need rcd?

[Badger]

and the fact that the wiring is buried in the wall ???

 

[NozSpark]

If I understand correctly then the Pro is suggesting that if the cable extension is directly from the old socket to the new socket, which is now only say 4" in front of the old sockets position, then the cable won't need RCD protection.... just like feeding a fused spur back to back from an existing socket??

I can agree with that, but I think that bonding still needs to be checked to see if it needs upgrading.... I'm not saying that it must be 10mm, 6mm is ok under certain circumstances as we know, but it must be there!

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

RE the Bonding...

its how you want to interpret reg 131.8 page 16...

Which starts of..

"No addition or alteration, temporary or permanent. shall be made to an existing installation, unless...... "

blah .... blah.... blah....

Then goes...

"Furthermore, the earthing and bonding arrangements, if necessary for the protective measure applied for the safety of the addition or alteration, shall be adequate"

So if your work constitutes an addition OR alteration.. to an existing installation.. whether temporary OR permanent..

You need to suss out what protective measure is being used for that circuit you are ammending...

If its an installation to older regs using 'EEBADS'...

You need to ensure the 'EEB' bit is up to the job!

If its a newer installation to current regs using 'ADS'

you need to ensure the 'ADS' is covered adequately by the guidance in section 411 (starting pg 45)

Particularly 411.3.1.2 protective Equipotential Bonding

etc...

well thats how I read 131.8 anyway...

others may interpret differently?

:coffee

 

[professional]

What about the fact its a socket in a dwelling? You seem to have missed that.

The sockets were already in service with the cables buried in the wall - without rcd protection. The proposed work is to move them forward a few inches, that`s all!

If anyone could explain to me HOW the installation will be less safe if the suggested work is carried out I would love to hear it. The actual alteration is only to extend the cables forward a few inches BEHIND the sockets. This can not possibly warrant the installation of bonding, beyond a comment on the MW Cert.

Is it really all that surprising that people are choosing to do work themselves rather than having to pay to comply with illogical regulations

This tired old bulls**t about "RCD everything" must be tempered with some common sense - before we know it, someone will be suggesting that we carry out a visual inspection whilst changing a light bulb!

I really, really worry when supposedly intelligent people refer to the regs before thinking for themselves - but common sense is so rare........

 

[steptoe]

The sockets were already in service with the cables buried in the wall - without rcd protection. The proposed work is to move them forward a few inches, that`s all!If anyone could explain to me HOW the installation will be less safe if the suggested work is carried out I would love to hear it. The actual alteration is only to extend the cables forward a few inches BEHIND the sockets. This can not possibly warrant the installation of bonding, beyond a comment on the MW Cert.

Is it really all that surprising that people are choosing to do work themselves rather than having to pay to comply with illogical regulations

This tired old bulls**t about "RCD everything" must be tempered with some common sense - before we know it, someone will be suggesting that we carry out a visual inspection whilst changing a light bulb!

I really, really worry when supposedly intelligent people refer to the regs before thinking for themselves - but common sense is so rare........

well I wouldnt always call myself intelligent,(some others may well say thick).

but one thing I never do is quote the Big Red Comic unless really prompted and I can be bothered to look.

common sense and the ability to realise how things work is sadly lacking a lot sometimes.

 

[Badger]

i would say professional trades people are just covering their own backsides in case something goes wrong

 

[professional]

i would say professional trades people are just covering their own backsides in case something goes wrong

There has been more a**e covering since the scams allowed the untrained/unqualified to enter. A tradesman should be able to distinguish between what he HAS to do and what he would PREFER to do if the customer can be persuaded - and should be capable of advising the customer accordingly.

Domestic premises are becoming the unsupervised training grounds of the sector - this is not fair on the customer! They have a right of "reasonable expectation" that the unsupervised individual carrying out the work has been ALREADY undergone SUPERVISED TRAINING. I cannot see the logic in a system that allows totally untrained/unqualified individuals (who are largely unemployable to a company) to work unsupervised in domestic premises!

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

.............If anyone could explain to me HOW the installation will be less safe if the suggested work is carried out I would love to hear it. The actual alteration is only to extend the cables forward a few inches BEHIND the sockets. This can not possibly warrant the installation of bonding, beyond a comment on the MW Cert...........

If there was NO existing bonding in place... Then it most certainly should be put into place..

See earlier post#23 also reg 131.8 page 16... This was something like 130-09 in the older flavors of regs..

To parphrase some one I once heard...

"I really, really worry when supposedly intelligent people refer to themselves without any consideration of basic safety related regulations that have been in place for many years, but common sense is so rare........"



If an installation is already less safe than it could be and a qualified electrician comes to do some work...

but leaves significant dangers still in place then....

YES it could be argued that the installation is MORE unsafe than previously

because ....

The customer would reasonably expect that the installation is now OK because a proper electrician came to do the work!

