Socket face replacement vs 17th edition

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

jckent

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Last night in the pub, a few buddies and i where discussing 17th edition-as you do!.

We have a major split.

Replacing a broken 2G socket in the kitchen. Old style cartridge fusebox under stairs, cables in wall-normal.

and replacing a light fitting as well

The big disagreement,- Under new 17th edition, when i replace that socket face (electrcial outlet), i take responsibility for that circuit area and it should be rcd protected.

So therefore before even a single socket is replaced the fusebox has to be uprated.

What do you lot think?

 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
13,621
Reaction score
297
Last night in the pub, a few buddies and i where discussing 17th edition-as you do!.We have a major split.

Replacing a broken 2G socket in the kitchen. Old style cartridge fusebox under stairs, cables in wall-normal.

and replacing a light fitting as well

The big disagreement,- Under new 17th edition, when i replace that socket face (electrcial outlet), i take responsibility for that circuit area and it should be rcd protected.

So therefore before even a single socket is replaced the fusebox has to be uprated.

What do you lot think?
WHY????

was its a problem with 16th ed

with downstairs a socket, (possible to supply equip outdoors), non RCD protected. replace damaged outlet?

did you insist on installing RCD at CU or fitting RCD socket outlet???? ?:| ? :|

Replacing any accessory face plate socket/switch/cooker outlets/Light fitting etc..

You are NOT extending thew circuit.

You are NOT introducing any additional load to the circuit.

You are NOT replacing/installing/moving any of the fixed wiring.

You are NOT upgrading/altering any fuse rating.

Just replacing a broken accessory..

Which under Part-P, doesn't even need a qualified spark to do, need notify, (even in a kitchen!!!).

And does NOT need any retrospective alterations to other parts of the installation to comply with newer regs than when it was installed.

A competent spark would still check it is electrically safe.. polarity etc..

visual checks of incoming cables, earthing etc..

and ensure it was appropriate to the standards current when the original circuit was installed.

But as you are NOT changing the circuit.. no need to 17th RCD etc.. etc..

some may even debate whether a minor works cert is issued or not?

I think to the letter of the regs..

you should still do as many of the basic tests as appropriate & feasible on a working installation..

and put any appropriate comments on the cert?

But some sparks only issue a cert if altering part of the "Fixed Wiring"!

SL. :D ;)

 
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
0
Location
In the office again.
I`m with special here - I`d definitely be issuing MWC, and noting any issues on there, but I see no reason to get into upgrading fuse box.

Apart from anything else, you have left the installation safer than it was when you arrived. As long as you do basic safety tests, whoopee doo! :) :)

 

patspark

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
Location
London
i concur with special on this like for like you dont even need mwc

 

Mr Sworld

Electrical Technician
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
I would class this as maintenance!!So long as the installation is in a better state than prior to your work then all is OK
Hell I would too! You are replacing like with like. If I had to issue a MWC for every cracked or smashed socked at work I'd never have the time to replace them! :^O

It is purely a on-going maintenance issue, no need to start a paperwork trail.

 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Had asked this already last week, I was bemused that the NICEIC were stating if you replce a broken fitting, swap a light fitting it then had to be within the 17th spec!

All that was going through my mind was the huge loss of work as customers would simply go to someone that was prepared NOT to have all this additional work undertaken at their expense.

I half worked a way around it by issuing a disclaimer that the customer signed stating they had no wish to spend a huge amount of money. It wasn't until I asked on here that common sense prevailed!

MWC from now on noting the old DB and fuse with a note stating it would be worth considering upgrading the DB :) Job done

 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
13,621
Reaction score
297
Had asked this already last week, I was bemused that the NICEIC were stating if you replce a broken fitting, swap a light fitting it then had to be within the 17th spec!All that was going through my mind was the huge loss of work as customers would simply go to someone that was prepared NOT to have all this additional work undertaken at their expense.

I half worked a way around it by issuing a disclaimer that the customer signed stating they had no wish to spend a huge amount of money. It wasn't until I asked on here that common sense prevailed!

MWC from now on noting the old DB and fuse with a note stating it would be worth considering upgrading the DB :) Job done
Indeed so:

Golden rule no1. cover your own "rear end!":O:)

allowing for the fact that although anyone can do like-4-like replacement, (maintenance as Mr S, quite rightly defines it),

without any necessity to test or upgrade anything, or issue any paper work.. :|

If you are at a property where you have any concerns about "old wiring" or "lack of RCD's" etc..

a few moments filling out a MWC, with some additional comments,

provides written evidence that you have made the customer aware of any potential problems.. ;)

Saves any problems or confusion and avoids the old quote from the customer..

"We had a proper electrician do the work and he said it was alright!"

Often a written report with some recommended observation & improvements,

will jog the customer round to actually getting the work done..

I've had a few jobs like this where a few months later you get a phone call saying can I go and do those alterations the need doing! :D

 
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
6
It is my belief that it's the scheme providers that cause all the problems and confusion.

We all should be singing from the same song sheet, but because of the NICEIC, ELECSA, NAPIT etc most get confused.

The regs are not retrospective, it states that in the big red book.

 
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
11,034
Reaction score
0
My thoughts

Broken socket by front or back door on 3036 rewireable fuse no RCD protection. I certainly would not replace with standard socket would fit rcd socket or not at all. I think in a court of law you would be liable if someone where to get electrocuted if the socket was used outside.

batty

 

Mr Sworld

Electrical Technician
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
My thoughtsBroken socket by front or back door on 3036 rewireable fuse no RCD protection. I certainly would not replace with standard socket would fit rcd socket or not at all. I think in a court of law you would be liable if someone where to get electrocuted if the socket was used outside.

batty
It's good practice, no argument about it. However if the client refuses the extra expense of an rcd then the client is 'always right' (Yeah, in their dreams! ;) ). After all it is replacing like with like so the 17th Ed. doesn't apply.

However if you are a smooth talking sparks you should be able to get them to agree with you but if they don't then that's your minimum call out fee to do an easy job that takes 10 minutes. :D

 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
13,621
Reaction score
297
It's good practice, no argument about it. However if the client refuses the extra expense of an rcd then the client is 'always right' (Yeah, in their dreams! ;) ). After all it is replacing like with like so the 17th Ed. doesn't apply.However if you are a smooth talking sparks you should be able to get them to agree with you but if they don't then that's your minimum call out fee to do an easy job that takes 10 minutes. :D
Concur entirely Mr S! :D

As

1/ Joe public could do this replacement themselves.. all quite legit.. without any need to involve a professional spark.

2/ Replacing Like 4 Like is perfectly acceptable with the building regs Approved Doc P. (no contravention of any rules)

3/ As no addition or alteration to the CIRCUIT has taken place.. it remains current to the standard of regs the original item was installed under.

(unless of course it has been non-compliant to earlier regs & general safety..

e.g. wired in 1.0mm!!!! :eek: :O, then I would probably bank it off!!) :eek:

If customer flatly refuses to have RCD fitted..

I think I would connect up...

verify polarity, Ins Res, R1+R2, & Zs.. (or as much as if feasible to test)

And give them a certificate with my readings and concern re No RCD..

I would put big bold note on the certificate saying

"DO NOT USE TO POWER ANY APPLIANCES OUTSIDE".

give them a copy and keep my copy...

Backs covered...

don't think any legal action re negligence could be raised?? ?:| ? :|

 

Latest posts

Top