings in the bathroom on the same circuit for as long as the fuse takes to operate.
Personally I wouldn't worry about it if the installation was compliant with the 16th edition (sup bonding all in place)
No, not if there are any other circuits, or parts of circuits, serving the room (or passing through zones 1 or 2 without serving the room). However, as BAS keeps eluding to, since when was there a requirement to bring all relevant existing circuits into compliance with 701.411.3.3 just because one is adding things (fan, heated mirror or whatever) to one of those circuits?
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
All circuits are NOW required to be RCD protected.
I don't think part protection would contravene the regulation.
The intention was/is surely greater personal protection.
Was it the intention just to reduce the time?
It certainly wasn't an intention to omit SB; merely a consequence.
You still can but if anyone touches it the result may be less harmful especially if also touching an earthed part.
Nor I.
Indeed not - but, obviously, nor would it satisfy the regulation. However, yet again, there is surely no obligation to bring existing circuits into compliance with that reg? If one uses RCD FCUs or whatever, it must be for some reason other than 'partially complying with' 701.411.3.3, mustn't it?
Kind Regards, John
Yes.
However, I thought Adam was implying that part protection would somehow contravene the regulation by not complying with it.
However, I thought Adam was implying that part protection would somehow contravene the regulation by not complying with it.
Oh, maybe, but that's not how I read it. I thought he was implying that there was a requirement to fully comply with the reg ('bring fully up to current standards') and that partial compliance would obviously not satisfy such a requirement (if it existed!).
Kind Regards, John
yikes just checked and seen the debate??
The reason I would install the RCD protection is for my own peace of mind so I can walk away from the job knowing that the work I have done i.e my cableif buried in the building fabric are up to current standards..
in this situation the customer isnt bothered if its rcd protected but for my oif n peace of mind i would rather do it..
I am suprised that the regs don't say anthing about having to upgrade modified existing circuits to include rcd protection..
FWIW the bathroom ceiling is pvc cladding there is no access to the loft as the floor is boarded and no access hatches have beeb cut out for joint access..
he has a surface light in the centre of the room about 200mm diameter with a sw live and neutral coming through the cladding in a 10mm hole..ive asked him to drill out a 100mm hole so I can see If I can see a joint box in the ceiling space to pick up a permant live for the timer on the fan and the heated mirror with pir light sensor..If no joint box available then I can pick up a permanent live from the pull cord..
so to summarise its 1 circuit only I could use a 12v fan and put the tranny in the ceiling space above the 100mm hole which is covered by the light and for the cable for the mirror put a steel pipe in the wall to protect it ..is this a good reason to argue why some people dont think its a requirement to upgrade the circuit
The reason I would install the RCD protection is for my own peace of mind so I can walk away from the job knowing that the work I have done i.e my cableif buried in the building fabric are up to current standards..
in this situation the customer isnt bothered if its rcd protected but for my oif n peace of mind i would rather do it..
I am suprised that the regs don't say anthing about having to upgrade modified existing circuits to include rcd protection..
FWIW the bathroom ceiling is pvc cladding there is no access to the loft as the floor is boarded and no access hatches have beeb cut out for joint access..
he has a surface light in the centre of the room about 200mm diameter with a sw live and neutral coming through the cladding in a 10mm hole..ive asked him to drill out a 100mm hole so I can see If I can see a joint box in the ceiling space to pick up a permant live for the timer on the fan and the heated mirror with pir light sensor..If no joint box available then I can pick up a permanent live from the pull cord..
so to summarise its 1 circuit only I could use a 12v fan and put the tranny in the ceiling space above the 100mm hole which is covered by the light and for the cable for the mirror put a steel pipe in the wall to protect it ..is this a good reason to argue why some people dont think its a requirement to upgrade the circuit
Well - just think of the consequences.
No, it's just a fact.
However, if you do bury the cable without protection then you should protect this new run with an RCD.
That's what everyone is getting at.
I totally agree
Actually, it now looks to me as if virtually all of us misinterpreted the OP (although, in retrospect, it did contain 'clues'). ...