So as per the guidance in the regs we should verify earthing and bonding are up to scratch.......

We don't want any of those tragedies of persons being electrocuted because bonding not in place.... :|

But then perhaps I am just one of the no-brain, unemployable, no qualification self employed fly-by nights that you don't like! :C

so perhaps my coments should be ignored:Blushing

(shall I post my CV & qualifications?) :|

 

[Badger]

If there was NO existing bonding in place... Then it most certainly should be put into place..See earlier post#23 also reg 131.8 page 16... This was something like 130-09 in the older flavors of regs..

To parphrase some one I once heard...

"I really, really worry when supposedly intelligent people refer to themselves without any consideration of basic safety related regulations that have been in place for many years, but common sense is so rare........"



If an installation is already less safe than it could be and a qualified electrician comes to do some work...

but leaves significant dangers still in place then....

YES it could be argued that the installation is MORE unsafe than previously

because ....

The customer would reasonably expect that the installation is now OK because a proper electrician came to do the work!

So as per the guidance in the regs we should verify earthing and bonding are up to scratch.......

We don't want any of those tragedies of persons being electrocuted because bonding not in place.... :|

But then perhaps I am just one of the no-brain, unemployable, no qualification self employed fly-by nights that you don't like! :C

so perhaps my coments should be ignored:Blushing

(shall I post my CV & qualifications?) :|

if you could that would be excellent :^O :^O :coat

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Domestic premises are becoming the unsupervised training grounds of the sector - this is not fair on the customer! They have a right of "reasonable expectation" that the unsupervised individual carrying out the work has been ALREADY undergone SUPERVISED TRAINING. I cannot see the logic in a system that allows totally untrained/unqualified individuals (who are largely unemployable to a company) to work unsupervised in domestic premises!

I would be very interested to hear which of the approved contractor schemes allow persons in without any qualifications??

?:|

If you seriously think that a majority of electricians carrying out domestic work are unskilled and untrained then I think you are getting a little out of touch there.

In ALL sectors of business, Domestic/Commercial/Industrial etc.. etc.. there are a minority that are not fully up to the mark..

But in general the majority are honest, hard working, skilled, qualified and dedicated to doing a good top quality job for their customers,

(whomever they happen to be domestic or commercial)

And quite a few of them debate various topics on this here forum!

I shall now go and have a cuppa!

:coffee

 

[professional]

I would be very interested to hear which of the approved contractor schemes allow persons in without any qualifications?? ?:|

If you seriously think that a majority of electricians carrying out domestic work are unskilled and untrained then I think you are getting a little out of touch there.

In ALL sectors of business, Domestic/Commercial/Industrial etc.. etc.. there are a minority that are not fully up to the mark..

But in general the majority are honest, hard working, skilled, qualified and dedicated to doing a good top quality job for their customers,

(whomever they happen to be domestic or commercial)

And quite a few of them debate various topics on this here forum!

I shall now go and have a cuppa!

:coffee

ALL Schemes have members that possess nothing more than a regs qualification BUT NO QUALIFICATIONS IN INSTALLATION - indeed there are Approved Contractors that have exactly this!

I would agree that the majority of sparks ARE "honest, hard working, skilled, qualified and dedicated to doing a good top quality job for their customers" - I do not believe that I EVER stated that the majority of sparks were anything else - however, I feel that they are being overshadowed by the "chancers" that would never have entered the industry if not for the 5-day wonder courses so beloved of the get rich quick "training providers".

What is the point of any system that can`t even guarantee that any individual who works unsupervised is a trained and qualified spark?

I fully agree that any significant change to an electrical system warrants consideration of elevated risk due to the proposed work BUT in many cases the regs are used to generate additional work simply because the spark does not fully understand what they are doing and expects the customer to incur additional costs to allow for this deficiency.

Please explain HOW the risk can be any higher after moving a couple of socket front a few inches further from the wall WITHOUT referring to the regs........

 

[Badger]

ALL Schemes have members that possess nothing more than a regs qualification BUT NO QUALIFICATIONS IN INSTALLATION - indeed there are Approved Contractors that have exactly this!I would agree that the majority of sparks ARE "honest, hard working, skilled, qualified and dedicated to doing a good top quality job for their customers" - I do not believe that I EVER stated that the majority of sparks were anything else - however, I feel that they are being overshadowed by the "chancers" that would never have entered the industry if not for the 5-day wonder courses so beloved of the get rich quick "training providers".

What is the point of any system that can`t even guarantee that any individual who works unsupervised is a trained and qualified spark?

I fully agree that any significant change to an electrical system warrants consideration of elevated risk due to the proposed work BUT in many cases the regs are used to generate additional work simply because the spark does not fully understand what they are doing and expects the customer to incur additional costs to allow for this deficiency.

