doing my head in......new lights + 17th

[batty]

My missus helps with bookwork. I did get her to help me on a job the other day on a consumer unit change. The tails were only 16mm it took me ages to to feed the 25 mm up the cavity as you could only do about 6 inches at a time. I finally pulled the brown through and it was about 8 inches short and that was the last bit on my van. So i rang her up and she brought another reel out. I got her to feed the tails through it saved loads of time. We have an apprentice in the making.

batty

 

[kme]

Thats what Mrs. KME was doing. Sadly, arthritis has stopped her having such an active role; but she still keeps abrest of the theory side; as well as book-keeper for the business, AND she`ll get anything I need, and bring it to the site.

 

[batty]

sounds like you've got a good one there.

batty

 

[kme]

sounds like you've got a good one there.batty

Pray:x:x:x:x:x

You`ll have to exsqueeze me 1 moment please - I need an `arfer, and my Guinness glass has gone transparent - needs remedial work.

 

[Theorysparky]

RCD still req`d - because we`re STILL in a bathroom!You`d be correct, mate.

Theo - I`d be bunging the D/L`s on an rcbo, OR RCD spur if you can mount one in an appropriate yet accessible position?

Kme

cheers mate,,,,when i first saw the set up that was my first thought,,,

clarified the regs for some people

additions/alerations = rcd protection

rcd for both jobs plus bonding upgrade

 

[kme]

No problem Theo

 

[professional]

they do, so as he is in fact adding another 3 lights into the bathroom they will need to be rcd protected

Please explain why - if the lights are LV, suitably IP rated, SEB installed and the new cables are all in the ceiling space, where is rcd protection required?

 

[professional]

whether you are installing new drops or not..on your certificate..

are you not signing that the circuit you have modified complies with current regs!

other unaltered circuits remain as is..

But your modified circuit all aspect should be to current regs!

what maz Zs values or Volt drop or R1+R2 Ins res, earth continuity etc..

surely these encompass the whole circuit.. not just your new bits of cable??

just add and extra

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

.............If socket outlets are removed and that part of the circuit by-passed by installing JB`s under the floor (say) then all of your ALTERATIONS to the circuit are in safe zones and so are compliant without the use of an rcd.

Alterations to a circuit (NOT always altered circuits) must be 17th Edition compliant in cases such as these.

And in this example where you are by-passing old accessories & cable..

You have changed the characteristics of the whole circuit!

But if you are only signing for the alteration..

(the bit off cable you took out and chucked in the bin)..

you would not be testing & signing to verify Zs, R1+R2, Polarity, Ins Res etc..

are all still compliant for the remainder of the existing circuit you have altered..

The COMMON SENSE approach is to verify the whole circuit you have altered is to current regs!

rather than trying to isolate bits off.

job dun!

cuz how else can you verify that your alteration has not adversely affected the modified circuit???

 

[steptoe]

you must NEVER leave a circuit in a more dangerous condition than that which you found it.

can you sleepat night knowing that you have left a circuit you worked on to the previous edition of BS7671?

personally I dont have any qualms, thats what the deviation box is for and I think its gonna get hammered for the next few years.

do you or dont you?

IMHO, if you carry out work of ANY description on ANY circuit and DONT ensure that circuit meets BS7671/2008 in every respect then you MUST record this as a deviation.

 

[professional]

This argument will never end.

I have had conformation by various parties over several weeks that as long as the alterations to a circuit comply with the 17th Ed regs you do not have to upgrade the protective device for the whole circuit. True you have to verify the integrity and readings for the whole circuit but the actual cert is for the alteration, not the whole circuit. If you want more info speak to DCLG or the IET NOT your scheme provider/ESC. The IET/DCLG will tell you what you must do, your scheme provider will tell you what they would like you to do!

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

This argument will never end.I have had conformation by various parties over several weeks that as long as the alterations to a circuit comply with the 17th Ed regs you do not have to upgrade the protective device for the whole circuit. True you have to verify the integrity and readings for the whole circuit but the actual cert is for the alteration, not the whole circuit. If you want more info speak to DCLG or the IET NOT your scheme provider/ESC. The IET/DCLG will tell you what you must do, your scheme provider will tell you what they would like you to do!

Don't see there is any argument..

as said earlier

The COMMON SENSE approach is to verify the whole circuit you have altered is to current regs!

which worst case waz an extra

 

[professional]

Or adding socket to garage or downstairs .. NO RCD so either mod curcuit at CU.. or stick RCD socket outlet?

