Would you demand a new consumer unit if no RCD included?

[martinxxxxxx]

I normally hand out the BPGs and let the customer decide after a bit of discussion, but a pal of mine says he refuses to work for anyone who does not accept a new CU is required if there is a non dual rcd one when he quotes jobs.

What would you think is the right approach?

Martin

 

[JohnnyG]

Why does your mate think a dual rcd board needs to be in use anyway?

 

[plugwash]

IMO the right approach is that all new wiring should be to 17th edition standards but it's not your job to force people to have circuits that you aren't touching upgraded. It is usually possible to add RCD protection to an existing circuit without replacing the CU and there are ways of installing 17th edition compliant wiring on a non-rcd circuit.

P.S. I think dual RCD consumer units like the split load ones that preceeded them are a poor soloution that doesn't comply with the spirit of the regs and it's arguable whether they comply with the letter (in particular with the part on minimising inconviniance). They are NOT the only way to comply with the 17th edition.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

a pal of mine says he refuses to work for anyone who does not accept a new CU is required if there is a non dual rcd one when he quotes jobs.

Is he very busy?

Has he been reported to Trading Standards yet?

Has anyone complained to his registration body yet?

 

[1john]

Your pal is an idiot, the circuit you work on has to comply, also bonding must be in place. I think all installations should comply with the 17th. A dual RCD board is the bare minimum way of acheiving this.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

a pal of mine says he refuses to work for anyone who does not accept a new CU is required if there is a non dual rcd one when he quotes jobs.

Is he very busy?

Has he been reported to Trading Standards yet?

Has anyone complained to his registration body yet?

I don't know if he is very busy, but he says is is ****sed off with the domestic side as everyone wants the cheapest job and he loses a lot of work by trying to stick to the letter of the law (sic)

I understand that the other two questions are in the negative.

His view is that any socket in a house could reasonably be used to supply a piece of equipment for outside use and therefore it is a code 2 for it not to be rcd protected.

Martin

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Your pal is an idiot, the circuit you work on has to comply, also bonding must be in place. I think all installations should comply with the 17th. A dual RCD board is the bare minimum way of acheiving this.

You seem to contradict yourself

Have you accidentally missed out the word "new" in this sentence your wrote- I think all installations should comply with the 17th.

Martin

 

[Risteard]

Your pal is an idiot, the circuit you work on has to comply, also bonding must be in place. I think all installations should comply with the 17th. A dual RCD board is the bare minimum way of acheiving this.

I would argue that a single RCCB may not necessarily be non-compliant. By the same token, I would argue that two RCCBs may not be compliant.

Conduct a risk assessment.

But talk of "17th Edition boards" is frankly a nonsense.

 

[securespark]

His view is that any socket in a house could reasonably be used to supply a piece of equipment for outside use and therefore it is a code 2 for it not to be rcd protected.[/quote]

His view is not that of the majority of electricians.