Alterations on old rewireable consumer unit

[Noob2013]

A friend has asked me to install a couple of extra sockets in there kitchen.

The consumer unit is an old Wylex with rewireable fuses so there is no RCD protection.

Would you carry out the work and recommend a new consumer unit/upfront RCD or would you not do the work unless they agree to have the extra work carried out aswell?

Some people are too tight or unable to afford the extra work so can't make them do it.

Cheers

 

[telectrix]

ideally, to do an inexpensive compliant job. feed from the CU 30A 3036 ( and N) with 6mmtails into a stand alone RCD, then divert the RFC ( including your new sockets) from the CU to the outgoing RCD terminals

 

[Noob2013]

ideally, to do an inexpensive compliant job. feed from the CU 30A 3036 ( and N) with 6mmtails into a stand alone RCD, then divert the RFC ( including your new sockets) from the CU to the outgoing RCD terminals

That's a good option.

Does that require a metal enclosure to amendment 3?

 

[telectrix]

haha. debatable point. tails might then need upfront RCD thus making a whole bollox of it. ashas been debated before, a silly reg.badly thought out by suits who have less idea of the real world than they have of interstellar flight.

 

[ruston]

Have a look in definitions and see if you can play with words like they do.:cheesy:

 

[Noob2013]

Yeah its silly.

What about an upfront 63A rcd to protect the whole consumer unit?

A bit of a pain if it trips as you lose everything but cheapest option.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Could install RCD sockets.

 

[telectrix]

Could install RCD sockets.

as long as he doesn't bury cables in the plaster.

 

[ruston]

It makes us look like masked men.

 

[telectrix]

holy fuses batman

 

[Deleted member 26818]

as long as he doesn't bury cables in the plaster.

That's another kettle of fish.
Would need more info.

 

[ruston]

No, Robin git's:cheesy:

 

[telectrix]

??????

 

[ruston]

Masked men - Robbers.

 

[Octopus]

Yeah its silly.

What about an upfront 63A rcd to protect the whole consumer unit?

A bit of a pain if it trips as you lose everything but cheapest option.

Personally I would avoid this. Tels suggestion is the way to go. How is the bonding installed

 

[fall-apart-dave]

The regs say you can't make it WORSE (got them open in front of me), and that any alterations the existing stuff has to be right to start with (as in earth loop impedance, fault current etc). So you actually don't have to install a new consumer unit, but a new ring or radial has to be to standard (RCD etc). So provided you are simply extending what is already there, and not actually installing a new circuit, you are OK to just leave the consumer unit "as is". That said, wording can be tricky and although you would be within the law, it's not the best option as we all know.

As other folk have said, popping an RCD in there might be best, or even an RCBO. My consumer unit at home has one RCD before everything else, it's a pain but at least it's not going to kill anyone (hopefully!). But we also all know what will happen if you put an RCD in there straight off the meter tails, the whole lot will keep tripping and you'll get blamed for "doing something" because "it was ok before you touched it!".

Were I in your shoes, I would offer to put the sockets in, make it clear that although legal is not best, strongly advise an RCD be fitted at the very LEAST, and urge a consumer unit change sooner rather than later and perhaps provide some sort of documentation outlining this. Just my 2 pence, but then I'm only starting out as a spark the regs are very fresh in my mind as I've just had two weeks of exams and reading (though I do have 14 years offshore and military engineering behind me so do know a little about electrical lol!)

 

[7029 dave]

I would go with Tels suggestion, not my option, but if you friend does not want to spent on CU upgrade, not much else you can do really, try and persuade him that all round it would make sense to upgrade the CU. Just MO.

 

[Pete999]

Could install RCD sockets.

Beat me to it.

 

[Noob2013]

I'll try my persuasion skills to get new CU.

If not then 6mm from 30A fuse to an enclosed 32A 30mA RCD to supply the one ring will have to do.

