Additions and alterations are going to be costly....

Have you seen the latest edition of Wiring Matters from the IET - Spring 09, issue 7?

If not then have a read of this article I've uploaded in pdf format to Megaupload concerning additions and alterations.....

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FF6QFV05

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?tmtwznmmnzm

Can't read the stupiiiid 4 letter symbol.

What's the jist of what your posting ?

Chri5 said:

Can't read the stupiiiid 4 letter symbol.

What's the jist of what your posting ?

Click to expand...

Basically it explains a potential situation where an extra socket is required to a first floor 16th edition ring final which isn't RCD protected.
It argues the need for full compliance of the circuit, not just the new cabling and socket outlet.

I've added an alternative link to Mediafire.

I think this has always been the case. We seem as soon as any new regulation comes out instead of saying I now must do that we say to get around it I can do this.

I can not see a way to read the regulations which will allow lighting and sockets to be combined on the same final protection device unless some form of battery back up is used yet we know this is how the manufactures have considered the regulations can be met with duel RCD's

We also have organisations like the Electrical Safety Council telling us how to deal with houses with no earth on the lighting circuit. This clearly does not comply with the regulations.

However pavement markings tell us no loading or unloading yet most Taxi's will pick up and drop off. And life is full of places where we need to break the rules. However we must realise we are breaking the rules and if the Taxi driver is given a ticket he has to accept the fine. And the same way if we break the rules then we must face the consequences if it all goes pear shaped.

There is a post on here See here to read about earth on lights where some guy has broke the rules to do his best to get someone out of a hole and two years down the line he has done nothing to correct the problem and is complaining of here about the guy who got him out of a hole.

Don't get me wrong Eric - I agree with the requirement to bring the whole circuit up to current regulations but along with that will be a cost implication which is going to make things more difficult especially when quoting against so called 'electricians' who choose to ignore the requirement out of ignorance or purely to win jobs.

Wasn't it the ESC who wrote a guide to additions and alterations to existing circuits which now seems to have disappeared?

http://www.esc.org.uk/forum/index.html

lol

..

The ESC document is still there I did include link in last post.

And yes it is a problem. And in real world one has to break the rules. But my point is you have to realise you are breaking the rules and not try to kid yourself you can do it without redress.

As a non registered electrician I could change a consumer unit and say I has planned to change it in 2002 but only just got around to doing it.

All I would be doing is kidding myself! I am sure if something went wrong and LABC were informed they would not accept that as valid reason for not notifying.

Same as painting my aerial black and white and then only buying black and white licence for TV.

If we break the rules we must realise we are breaking them. The problem for us is Part P as either some guy from LABC will inspect or it can be inspected by what every club one belongs to.

So it is like the Taxi driver not only dropping someone off on pavement markings but also entering on his job sheet that he dropped off someone in no loading or unloading area.

So 9 years later some ***** official can drag you over the coals for what you did.

I had a disagreement with a firm installing an over head skip system which dropped 1/2 ton of concrete into the hopper of a press.

When I wrote the spec I left it quite open and said it must have at least the same safety features of system it replaced and comply with BS 7671 unless agreed in writing otherwise.

When made a fault in design allowed the concrete to be under fault conditions be dumped on the operator instead of in the hopper which I wanted to installer to modify the system to prevent this happening as it could not happen with previous system. The mods would not be cheap.

I was told by safety officer this must happen within the year as if it went outside the year the total responsibility would rest on my firm and even before that date we would be partly responsible for any accident.

I would hope the reverse is also true that where we do something where it is known a fault exists that there is some limitation as to how long we are responsible for accidents as a result.

Main problem is when one can't connect something for example one pulls in a cable which gets snagged and realise it needs to come back out as likely damaged but one is made redundant next day.

At the end of the day that why we have insurance. Was it some Irish guys law!

holmslaw said:

Biggest load of b******* I've ever read - a couple of examples.

The regs give an easy way out for adding sockets, they can be rcd protected, why drone on about "if" an rcd is not provided.

He says you have to make sure the dno cables and head comply with the regs - the regs do not apply to those parts.

Later more nonsense, that if your system does not comply with 17th regs you are in breach of the EAW act.

He would be laughed out of court - w*****.

Click to expand...

I think menrea spelling may be wrong. If one intends to break the rules or one does by accident. And to show you intended to do it completely within the rules one would have to quote what rules allow one to do it.

So for DNO if you informed the DNO work was required and subsequently they did not do it then you would be in clear however if you did not inform the DNO or did it without doing it in writing you could be in trouble.

The EAW act covers anyone working even self employed so if you installed a socket and failed to add a RCD and electrocuted yourself then it would cover. But once you have left the house no it would not unless it electrocuted the plumber who followed you!

But it is unworkable. If I go into a factory I am shown a board and told you can connect into there I want a socket here.

There is no way I can be expected to trace the whole supply back to the head or supply transformer. In may places I would not be authorised to enter all areas and it would be impossible. As soon as you look at the industrial location it is impossible. However although my boss did not turn on the machine while I was working on it he was still responsible and his boss also bore some of the responsibility. And the firms insurance paid out. Thank goodness. And that's life even though we can't do anything about it we are still held responsible.