It is not only the socket outlet that needs rcd protection but (due to the 17th Ed) the cable feeding it (most likely) so using an rcd socket outlet may well not comply in such circumstances.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

. True you have to verify the integrity and readings for the whole circuit

but the actual cert is for the alteration, not the whole circuit.

yet the integrity reading are put on the cert.. RE the whole circuit???

you dont just test your alteration..

and your alteration can alter the characteristic of the whole circuit...

e.g. add too much new cable under a floor extending a circuit..

no RCD issue.. you bit of cable only 20m long...

but now added to original circuit Zs exceeded???

You still have to assess the rating & condition of existing equipment comprising the circuit you are modifying! 131.8

which is the "Existing" not just your new bit!

If you want more info speak to DCLG or the IET NOT your scheme provider/ESC. The IET/DCLG will tell you what you must do, your scheme provider will tell you what they would like you to do!

At the end of the day..

The BUCK stops a who's name is on the cert..

NOT any scheme providers.. or IET/DCLG

at numerous points in the regs. the onus is placed back on the designer & installer & tester of the installation and/or alteration,

who makes a judgement based on the individual installation circumstances..

using their expertise as a "Competent Person"..

As Steptoe often reminds us....

You name on the cert.. You will be the one the book is thrown at if you are negligent & someone is injured!

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Or adding socket to garage or downstairs .. NO RCD so either mod curcuit at CU.. or stick RCD socket outlet?It is not only the socket outlet that needs rcd protection but (due to the 17th Ed) the cable feeding it (most likely) so using an rcd socket outlet may well not comply in such circumstances.

Yes you are now agreeing you do need to test & certify the whole modified circuit..

I was just point out ON 16TH RCD socket outlet wasn't a problem to charge the customer..

Not much cost difference to an RCBO me things

 

[Voltimax]

From the Electrical safety council website.

Question:

Do socket-outlets added to an existing installation in domestic premises have to be RCD-protected?

Answer:

Where socket-outlets are added to an existing circuit that is not already RCD-protected, either the circuit will need to have RCD protection added, or the new socket-outlets must incorporate RCD protection (except for a socket-outlet designated for a particular item of equipment, such as a freezer).

Question:

A socket-outlet is to be added to an existing circuit. The work is not being carried out in a special location and the existing circuit has no RCD protection. The new socket-outlet is to be flush mounted 150 mm horizontally from an existing socket-outlet, and connected with wiring concealed in the wall. What is reasonably expected for the installer to do to comply with the 17th Edition?

Answer:

A socket-outlet that is added to an existing circuit will need to have RCD protection (except for a socket-outlet designated for a particular item of equipment, such as a freezer).

In addition, if the wiring that is used to extend the existing circuit is concealed in the wall, then at least the extended part of the existing circuit will need to be suitably protected (by RCD or other means).

Why are you guys then saying that the whole of an altered circuit needs to have RCD protection under the 17th? The ESC clearly do not agree with you. Or are we only talking bathroom circuits here?

 

[professional]

Trailer Boy -

I agree with what you say but I think that many rcd`s are being installed because of paranoia and misinformation NOT because they are actually required to comply with the regs.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Why are you guys then saying that the whole of an altered circuit needs to have RCD protection under the 17th? The ESC clearly do not agree with you. Or are we only talking bathroom circuits here?

Not saying it has to be.. Just real world practical situation

Probably easier to sick an RCBO @ the CU..

rather than mounting it in the middle of MR & MRS Posh nicely decorated dinning room??? just to protect one or two sockets...

AND if you then have to go back in 6months to add another socket in another room..

RCD already in at the CU!

We are just talking PRACTICAL COMMON SENSE...

I have lots of customer where to go back doing future work...

don't want to have loads of RCDs scattered around the house!

Not economical in the long run!

 

[Voltimax]

Well in some cases you will indeed be filling the house with stand alone RCDs. There are a lot of households out there that have modern consumer units that are unable to take RCBO's . Would your practical solution be then to install a new consumer unit?

I agree fully that an RCD on the wall of a bedroom will look bad. However you and others have argued elsewhere that you HAVE to install an RCD so as to bring the whole circuit up to 17th when clearly this is not the case.

 

[professional]

e.g. Cheggars - `they do, so as he is in fact adding another 3 lights into the bathroom they will need to be rcd protected`

This is not automatically the case is it? My stance was based purely on the regs and I was told that I was clearly wrong - which I was not.

I think it is very important not to confuse the requirements of the regs with practicality/your preferences.