 

[fall-apart-dave]

6mm? Bloody hell whats on the circuit..??

 

[fall-apart-dave]

Ah sorry misread thought you were taking 6mm to the sockets! Though still overkill if its 2.5mm supplying the ring.

 

[Noob2013]

Yeah that was just to supply the RCD then existing 2.5mm from the rcd to sockets lol

May even go for 4mm instead.

 

[Risteard]

The regs say you can't make it WORSE (got them open in front of me)

LOL. Which Regulation states that?

 

[fall-apart-dave]

LOL. Which Regulation states that?

It doesn't say that verbatum. I now don't have the regs in front of me, but something along the lines of serviceable pre-existing installations do not need to be brought up to modern standards (such as red & black cable, old fuse boards etc), new circuits have to be up to spec but additions to existing circuits need only ensure earth impedance, fault and short circuit current etc are within limits, bonding arrangements are correct etc. So in this case, adding to an existing ring needs no consumer unit change, nor (technically) the addition of an RCD. Thats not to say an RCD should not be fitted (you need one really), my point here is that to satisfy regs you need only install one if there's a new circuit going in, not if you are adding to an existing one.
Or, to summarise, you can't leave an existing installation in a worse state (by this I mean for complying to the regs) but you do not have to rip out and replace old stuff just because it does not comply with current regs.
A point to note here is also that the current 17th edition regs are not statutory anyway, they are a guideline. Hope that clears up what I meant..?

 

[telectrix]

what you have just said about existing installation not having to be brought up to current regs. is true, but any work that you do has to be to current regs. i.e even if existing sockets have not got RCD protection, then any that you fit must comply with current edition of BS7671. i.e. RCD protected id required by current regs.

 

[Leesparkykent]

As above reg 134.2.2 BYB and might be worthwhile reading the note from the HSE on page 11.

 

[richy3333]

A point to note here is also that the current 17th edition regs are not statutory anyway, they are a guideline. Hope that clears up what I meant..?

The 'regs' have never been Statutory (capital S) and your statement above puts at variance your earlier post when using words like 'legal'.
To be honest it's hard to give the OP a definitive answer unless the installation method is known.

 

[fall-apart-dave]

what you have just said about existing installation not having to be brought up to current regs. is true, but any work that you do has to be to current regs. i.e even if existing sockets have not got RCD protection, then any that you fit must comply with current edition of BS7671. i.e. RCD protected id required by current regs.

Yeah, work done has to be within regs, but this very scenario came up while I did my 17th edition, I'm almost certain that the instructor said the correct thing to do (within the law, not the *best* thing to do) is to do your work (the sockets) to regs, but altering the existing wiring to modern regs is not required. Though in fairness we were discussing putting sockets at daft heights rather than RCDs on an existing commercial radial (a job I have booked in for later) but I'm sure as I said the consensus was addition of RCD was not required but *should* be done, but in the event it was not installed, it should be clearly documented as such. However, it's a moot point, in really-real world an RCD should be there, and I bow to your experience, I could well be wrong. I am just a noob!

 

[fall-apart-dave]

The 'regs' have never been Statutory (capital S) and your statement above puts at variance your earlier post when using words like 'legal'.
To be honest it's hard to give the OP a definitive answer unless the installation method is known.

Point taken, though capital S or not is just being a pedant. I am using my phone with autocapitalisation and I just didn't bother hitting "shift" while typing. Lets not get bogged down in pettiness, I used the word "legal" rather than "best fit complient with regulations but not necessarily in line with best practice" - it was less of a mouthful. But thank you for your correction nonetheless, I shall try and be more concise and keep an eye on my capital letters in future. *mwah* ---

 

[Leesparkykent]

Yeah, work done has to be within regs, but this very scenario came up while I did my 17th edition, I'm almost certain that the instructor said the correct thing to do (within the law, not the *best* thing to do) is to do your work (the sockets) to regs, but altering the existing wiring to modern regs is not required. Though in fairness we were discussing putting sockets at daft heights rather than RCDs on an existing commercial radial (a job I have booked in for later) but I'm sure as I said the consensus was addition of RCD was not required but *should* be done, but in the event it was not installed, it should be clearly documented as such. However, it's a moot point, in really-real world an RCD should be there, and I bow to your experience, I could well be wrong. I am just a noob!

