UK rcbo or cu change

[e-spark]

Hi Folks

RCBO or C/U change that is the question!

On the 18th edition the lecturer in a conversation said if the C/U is not non combustible you cant make alterations i.e fit RCBOs for circuits; this ring true with anyone else?
Loads 16 and 17th edition boards nothing wrong with enclosure but also lights (class 1) not protected, feel i should be wearing a mask (pardon pun) advising its a full board change not a C3 fault.

thoughts welcome

 

[GBDamo]

No alterations to a plastic board(in effect), is that really what a lecturer told you?

 

[e-spark]

No alterations to a plastic board(in effect), is that really what a lecturer told you?

certainly did in December last year

 

[snowhead]

I think the first question to ask of the Lecturer is provide a document that backs this up.
What they appear to be saying is no alterations or additions to a plastic C.U
So that would prevent like for like replacement of an MCB or even resetting an MCB or replacing a cable into an existing MCB / RCBO.
It might even mean once you switch off the C.U you can't turn it back on unless it's replaced.

 

[Strima]

What a complete and utter load of b£&$£!.....

 

[GBDamo]

What a complete and utter load of b£&$£!.....

Very succinctly, and accurately, put.

 

[e-spark]

What a complete and utter load of b£&$£!.....

that's a helpful response....

 

[snowhead]

Is this Lecturer still lecturing or did they find their true vocation at Amazon?

 

[dodger421]

In fairness I can see how they got to that conclusion, although it’s a very pedantic interpretation of the regs.

The argument in favour runs; Your work needs to comply with current regulations, so if you replace a light fitting with a set of downlights or add a new point to an existing lighting circuit in a dwelling then you need to provide RCD protection for that circuit. If the old board isn’t made of non-combustible material then that also needs changing because it doesn’t comply with the current regulations and you’re now making changes in the board itself.

@Strima hit it on the head though in the real world.

 

[GBDamo]

In fairness I can see how they got to that conclusion, although it’s a very pedantic interpretation of the regs.

The argument in favour runs; Your work needs to comply with current regulations, so if you replace a light fitting with a set of downlights or add a new point to an existing lighting circuit in a dwelling then you need to provide RCD protection for that circuit. If the old board isn’t made of non-combustible material then that also needs changing because it doesn’t comply with the current regulations and you’re now making changes in the board itself.

@Strima hit it on the head though in the real world.

Quite, the difference between those of us who work in the real world, having to tell a customer that their new £30 light is going to cost £800 to fit(not going to happen), and those that are paid to pontificate to those wet behind the ears about their interpretation of a badly worded regulation.

 

[e-spark]

In fairness I can see how they got to that conclusion, although it’s a very pedantic interpretation of the regs.

The argument in favour runs; Your work needs to comply with current regulations, so if you replace a light fitting with a set of downlights or add a new point to an existing lighting circuit in a dwelling then you need to provide RCD protection for that circuit. If the old board isn’t made of non-combustible material then that also needs changing because it doesn’t comply with the current regulations and you’re now making changes in the board itself.

@Strima hit it on the head though in the real world.

so pedantic but I have not misunderstood as your reply confirms. thanks for the response. appreciate it

 

[e-spark]

Quite, the difference between those of us who work in the real world, having to tell a customer that their new £30 light is going to cost £800 to fit(not going to happen), and those that are paid to pontificate to those wet behind the ears about their interpretation of a badly worded regulation.

I don't fit £30 lights or am i wet behind the ears lad.

 

[pc1966]

My 2p worth is if, after adding a circuit / making modifications the installation is no less safe, and not worse than a C3 on the best practice guide #4, then it is fine.

For a new installation or a CU change obviously you would not have a combustible box!

 

[timhoward]

Two regs come to mind:
Regulation 641.5: For an addition or alteration to an existing alteration, it shall be verified that the addition or alteration complies with regulations and does not impair the safety of the existing installation.

My take on that one is:
1) The addition must meet current regs, including RCD protection if required.
2) Afterwards, the installation should be as safe as it was before in EICR terms

Also 536.4.203 regarding compatibility of parts. Basically use the right manufacturer.

I've done this loads of times to add RCD protection to lighting circuits so I hope he's wrong!

 

[Strima]

that's a helpful response....

Happy to help.

 

[GBDamo]

I don't fit £30 lights or am i wet behind the ears lad.

Ooh, hark at 'er.

I was generalising, don't be so sensitive.

 

[sinewove]

I don't fit £30 lights or am i wet behind the ears lad.

Wish I could charge £800 for a cu change.
S

 

[telectrix]

this lecturer.does the college need a bog cleaner? that's about his competence level.

 

[DPG]

FFS. Crazy world. I need another couple of beers before I respond.

 

[MJPD29]

Incorrect. Sounds like something an under qualified domestic installer would come out with before he brutally fits a 60 quid bg split board that by the time he's done is less safe than the original install.