Completely daft situation

[Phoenix]

Doing a job in a small domestic property today, perioidic inspection and install an extractor fan in bathroom ceiling, board is an older wylex with 3871 breakers no RCD.... theres an RCD socket near the back door though, and I'm pondering between codes 2 and 4, was leaning towards two, and thinking I'll ask the QS for his take on it...

Anyway, at wholesalers getting bits for the fan, it hits me that I need to provide rcd protection for the fan I'm putting in the bathroom, so pick up a wylex 6A RCBO... schoolboy error... they don't fit in the older boards

Got me thinking, of how daft it is that I have to provide RCD in order to install a class 2 fan in a bathroom... ended up calling office, and agreeing that i) I'd do the job to 16th edition and note it as a deviation on cert ii) the RCD and socket thing is best called as a code 2, so we are going to suggest a board change

Just seems daft that I almost ended up installing RCD to lights when there isn't one on sockets... bloody 17th

 

[revjames]

We often have to go and fit extra sockets etc. If its already got RCd in DB we fit a standard socket if not we fit RCD socket outlet. Anything in a bathroom we make sure its RCD protected. You can get a FCU with RCD protection. Not sure if it could be in the bathroom though. Yes 17th PITA

 

[m4tty]

We often have to go and fit extra sockets etc. If its already got RCd in DB we fit a standard socket if not we fit RCD socket outlet. Anything in a bathroom we make sure its RCD protected. You can get a FCU with RCD protection. Not sure if it could be in the bathroom though. Yes 17th PITA

Hi Rev,

Sorry to jump in on this thread but if your adding a new socket to non rcd protected circuit dont you have to rcd the new cable as well as the socket outlet?

Im not picking just wondered if just the rcd socket is ok without rcding the new cable?

Thanks

 

[M107]

We often have to go and fit extra sockets etc. If its already got RCd in DB we fit a standard socket if not we fit RCD socket outlet.

I was under the impression that if you extend any circuit, you are to rcd the whole circuit & in the case of adding sockets just adding an srcd isnt acceptable anymore.

Could be wrong but sure I've seen it on some Q & A forum ESC/IET site some where.

As for the periodic I'd have gone with a 4 for lack of RCD.

The extractor fan you've installed it doesnt comply as 16th ed regs are no longer in use , & putting it down as a deveation is no excuse. Nothing wrong with putting a 30mA rcd next to the cu for the circuit you've worked on.

 

[batty]

If you are adding a socket that has to be RCD protected so cable would also need RCD protecting if its concealed in wall alternatively you could run it in an earthed conduit use swa or similar not likely in domestic though, use mini trunking or put RCD spur next to socket you are spuring off but probably most cost effective thing would be to RCD protect whole circuit in some way. This is ok if there are no faults on circuit.

 

[Theorysparky]

I was under the impression that if you extend any circuit, you are to rcd the whole circuit & in the case of adding sockets just adding an srcd isnt acceptable anymore.Could be wrong but sure I've seen it on some Q & A forum ESC/IET site some where.As for the periodic I'd have gone with a 4 for lack of RCD.

The extractor fan you've installed it doesnt comply as 16th ed regs are no longer in use , & putting it down as a deveation is no excuse. Nothing wrong with putting a 30mA rcd next to the cu for the circuit you've worked on.

This question was raised at the September trade show

IET said rcd the socket

NIC said rcd the lot

lack of rcd code 2

 

[M107]

No hope for us if those at the top of the tree cant agree.

 

[Doug]

... theres an RCD socket near the back door though, and I'm pondering between codes 2 and 4 ...

I presume you mean there's a non-RCD socket by the door.

... I need to provide rcd protection for the fan I'm putting in the bathroom ...

You could just use an RCD spur for the bathroom section of the circuit, or fit an inline fan.

 

[Andy™]

Doing a job in a small domestic property today, perioidic inspection and install an extractor fan in bathroom ceiling, board is an older wylex with 3871 breakers no RCD.... theres an RCD socket near the back door though, and I'm pondering between codes 2 and 4, was leaning towards two, and thinking I'll ask the QS for his take on it...Anyway, at wholesalers getting bits for the fan, it hits me that I need to provide rcd protection for the fan I'm putting in the bathroom, so pick up a wylex 6A RCBO... schoolboy error... they don't fit in the older boards

Got me thinking, of how daft it is that I have to provide RCD in order to install a class 2 fan in a bathroom... ended up calling office, and agreeing that i) I'd do the job to 16th edition and note it as a deviation on cert ii) the RCD and socket thing is best called as a code 2, so we are going to suggest a board change

Just seems daft that I almost ended up installing RCD to lights when there isn't one on sockets... bloody 17th

you should be working to 17th ed, installing to 16th and making a note is not something i would find acceptable. id like to see you prove in court that your deviation was to the same level of safety as if you had done the work to 17th

as for PIR code, if there is an RCD socket for outside use, then id code 4 the lack of RCD to sockets. otherwise, 2

Hi Rev,Sorry to jump in on this thread but if your adding a new socket to non rcd protected circuit dont you have to rcd the new cable as well as the socket outlet?

Im not picking just wondered if just the rcd socket is ok without rcding the new cable?