A departure from bs7671 is something that doesn't strictly comply but offers at least the same level of safety as compliance. If the socket was installed for a specific piece of equipment then it would have to be labelled as such to omit RCD protection but also the installation method would have an impact on this.. For example T&E burried in a wall at a depth of less than 50mm. Again you could omit RCD protection in an installation other than in a dwelling for the new sockets your installing if you produce a documented risk assessment and couple it with the installation/minor works certificate but you being the designer, inspector and tester would have to have a very good reason for the lack of RCD protection especially if something happened and you found yourself in front of a judge. As above the installation method would also have a bearing on this as other regs have to be considered. Since the introduction of Amendment 3 the old get out of jail free card for the omission of RCD protection if it was under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person is no longer an option as the definition of skilled and instructed was being abused.

 

[davesparks]

Ah sorry misread thought you were taking 6mm to the sockets! Though still overkill if its 2.5mm supplying the ring.

Not overkill at all

 

[fall-apart-dave]

A departure from bs7671 is something that doesn't strictly comply but offers at least the same level of safety as compliance. If the socket was installed for a specific piece of equipment then it would have to be labelled as such to omit RCD protection but also the installation method would have an impact on this.. For example T&E burried in a wall at a depth of less than 50mm. Again you could omit RCD protection in an installation other than in a dwelling for the new sockets your installing if you produce a documented risk assessment and couple it with the installation/minor works certificate but you being the designer, inspector and tester would have to have a very good reason for the lack of RCD protection especially if something happened and you found yourself in front of a judge. As above the installation method would also have a bearing on this as other regs have to be considered. Since the introduction of Amendment 3 the old get out of jail free card for the omission of RCD protection if it was under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person is no longer an option as the definition of skilled and instructed was being abused.

Ah, that there is the difference, within a dwelling. That's where I am getting mixed up, we were discussing commercial useage.

 

[fall-apart-dave]

Not overkill at all

How so? 2.5 to ring, why would there be a benefit to an increased csa to the rcd? (Genuine question, not trying to pick a fight).

 

[davesparks]

How so? 2.5 to ring, why would there be a benefit to an increased csa to the rcd? (Genuine question, not trying to pick a fight).

The ring is constructed of 2.5mm conductors having a rough equivalent overall CSA of 5mm, therefore as a rough equivalent the cable required to feed it must be equal to 5mm ( 2x2.5mm ) and the next standard size is 6mm. (I say rough equivalent as that is the dumbed down for idiots version of how a ring works)

Plus the smallest size of tails available (that I have ever used and afaik) is 6mm although that is not very common

 

[fall-apart-dave]

The ring is constructed of 2.5mm conductors having a rough equivalent overall CSA of 5mm, therefore as a rough equivalent the cable required to feed it must be equal to 5mm ( 2x2.5mm ) and the next standard size is 6mm. (I say rough equivalent as that is the dumbed down for idiots version of how a ring works)

Plus the smallest size of tails available (that I have ever used and afaik) is 6mm although that is not very common

Sorry yes my bad, you are right. I'm still thinking about radials with the commercial set up that came up before not a ring final circuit. Parallell thinking, too wrapped up in my own thoughts about what was discussed in the classroom, rather than the ring talked about here. no need to dumb down on my account, but easier to use rough figures to illustrate a point I get that.

 

[davesparks]

Sorry yes my bad, you are right. I'm still thinking about radials with the commercial set up that came up before not a ring final circuit. Parallell thinking, too wrapped up in my own thoughts about what was discussed in the classroom, rather than the ring talked about here. no need to dumb down on my account, but easier to use rough figures to illustrate a point I get that.