... I think that nearly all of us thought the question related to installing new items in a bathroom (in the absence of any current RCD protection) given the requirement of 701.411.3.3 for all circuits serving a bathroom to be RCD protected. It now seems that the question in the OP was probably not really anything specifically due to the room being a bathroom - but, rather was related to the need for RCD protection of buried cables (in any room or location) - the mention in the OP of cables in metal pipes should perhaps have been a clue to us!
Kind Regards, John
yes the use of steel pipe was for cable protection not for decor
I was trying to get round putting an RCD in and at the same time making sure that cable was mechanicaly protected
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,957
- Reaction score
- 2,718
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
I see the point it is not a socket so does not need RCD protection for that, Cable system used will comply with BS 5467, BS 6346. BS 6724, BS 7846, BS EN 60702-1, BS 8436, BS EN 61386 or BS EN 50085 so does not need RCD protection for that.
701.411.3.3 refers to new circuits so it depends if a FCU is fitted or not if a FCU is fitted then it forms a new circuit so would need to be a RCD FCU however if only the original fuse/MCB protects it then not a new circuit.
There may be a change in the amendments I don't have up to date version but it does seem RCD protection is not required.
However taking any equipment from the lighting circuit one has to look at 314.1 (iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit. And unless one can isolate a fault could mean loss of lights. So fitting a FCU with 1A fuse would seem the right way to go so it can be automatically or manually isolated in the case of a fault.
Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).
Adding a FCU therefore means it's a new circuit so it would need to be a RCD FCU.
Back in 1992 I fitted RCD protection to whole house. It was not a requirement at that time but I wanted to protect my family. The big question is not what the regulations say but if some one was injured due to a fault with the mirror this could be slipping and falling into the mirror what would the courts say?
I know I keep referring to the Emma Shaw case but it was not the electrician who really caused the problem it was down to plasters and plumbers but it was still the electrical foreman who was singled out.
Personally I just can't see the point in not fitting a RCD FCU I would have assessed the risk and decided it was not worth the risk in not fitting one. In today's world one has to watch ones back.
701.411.3.3 refers to new circuits so it depends if a FCU is fitted or not if a FCU is fitted then it forms a new circuit so would need to be a RCD FCU however if only the original fuse/MCB protects it then not a new circuit.
There may be a change in the amendments I don't have up to date version but it does seem RCD protection is not required.
However taking any equipment from the lighting circuit one has to look at 314.1 (iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit. And unless one can isolate a fault could mean loss of lights. So fitting a FCU with 1A fuse would seem the right way to go so it can be automatically or manually isolated in the case of a fault.
Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s).
Adding a FCU therefore means it's a new circuit so it would need to be a RCD FCU.
Back in 1992 I fitted RCD protection to whole house. It was not a requirement at that time but I wanted to protect my family. The big question is not what the regulations say but if some one was injured due to a fault with the mirror this could be slipping and falling into the mirror what would the courts say?
I know I keep referring to the Emma Shaw case but it was not the electrician who really caused the problem it was down to plasters and plumbers but it was still the electrical foreman who was singled out.
Personally I just can't see the point in not fitting a RCD FCU I would have assessed the risk and decided it was not worth the risk in not fitting one. In today's world one has to watch ones back.
The OP has not proposed to use any such cables, so RCD protection would probably be required for any buried standard T+E - which is what I now believe the OP was probably asking about.
It's a very strangely-worded reg (and does not "refer to new circuits"). The wording is is strange because it refers to "all circuits", rather than "each circuit". That means that, if one installs a new circuit and RCD protects it (leaving other circuits serving the room not RCD-protected), that would not satisfy the reg as worded.
We have discussed that to death and I think the general consensus is that, although what you say is strictly true in relation to BS7671 definitions, it makes no sense in relation to notification requirements, since that argument would make addition of anything fed via an FCU notifiable (in both England and Wales). However, as above, if you are thinking of 701.411.3.3, the wording is such that one cannot satisfy it by partially RCD protecting the circuits which serve a bathroom, anyway.
That's fair enough, but it does not necessarily correspond to what is required by regs. In any event, as I have said, I think that the OP probably needs some sort of RCD protection (RCD FCU or whatever) because of buried cables.
Kind Regards, John
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
