RCD Protection on sockets

[Traineeboy]

I know that in a domestic premises all sockets must be RCD protected. if the job was to move some sockets slightly, if a customer doesn't have RCD protection at the board and they don't want the board changed then the only option is a to have incorporated RCD sockets or RCD fused spur? 

I was told by another spark that if you are carrying out minor works like moving, replacing or adding a socket then RCD protection doesn't have to be used as long as it's noted down on the minor works cert the customer was offered it but refused it. Is this really the case? 

 

[poni]

only option is a to have incorporated RCD sockets

 i think this BS7288 socket has been removed from the REGS

 

[binky]

if you are not altering the electrical characteristics of the cct, then it is unchanged, MWC can be issued. That statement really applies to maintenance, such as replacing a damaged socket. Moving sockets I think is stretching that statement to the extreme. 

Now, if a customer refuses, depsite advice to have some form of RCD protection added, then you should really get a signature to that affect or email confirming that. The alternative is to mount an RCD outside the exisiting board in a small enclosure, ie add RCd protection for the circuit being altered only. 

 

[Fleeting]

 i think this BS7288 socket has been removed from the REGS

It has never been in the Regs so it has not been removed, it was never there to start with.

 

[Murdoch]

It has never been in the Regs so it has not been removed, it was never there to start with.

Not sure I agree with this statement

And I do believe its back in the electronic copies already ................ so the paper versions and the electronic versions aren't the same

 

[Fleeting]

Not sure I agree with this statement

And I do believe its back in the electronic copies already ................ so the paper versions and the electronic versions aren't the same

I stand to be corrected if you can find the Ed of BS7671 which quotes BS7288 then we can say it was removed. 

 

[Andy™]

7288 was never in the regs, however previous to 18th, it never stated it had to be to 61008/9 /62423 either, all that was stated was 30mA in less than 40ms at 5x

 

[boltonsparky]

They're in guidance note 8 (18th edition version), so the regs don't tally up with the guidance notes either, no surprise really. 

 

[Fleeting]

They're in guidance note 8 (18th edition version), so the regs don't tally up with the guidance notes either, no surprise really. 

Do they quote a Regulation alongside it.

 

[poni]

i think this BS7288 socket has been removed from the REGS

I did say "Think" maybe I should have said "excluded" or even "not in" , but you all knew what I meant by this comment , you are wright I should try harder

 

[boltonsparky]

Do they quote a Regulation alongside it.

 

[Sidewinder]

The situation with BS 7288 devices is as follows:

BS 7288 iself, states that they are not suitable for additional protection and require an upstream 61008/61009 device.

Therefore the only time they can be used is downstream of a 30mA RCD/RCBO.

They cannot be used to provide for example additional protection where required by BS 7671 alone.

 

[Murdoch]

The situation with BS 7288 devices is as follows:

BS 7288 iself, states that they are not suitable for additional protection and require an upstream 61008/61009 device.

Therefore the only time they can be used is downstream of a 30mA RCD/RCBO.

They cannot be used to provide for example additional protection where required by BS 7671 alone.

Problem is they are on sale and have integrated RCD's so people assume that they are OK to use.

 

[Sharpend]

Once again someone has devised a solution to a problem that ‘really’ doesn’t exist. 
if they are non compliant with Regs then what is the point of having them and if you do use them then you defeat the object as no discrimination from CU RCD? 
 

it seems to me they were Dreamt up by one of the DIY sheds as a solution to providing outdoor gardening equipment with individual RCD plugs? Thus allowing them to sell the  items cheaper? 

 

[kerching]

Page 120 of the electronic version

....for some weird reason the 'select image' tab has disappeared

 

[Fleeting]

The confusion contained in BS7288 is probably the reason why BS7671 does not include them as a suitable device for additional protection as quoted by @Sidewinder.

It further states only suitable for additional protection against direct contact and therefore cannot provide fault protection where ads is not met and nor would be recommended for additional protection from fire due to short circuits in appliances etc.........

 

[Murdoch]

I think that we should look at this in a more sensible manner .

The average Mr or Mrs or Miss Joe Public have no idea what BS 7288 or BS7671 are let along how to read or interpret them or even that any of the guidance notes exist, so if they want to buy and install BS 7288 devices because they've heard that sockets and lights need RCD protection then they should be encouraged.

Not long ago the RCD FCU was installed en mass when changes to bathrooms were made and yes I did do it - and yes they were RCD tested, so lets not kid our selves that these devices make an installation more dangerous

As I've articulated on MANY occasions, the regulations are far too complex, the decision making panels are all infiltrated by companies looking after their bottom lines and profit margins and there are far too many people working on electrics that don't apply the regs as it stands - or still think the 1st Edition of the 17th edition is current 

Making regs more complicated or "clever" people trying to tie us up in knots to sell books and training days isn't going to work.

K

I

S

S

Is the only way forward, but I've seen no evidence of this happening - more the opposite so people perched high need to get down and visit the many coal faces to understand whats really going on..........

 

[Fleeting]

No one is saying these devices promote danger but the complicated wording from BS7288 almost certainly prevented its inclusion in BS7671. The Regulations are not complex, they are a well put together book of words which are used worldwide. I have heard many people citing manufacturer interference with regard to its content but most standards will consult in this way.

 

[Sharpend]

I think that we should look at this in a more sensible manner .

The average Mr or Mrs or Miss Joe Public have no idea what BS 7288 or BS7671 are let along how to read or interpret them or even that any of the guidance notes exist, so if they want to buy and install BS 7288 devices because they've heard that sockets and lights need RCD protection then they should be encouraged.

Not long ago the RCD FCU was installed en mass when changes to bathrooms were made and yes I did do it - and yes they were RCD tested, so lets not kid our selves that these devices make an installation more dangerous

As I've articulated on MANY occasions, the regulations are far too complex, the decision making panels are all infiltrated by companies looking after their bottom lines and profit margins and there are far too many people working on electrics that don't apply the regs as it stands - or still think the 1st Edition of the 17th edition is current 

Making regs more complicated or "clever" people trying to tie us up in knots to sell books and training days isn't going to work.

K

I

S

S

Is the only way forward, but I've seen no evidence of this happening - more the opposite so people perched high need to get down and visit the many coal faces to understand whats really going on..........

Last time this happened, she shut the lot!!

 

[Murdoch]

Last time this happened, she shut the lot!!

you lost me