Please explain HOW the risk can be any higher after moving a couple of socket front a few inches further from the wall WITHOUT referring to the regs........

wiring is still hidden from view and there fore not known where the route of that cabling is

 

[steptoe]

ALL Schemes have members that possess nothing more than a regs qualification BUT NO QUALIFICATIONS IN INSTALLATION - indeed there are Approved Contractors that have exactly this!I would agree that the majority of sparks ARE "honest, hard working, skilled, qualified and dedicated to doing a good top quality job for their customers" - I do not believe that I EVER stated that the majority of sparks were anything else - however, I feel that they are being overshadowed by the "chancers" that would never have entered the industry if not for the 5-day wonder courses so beloved of the get rich quick "training providers".

What is the point of any system that can`t even guarantee that any individual who works unsupervised is a trained and qualified spark?

I fully agree that any significant change to an electrical system warrants consideration of elevated risk due to the proposed work BUT in many cases the regs are used to generate additional work simply because the spark does not fully understand what they are doing and expects the customer to incur additional costs to allow for this deficiency.

Please explain HOW the risk can be any higher after moving a couple of socket front a few inches further from the wall WITHOUT referring to the regs........

pro, as much as I agree with the general gist of what you are saying,

I also agree that you cannot modify a circuit and leave it deficient,

it is also very prudent to assume that the householder would reasonably expect the installation to be safe(that is why they got a qualified person in in the first place).

if I went to Kwik fit(other garages are available) to have my brake pads replaced and they didnt tell me my brake discs were almost worn through then I wouldnt be very happy.

 

[davetheglitz]

Fully agree with Professional,.

In this case if you were inspecting the sockets after they have been moved you would say that they are not to the current regulations - but deemed to be safe. If it safe on this front why is suddenly not safe if you are actually moving the sockets? Of course you should advise on bonding if it wasn't there and recommend an RCD - but I don't know about you - I can't afford to throw away work because the customer can't afford to upgrade the whole system. Of course you should cover yourself with comments on the minor works - but remember you are trying to make a living as well!

 

[batty]

My thoughts are you are altering wiring well extending it maybe so you have got to comply with 17th edition which means adding an Rcd to circuit if its not there. For the small cost of an Rcd and enclosure surely that will not make a lot of difference to the cost of the job.

 

[Manator]

This is a very useful and informative debate. I can see the argument and can see both sides of views. I have to remain impartial so could not express a personal view, but I would like this to be debated to conclusion.

I can however personally thank all contributors for their input.

 

[professional]

wiring is still hidden from view and there fore not known where the route of that cabling is

But it is the ALTERATION that is relevant - and you know full well where those cables run............

I fully understand that any debate such as this can run and run, but as a parting shot think about this : if a householder asked you to remove two socket outlets in a kitchen prior to tiling then upon returning you found that the ends feeding ONE of the sockets needed extending by a couple of inches, could you justify installing RCD protection to the customer for such a simple job?

 

[M107]

AH Ha

My last years assessment springs to mind here.

4" stud fitted to wall + cellotex (kingspan competetor), my cables behind cello so more than 50mm deep & circuit rcbo'd.

Asked by assessor why I'd used rcbo when cables were more than 50mm deep.

"because its a circuit supplying sockets & I cant dictate who will be using them & it's domestic installation"

Got the thumbs up from the assessor.

But heres one for you from this years assessment ( a hyperthetical question he posed to me).

You have an installation with meb's but no rcd's at cu on any circuit, you now put a new shower circuit in to a bathroom & rcd the circuit as is required, do you then also;

• have to install supplimentary bonding in bathroom.
  
• rcd any other circuits in the bathroom.
  

 

[professional]

I would say if bonding was installed there would be no requirement to rcd all circuits , only the one that you have installed.

If you chose to rcd all circuits then bonding would not be required if continuity between of all metal pipes/cpc`s could be measured and found to be below the max permitted value.

 

[steptoe]

AH HaMy last years assessment springs to mind here.

4" stud fitted to wall + cellotex (kingspan competetor), my cables behind cello so more than 50mm deep & circuit rcbo'd.

Asked by assessor why I'd used rcbo when cables were more than 50mm deep.

"because its a circuit supplying sockets & I cant dictate who will be using them & it's domestic installation"

Got the thumbs up from the assessor.

But heres one for you from this years assessment ( a hyperthetical question he posed to me).

You have an installation with meb's but no rcd's at cu on any circuit, you now put a new shower circuit in to a bathroom & rcd the circuit as is required, do you then also;

• have to install supplimentary bonding in bathroom.
  
• rcd any other circuits in the bathroom.
  

No,

you have protected the circuit you installed, and the ADS complies with current regs.

but there is a box on cert to state that rest of installation does not comply,

the circuit you installed does, but rest of install doesnt.

16th comes to mind where a 18th floor flat didnt require 30mA on sockets, but a ground floor did.

all about professional judgement.