Light switch move.

[ianmacd]

Hi All.

I have been asked to move a light switch and currently the lighting is not RCD'd but the customer wants the cable in the wall as the existing one is. Should I be insisting the lighting goes on a RCD or would this be covered under the "make it no more worse" premiss as its currently embedded in plaster (less than 50mm deep)? The cable run will be within prescribed zones (vertically to the ceiling).

Thanks.

Ian.

 

[Andy™]

you are modifying the installation, so you would need to RCD the cable you move or earthed steel conduit or trunking.

 

[batty]

If you are chopping it in put a bit of galv earthed conduit in probably cheaper than Rcding circuit and you won't have problems if circuit has other faults on it ie borrowed neutrals or lives. Just put on mwc about not being Rcded.

Batty

 

[Andy™]

Just put on mwc about not being Rcded.Batty

why? do you often mark 'steel conduit not used because its RCD'd'?

circuit still complies with 7671, so no need

 

[batty]

why? do you often mark 'steel conduit not used because its RCD'd'?circuit still complies with 7671, so no need

But the rest of the circuit won't be its just an observation.

 

[Andy™]

But the rest of the circuit won't be its just an observation.

but you only need to make sure your part complies. so you can either RCD the circuit, or use earthed metal conduit for modifications, and your done. no deviations to note

 

[ianmacd]

Thanks Guys.

Ian.

 

[Mark2spark]

I think the other guys are right in the respect that the 'letter of the law', ie the regs 7671, demands that an rcd or rcbo appears... but I think I'd be tempted to do it as if it were 10 months ago

As far as i can see it can go on the MWC as a departure, as the LAW, ie Building Act 84 as amended, will cover you inasmuch as it's no worse... until someone puts a nail through it :_|

If you are moving it, and it's still within the same zone it was before, IMO it's arguable that a MWC even needs issuing.

Does anyone else do so if just re-fixing a back box? ?:|

 

[batty]

I think the other guys are right in the respect that the 'letter of the law', ie the regs 7671, demands that an rcd or rcbo appears... but I think I'd be tempted to do it as if it were 10 months ago As far as i can see it can go on the MWC as a departure, as the LAW, ie Building Act 84 as amended, will cover you inasmuch as it's no worse... until someone puts a nail through it :_|

If you are moving it, and it's still within the same zone it was before, IMO it's arguable that a MWC even needs issuing.

Does anyone else do so if just re-fixing a back box? ?:|

But you are altering the cable so it has to comply with 17th any way that is what I have been told by my part p provider.

Batty

 

[green-hornet]

Any alteration must comply with the current regulations irrespective of inconveniance.

A minor works certificate should be issued for any works not requiring a full EIC.

Without one your alteration does not and will not be compliant.

It is good practice to give a certificate it puts you above the cowboys who have no regard for their work other than to draw a quick buck.

Thats my opinion.

 

[sarni31]

Sorry to butt in on this thread but I get a little confused too on these minor alterations ...

my understanding is - an alteration at any point in a curcuit where cables are buried less than 50 mm deep or in a special location unless protected by earthed metal conduit are required to be rcd protected under 17th ed....

is that right ? ?:|

 

[Evans Electric]

The way I see the job is this. You are being asked to move a switch. The installation may have been done to the 13th ,14th ,15th, 16th editions and almost certainly not the 17th. Personally I would move the switch , end of story. I don't think we are supposed to be going round upgrading little bits of people's wiring by inserting RCDs into older installations, if it was done to the 16th it is as safe today as it was then.

I await the searchlights to spot me and the flak to start hurtling in my direction.

 

[Mark2spark]

But you are altering the cable so it has to comply with 17th any way that is what I have been told by my part p provider.Batty

Well, I wasn't sure if the cable was actually being altered Batty, I thought maybe just moved over a bit 40 - 50 mm? (cable not extended as it's long enough)

The rest of you, I hear you, can't argue against doing it 'properly' to the regs and all that, just think that I'd be tempted to simply move it like I would have done before the 17th... it would then be as safe as about 1000+ other houses I've wired :|

 

[Apache]

Well, I wasn't sure if the cable was actually being altered Batty, I thought maybe just moved over a bit 40 - 50 mm? (cable not extended as it's long enough)The rest of you, I hear you, can't argue against doing it 'properly' to the regs and all that, just think that I'd be tempted to simply move it like I would have done before the 17th... it would then be as safe as about 1000+ other houses I've wired :|

then shhhhhhhhh

and get on with it

 

[spinlondon]

If it's just a switch wire, why not replace it with some of that new fangled cable that incorporates an earthed metalic sheath?

Issue an MWC noting the defect of lack of RCD.

 

[Andy™]

2 metre of 8436 please...

response will either be 'thats

 

[sarni31]

thought Id read something on this ...

In the preface of BS7671 2008 - a note by the HSE

.... installations conforming to earlier editions and not complying with the current edition do not necessarily fail to achieve conformity with the EAWR89

Guiness Drink

 

[ianmacd]

It may be acceptable to EAWR but it would be a departure from BS7671:2008.

CCU seems to be 16th split load with 1 RCD so will just move the lighting mcb onto the RCD side. Unless I am missing something, that will then comply with 17th will it not?

Thanks.

Ian.

 

[sarni31]

sounds like a good solution to me..

 

[spinlondon]

It may be acceptable to EAWR but it would be a departure from BS7671:2008. CCU seems to be 16th split load with 1 RCD so will just move the lighting mcb onto the RCD side. Unless I am missing something, that will then comply with 17th will it not?

Thanks.

Ian.

You would then have to take into consideration Reg. 314.1. with regards to division of circuits to avoid danger and minimize inconvenience etc.