Thanks

the new work should be RCD'd. if the wiring is surface (/other conditions), then the cable may not require an RCD, and so RCD socket can be used. but if cable is buried in wall etc, then the cable will require RCD, so pointless using RCD socket

No hope for us if those at the top of the tree cant agree.

last time i checked, IET made the regs - not the NIC. so whats the confusion?

 

[PBC_1966]

This is the sort of situation where the RCD-mad 17th edition and the new rules clash with a common-sense application of what's reasonable in the circumstances.

Is it reasonable to add an RCD spur unit just to run a few feet of cable in the wall to a new socket when the rest of the installation doesn't have an RCD in sight? It seems completely disproportionate, and when the various organizations insist that it's imperative to do that, it results in what anyone who looks at the result logically can only regard as being rather silly: It's absolutely essential that RCD protection be provided for this socket, when one 4 ft. away isn't protected, and it's absolutely essential to provide RCD protection for that 4 ft. of cable when there are yards of cable in the rest of the room not so protected?

So it won't comply with the crazy 17th edition, but in such a situation I really don't see a problem with forgetting about the RCD and noting it as a deviation on the grounds that adding RCD protection would be disproportionate.

No RCD on the rest of the sockets would be nothing more than code 4 in my opinion.

 

[bluetof]

This is the sort of situation where the RCD-mad 17th edition and the new rules clash with a common-sense application of what's reasonable in the circumstances.Is it reasonable to add an RCD spur unit just to run a few feet of cable in the wall to a new socket when the rest of the installation doesn't have an RCD in sight? It seems completely disproportionate, and when the various organizations insist that it's imperative to do that, it results in what anyone who looks at the result logically can only regard as being rather silly: It's absolutely essential that RCD protection be provided for this socket, when one 4 ft. away isn't protected, and it's absolutely essential to provide RCD protection for that 4 ft. of cable when there are yards of cable in the rest of the room not so protected?

So it won't comply with the crazy 17th edition, but in such a situation I really don't see a problem with forgetting about the RCD and noting it as a deviation on the grounds that adding RCD protection would be disproportionate.

No RCD on the rest of the sockets would be nothing more than code 4 in my opinion.

:Applaud :Applaud:Applaud:Applaud:Applaud:Applaud:Applaud:Applaud:Applaud

 

[spinlondon]

Given a choice between the IET, and the NIC. I would take the IET's advice, considering it is them that writes the Regs.

The Regs. require socket-outlets, cables concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm and circuits of special locations to be RCD protected.

They also require that your work meets the current Regs.

So if installing a new socket-outlet, that socket-outlet has to be protected, nothing else on the existing circuit has to be.

If you are installing new cable for that Socket-outlet, then that cable must also be protected only if itis concealed in a wall at a depth less than 50mm.

It is only in special locations that circuits must be protected, and to be honest, I do not believe that using and RCD FCU off of an existing circuit would meets the requirement of the Regs.

I wouldn't code lack of RCD protection to socket-outlets as 2, if there is an RCD protected socket-outlet that is obviously for using equipment outdoors.

 

[PBC_1966]

They also require that your work meets the current Regs.

As a private organization, the IET can't require you to do anything.

It is only in special locations that circuits must be protected

Huh? The 17th edition says that all cables within walls not at the specified depth or otherwise protected should now be RCD protected. It's not limited to special locations.

I do not believe that using and RCD FCU off of an existing circuit would meets the requirement of the Regs.

Why not? A 30mA RCD spur unit is still a 30mA RCD.

 

[spinlondon]

Sorry Paul, are you having trouble reading, eyesight going?

I never said the IET require, I said the Regs. require.

The requirement is for cables to be protected if they are concealed at a depth less than 50mm.

That is not the same as circuits with cables.....

The only time circuits are mentioned in the Regs. is for special locations.

Using an RCD FCU, would not protect the circuit, only part of the circuit.

You're becoming as bad as OMS.

 

[PBC_1966]

Sorry, it's getting late after a tiring day and I obviously wasn't paying attention closely enough!

Re-reading what you said, I see the point you were making about circuits in special locations as opposed to cables being protected everywhere.

I also took "they also require" to be referring to the IET, not the Regs. themselves as you meant.

On the overall theme though, I still think far too much fuss is being made about RCD's in general, so I find it somewhat academic about whether extending a circuit in a special location requires the entire circuit to be RCD protected, or only the addition. (Of course, if you're Mark Coles, the only solution is to rewire the entire house to the 17th edition when adding a bathroom light..... )

 

[spinlondon]

I take it you are refering to Mark's piece in the Spring edition of Wiring Matters.

I wonder if he'll ever live that down?

I must admit I was quite suprised when I read his article, I was even more suprised that the IET published it.

His argument seems to be based around the whole circuit requiring RCD protection, whereas it is only the socket-outlet, and perhaps any new cable that requires the protection.

If he was refering to a bathroom circuit, then I would agree with him, but not for any other circuit.

Shame really, I think he has forever dented his credibillity with that article.

 

[Andy™]

You're becoming as bad as OMS.

?

 

[Phoenix]

OMS is a poster on the IEEs forum, who is occaisonaly accused of having his head in the clouds

 

[tom1]

just one sec, if its a bathroom ceiling then isnt the actual fan outside the bathroom in the loft?

 

[Andy™]

inline fans would be outside the bathroom, but other fans wont be