New board or not

[Sharpend]

Sorry Neb (welcome btw), whilst you may be correct and stand by what you say, it has no relevence to the op as it hasn't been stated exactly how the install is wired surface, protected or otherwise. 

Now should the install method be given them you may be absolutely correct or absolutely wrong? 

 

[Nebakineza]

Sorry Neb (welcome btw), whilst you may be correct and stand by what you say, it has no relevence to the op as it hasn't been stated exactly how the install is wired surface, protected or otherwise. 

Now should the install method be given them you may be absolutely correct or absolutely wrong? 

Hi Sharpend. There is that chance but from my experience I'd be very surprised if it managed to avoid it considering his description. But I can't argue with you, it's better not to assume if you're going by the book.

Anyway I'm willing to give this one up as I wouldn't like to de-rail the OP's thread any further. No hard feelings guys.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Only last week  when doing an inspection for an elderly lady, i was surprised  to find MICC was feeding 3 circuits in a 3 bed terrace house, fed from an old Standard range Wylex board. It appeared to have been rewired in the early 70's and the sparky used  MICC to loose the cables in the plaster. The garage  was fed via a SWA and the kitchen sockets & cooker   in surface trunking. 

All that needed was a rcd for the sockets

 

[binky]

if it's a very old house with nice hollow lathe and plaster walls, there's a very good chance the cables are 50mm behind the surface, a reg that is aimed at cables plastered into walls of breeze block or brick. Stick a screw through a hollow wall, and even if you did hit a cable, because it is loose, it will just move out the way

Either way I would RCBO the ccts, but it isn't correct ot state that all circuits must have RCDs unless you have seen the house concerned. Like wise there is no actual need to change the old fuseboard for the purpose of selling, or any need to change the board if the house is for private use. The only reason to do this work is to make the house easier to sell, and keep jobs-worth solicitors happy.

 

[Davethsparky]

Chapter 52 of Ammend 3

The Regulations for the selection and erection of wiring systems (impact) will be redrafted, with the removal of all references to “under the supervision of skilled and instructed persons”.

It will be a requirement that cables that are concealed in a wall or partition (at a depth of less than 50 mm) are protected by a 30 mA RCD for all installations if other methods of protection, including the use of cables with either an earthed metallic covering or mechanical protection, are not employed. This will apply to a cable, irrespective of the depth of that cable, in a partition where the construction of the partition includes metallic parts other than fixings.

The exception for cables that form part of a SELV or PELV circuit will be retained.

I work for a company that contracts for many high street retailers and sub-contracts a lot of domestic council renovations. We have had this on strong authority and has been confirmed by several of our NIC representatives. I can assure you it's correct.

The above item you quoted appears to be discussing the third amendment when it was in the draft stage. There were changes made to the document before it was published.

it would be much better to use actual regulations to support your point rather than quoting documents written about the draft version of the regulations. 

Oh, and I wouldn't accept confirmation from an NIC representative as a reliable source of information along with most other people. 

 

[Davethsparky]

. I'd suggest new CU with RCBOs, as they will be doing away with domestic split load boards in the 18th.

Is that rumour still floating around? I first heard that about a year before the draft of the original 17th edition came out (it was single RCD split then obviously) 

then the NIC assessor I had out before the first amendment came out told me that they were definitely doing away with split boards in amendment 1 and pushing for RCBOs only.

i don't think I heard it before amd 3 came along though.

its a little bit like the rumours about banning choc blocks and ring finals turn up every time a new edition or amendment is due! 

 

[Nebakineza]

Is that rumour still floating around? I first heard that about a year before the draft of the original 17th edition came out (it was single RCD split then obviously) 

then the NIC assessor I had out before the first amendment came out told me that they were definitely doing away with split boards in amendment 1 and pushing for RCBOs only.

i don't think I heard it before amd 3 came along though.

its a little bit like the rumours about banning choc blocks and ring finals turn up every time a new edition or amendment is due! 

Interesting. I have heard ring finals are out with the next edi, but I know they have been pushing for it for a while now.

 

[Nebakineza]

The above item you quoted appears to be discussing the third amendment when it was in the draft stage. There were changes made to the document before it was published.

it would be much better to use actual regulations to support your point rather than quoting documents written about the draft version of the regulations. 