Car slides on the ice and hits something it was your fault for not fitting ice tyres and spikes! Theory yes practice no and we know although you will be held responsible and your insurance pays you will not be accused of dangerous driving.

So what he says is true but non of us will take any notice except maybe insure we are insured.

holmslaw said:

He says you have to make sure the dno cables and head comply with the regs - the regs do not apply to those parts.

Click to expand...

This bit? If so then he has a point.


131.8 No addition or alteration, temporary or permanent, shall be made to an existing installation, unless it has been ascertained that the rating and the condition of any existing equipment, including that of the distributor, will be adequate for the altered circumstances. Furthermore, the earthing and bonding arrangements, if necessary for the protective measure applied for the safety of the addition or alteration, shall be adequate.

The Regulation requires that if you plan to make any changes, the existing installation must be in such a condition which will be suitable for the intended alteration. As is stated, this includes:

■ the equipment belonging to the distributor - e.g. the condition and size of the supply cable, the District Network Operator's (DNO) cutout (sometimes referred to as the "head"), metering equipment, supply and meter-tails

■ distribution equipment -switchboard, consumer unit, etc., and

■ the earthing and bonding arrangements.

If any part of the installation intended to be altered is not suitable it must be brought up to standard - the standard being BS 7671:2008. Where equipment belonging to the distributor or metering company is not suitable for the altered circumstance, i.e. the tails are undersized or the equipment is damaged with exposed live parts, the installer must ensure that the equipment is in a safe condition before undertaking the installation work. In most cases, it will be necessary to arrange for the distributor and/or metering company to attend site and make the changes; this type of work will usually incur a charge.

..

Where it is known that a document has fundamental faults how can any part of the document be relied upon.

522.6.x refers to cables buried in walls. Anyone with a little sense knows you can't protect a SELV supply either by earthed sheaf or by an RCD. Yet there is nothing to say this type of supply is exempt.

So where other parts of BS7671:2008 also do not seem to make sense it is reasonable to read into the regulation what would seem to be what it was intended to say.

And 633.2 is quoted with words like reasonably practicable. This continues,
514.14.1 condones using two different versions of the regulations in as far as cable colours so why not in other area's

And on any of the certificates for minor works it asks for comments on existing installation it does not ask you to sign to say the existing is OK.

For installation the extent covered by certificate.

To extent a ring he has a small point in that the ELI must be reduced due to the work but lets face it. It is impossible to extend a ring and have the new parts covered by RCD protection without also protecting to whole of the ring. OK maybe if you use Ali-tube cable and RCD sockets maybe but unlikely in most cases.

Adding a spur will not adversely effect the reading on the existing ring and it is far more likely to fit spurs than an extension to a ring with all RCD sockets.

So if the installation extent is from DB9 to the 32A socket in prep room. Then anything before DB9 may be entered in comments on existing installation but has nothing to do with certificate. So long as DB9 has a big enough supply and the ELI and PFC comply no need to trace cable back to transformer.

ericmark said:

To extent a ring he has a small point in that the ELI must be reduced due to the work but lets face it. It is impossible to extend a ring and have the new parts covered by RCD protection without also protecting to whole of the ring. OK maybe if you use Ali-tube cable and RCD sockets maybe but unlikely in most cases.

Click to expand...

How about extending a lighting circuit fed from a BS3036 consumer unit where switch drops are going to be buried less than 50mm and not covered by earthed metallic conduit etc. Or a new en-suite has just been created which is going to be fed off an existing lighting circuit.
Many would have installed an RCD fused spur to supply the additions but Mark is now saying that the whole circuit show be compliant with BS7671:2008 meaning any existing switch drops which are going to be at a depth of less than 50 mm will require additional protection, probably via a 30mA RCD.

Ban-all-sheds said:

It's madness.

And it's even worse than GaryMo suggests - try applying exactly the same argument to the addition of a pendant light to an existing installation. No switch is to be added - the light is to be connected to an existing rose to come on at the same time.

The house has a single lighting circuit and a Wylex rewirable CU with no spare ways. And let's say that there are no complications of flaky wiring, no lighting circuit cpc etc - everything is fine on those fronts.

If Mark Coles is right you're going to have to do a significant amount of rewiring to split the lighting circuit and either replace the Wylex CU or introduce a second one alongside it. All to add a £1 item.

And I wonder if he's thought through this:

Conclusion
When carrying out additions or
alterations to existing electrical
installations, the reconfigured
aspect of the electrical
installation should comply with
BS 7671:2008. The installer
does not simply take
responsibility for the newly
installed or reconfigured
element of the installation but
all parts of the circuit(s)
worked on.

So therefore given 522.6.5 - 522.6.8, unless you know where all the cables in any existing circuit run you may not do any work on it. So adding that £1 pendant is going to mean lifting all the floors, to check that cables are more than 50mm down, and exposing everything in the walls to ensure that there's nothing where it shouldn't be. RCD protection is not a way to make cables concealed in the wrong places compliant.

Click to expand...

Seems BAS has a problem! And he really does have a point. In industry I will often find a plan of system as yet never come across on in the home.
As I said before I think Mark Coles is trying to read too much into what the requirements say.

Obviously BAS's post existed as Eric quoted it but where has it gone?

..