Then stop thinking about the last job or making assumptions. If you had made the same mistake in the real world it could have resulted in a fire.

I would be seriously concerned about someone who thinks 2.5 is good for 43.5 amps calling themselves an electrician

 

[hightower]

Davesparks - would that be a lollipop circuit (single leg out to RCD, where it splits to a ring)? I've heard the term bantered about but haven't come across it.

 

[fall-apart-dave]

Then stop thinking about the last job or making assumptions. If you had made the same mistake in the real world it could have resulted in a fire.

I would be seriously concerned about someone who thinks 2.5 is good for 43.5 amps calling themselves an electrician

Yes Dad. Sorry Dad. Won't do it again Dad. As for "real world" it's a far cry from discussing something at daft o'clock when I'm not giving it my full attention now, isn't it..? Annnd I didn't, at any point, say "yeah sure 43.5 amps is fine on 2.5, crack on!", I simply got my wires crossed (wahey! See what I did there..?) and realjsed afterwards and even said sorry (lord knows why!) when you pointed it out. Still, I'm sure the op is finding all this very useful, but lets not stopp to dressing folk down and giving out spankings, that'll make us all look like petty kids in a playground trying to get one up on one another.

 

[GMES]

All this faffing about, just get a new Board put in, by the time you add the labour up and new Garage cu and new tails etc, you've paid for a new Dual Board.
And the ironic thing is usually they need extra sockets to plug their new 1K TV and sound system into but won't shell out to have the job done correctly.

 

[fall-apart-dave]

All this faffing about, just get a new Board put in, by the time you add the labour up and new Garage cu and new tails etc, you've paid for a new Dual Board.
And the ironic thing is usually they need extra sockets to plug their new 1K TV and sound system into but won't shell out to have the job done correctly.

Folk jump at spending cash though, especially when "it was just fine before" and you are "only putting some wires in" - it is funny how people will wince at a small price difference between doing things half arsed and making serious improvements. My next door neighbour is still moaning about a £80 bill for "20 minutes work" when the electrician he used "tried to rip [him] off" when he had the nerve to recommend his lighting be split into two circuits while he was in there (his house has 3 cbs, upstairs sockets, downstairs sockets and all lights).

 

[GMES]

Those are the reasons I don't touch Domestic except for Ind/com Clients. Domestic customers seem to have a very perculiar way of thinking and for me their priorities are always cock eyed.

 

[fall-apart-dave]

Those are the reasons I don't touch Domestic except for Ind/com Clients. Domestic customers seem to have a very perculiar way of thinking and for me their priorities are always cock eyed.

Thats what I will miss about holding a senior position on the ships when managing a mobilisation. Picking up the phone and saying "You want it to do what? Right you need this, this and this, it will take this long, no I can't use whats already there. Okaythanksbai!" and what you say needs done, gets done.

 

[Andy78]

Thats what I will miss about holding a senior position on the ships when managing a mobilisation. Picking up the phone and saying "You want it to do what? Right you need this, this and this, it will take this long, no I can't use whats already there. Okaythanksbai!" and what you say needs done, gets done.

That doesn't need to change with domestic customers. I like to think I'm quite friendly and approachable, but I'm very firm about the way things must be done for me to put my name to them. A firm approach also can help stop the "while you're here" jobs from mounting up.

 

[Octopus]

Davesparks - would that be a lollipop circuit (single leg out to RCD, where it splits to a ring)? I've heard the term bantered about but haven't come across it.

Yes.

Often found in a kitchen where the "old" cooker circuit has been adapted to add sockets..... not in BS7671 or the OSG or the GN's but a perfectly sound way to adapt a circuit if you utilise basic design principles.... How you document it on the forms is up for debate BUT at the very least a comment in the notes ...