Oh, and I wouldn't accept confirmation from an NIC representative as a reliable source of information along with most other people. 

It's in the yellow book under 522.6.6 - 522.6.8.

I'm not sure why you would say the NIC is an unreliable source of information. Whilst they don't write the regs, it is their legal responsibility as a governing body to uphold BS7671. Indeed, take an individuals opinion with a pinch of salt, however NIC aren't going to formally provide confirmation concerning something which isn't factual. I couldn't say if an FoS has been applied to the information we have received though, that was not questioned.

Cheers.

 

[Rob_the_rich]

It's in the yellow book under 522.6.6 - 522.6.8.

those regs are not in the yellow book, they are in the red book but not in the green book. Are you up to date?

 

[Nebakineza]

those regs are not in the yellow book, they are in the red book but not in the green book. Are you up to date?

I may have misquoted Rob, I'm not in the office so trying to recall from memory. If that is the case then I will correct it asap. Thanks.

Update: 522.6.201, 522.6.202, 522.6.203, 522.6.24

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

The 522.6.6 -> 522.6.8   are now   something like...

522.6.201,     522.6.202,   522.6.203    &  522.6.204

or thereabouts!

Guinness

 

[Rob_the_rich]

I may have misquoted Rob, I'm not in the office so trying to recall from memory. If that is the case then I will correct it asap. Thanks.

I couldn't quote them from memory, I am impressed. I have the books here so it was easy for me.

 

[Nebakineza]

I couldn't quote them from memory, I am impressed. I have the books here so it was easy for me.

I did jump the gun a bit there though! Thanks for pointing out my error there pal, wouldn't want to mislead anyone.

 

[Nebakineza]

The 522.6.6 -> 522.6.8   are now   something like...

522.6.201,     522.6.202,   522.6.203    &  522.6.204

or thereabouts!

Guinness

Cheers for that fella it completely slipped my mind for a moment.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Cheers for that fella it completely slipped my mind for a moment.

If they stopped re-numbering half the bl**dy regs we wouldn't need so many amendments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:shakehead

 

[Nebakineza]

If they stopped re-numbering half the bl**dy regs we wouldn't need so many amendments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:shakehead

But then it wouldn't be as confusing and we wouldn't be able to charge so much

 

[binky]

I'm not sure why you would say the NIC is an unreliable source of information. Whilst they don't write the regs, it is their legal responsibility as a governing body to uphold BS7671. Indeed, take an individuals opinion with a pinch of salt, however NIC aren't going to formally provide confirmation concerning something which isn't factual. I couldn't say if an FoS has been applied to the information we have received though, that was not questioned.

When a national outfit gives advice it has to issue 'blanket' advice to cover all eventualities or they could be sued if someone mis-applies the advice. Hence they err on the side of caution all the time, to avoid being sued. They advice they give is hence tainted.

 

[Doc Hudson]

It's in the yellow book under 522.6.6 - 522.6.8.

I'm not sure why you would say the NIC is an unreliable source of information. Whilst they don't write the regs, it is their legal responsibility as a governing body to uphold BS7671. Indeed, take an individuals opinion with a pinch of salt, however NIC aren't going to formally provide confirmation concerning something which isn't factual. I couldn't say if an FoS has been applied to the information we have received though, that was not questioned.

Cheers.

I am not sure it is correct to call the NICEIC a governing body, by their own definition they call themselves "UK’s leading voluntary regulatory body for the electrical contracting industry". As all of their members are voluntary their only jurisdiction is ensuring their members meet their defined membership standards. They have no governance over many aspects of the wider industry. In its simplest terms they are one of several trade associations offering advice and guidance to its members. Anybody else can ignore whatever they say with no consequences at all.  http://www.niceic.com/about-us

Doc H.

 

[steptoe]

And,

The NICEIC refuses to state that any of its members are in fact COMPETENT, so, by definition they must know that they have INCOMPETENT members, :shakehead

 

[Murdoch]

For me the NICEIC are very similar to the EU. They bang on about what they stand for but are very blinkered when it comes to being criticised.

Both organisations are past their sell by dates yet no one has the balls to sort them out!

Maybe Nigel Farage could sort out the NICEIC