 

[sparksburnout]

In my experience, the majority of people will shell out to have it done properly, but I live in quite an affluent area so maybe not representative generally. I guess it also depends on how hard up for work you are, but the best attitude to have really, is if they won't pay out to do it right, walk away. GMES is right, all this faffing around bodging up separate RCD units for just one circuit, just change the sodding board out.

 

[Andy78]

In my experience, the majority of people will shell out to have it done properly, but I live in quite an affluent area so maybe not representative generally. I guess it also depends on how hard up for work you are, but the best attitude to have really, is if they won't pay out to do it right, walk away. GMES is right, all this faffing around bodging up separate RCD units for just one circuit, just change the sodding board out.

I would not say that adding single circuit RCD protection for alterations is "not doing it right." Changing the DB could easily double or treble the cost of a small job.
I always offer a choice mainly to steer myself away from the misleading iteration that the DB needs to be changed to facilitate alterations. I point out the obvious benefits of a DB upgrade but will quite happily carry out work another way if so desired and also consider it "done properly".

 

[davesparks]

Davesparks - would that be a lollipop circuit (single leg out to RCD, where it splits to a ring)? I've heard the term bantered about but haven't come across it.

In my opinion no it wouldn't be a lollipop circuit. I wouldn't consider the few inches of cable between the CU and the enclosure containing the RCD to be a significant part of the circuit (although it should still be tested.

The most common implementation of the lollipop circuit I have come across is in a local college. For most of the classrooms a 32A circuit in 6mm cable runs from the DB to a 45A DP isolator in the classroom then a 2.5mm ring runs from the outgoing side of the isolator to feed all sockets in the room.

 

[sparksburnout]

I would not say that adding single circuit RCD protection for alterations is "not doing it right." Changing the DB could easily double or treble the cost of a small job.
I always offer a choice mainly to steer myself away from the misleading iteration that the DB needs to be changed to facilitate alterations. I point out the obvious benefits of a DB upgrade but will quite happily carry out work another way if so desired and also consider it "done properly".

I agree that there is nothing "wrong" with it. Putting in a separate RCD enclosure just to protect the socket circuit would be fine. In practice though, there will often be limited room and multiple circuits. Sure it would probably double or treble the cost, but as has been said, the client will happily spend 5 or 10 times the cost on a new telly or a personalised number plate for the BM without batting an eyelid, and my approach would always be to go for the global approach as well. How do these same customers deal with a boiler that needs replacing??

 

[Hellmooth]

Yes Dad. Sorry Dad. Won't do it again Dad. As for "real world" it's a far cry from discussing something at daft o'clock when I'm not giving it my full attention now, isn't it..? Annnd I didn't, at any point, say "yeah sure 43.5 amps is fine on 2.5, crack on!", I simply got my wires crossed (wahey! See what I did there..?) and realjsed afterwards and even said sorry (lord knows why!) when you pointed it out. Still, I'm sure the op is finding all this very useful, but lets not stopp to dressing folk down and giving out spankings, that'll make us all look like petty kids in a playground trying to get one up on one another.

Ahhhh so you've met Davesparks............better get used to it lol!

I think you'll do just fine in your chosen career.

 

[davesparks]

Yes Dad. Sorry Dad. Won't do it again Dad. As for "real world" it's a far cry from discussing something at daft o'clock when I'm not giving it my full attention now, isn't it..? Annnd I didn't, at any point, say "yeah sure 43.5 amps is fine on 2.5, crack on!", I simply got my wires crossed (wahey! See what I did there..?) and realjsed afterwards and even said sorry (lord knows why!) when you pointed it out. Still, I'm sure the op is finding all this very useful, but lets not stopp to dressing folk down and giving out spankings, that'll make us all look like petty kids in a playground trying to get one up on one another.

Yes we all make mistakes when posting at daft o'clock, mine was in somehow writing 43.5A when it should have been 41.4A.