- Reaction score
- 4,174
To me it actually looks like the silliest answer to a post above...This has to be the silliest post I have ever read.
Discuss Test failed due to missing RCD in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
To me it actually looks like the silliest answer to a post above...This has to be the silliest post I have ever read.
Nonsense. It has been installed for numerous reasons. That is one of the benefits of it being fitted - but certainly not the only one.Because an up front RCD has been installed to protect such cables.
I am not quite sure what the point, or inference of this comment is, but if that's the best you can do then I can't see much point in continuing to be honest. I'm out.What younare actually saying is that you are willing to lower your standards and cut corners in order to make a few quid.
That right there is a cowboy approach to any trade.
What the hell has that got to do with the specific circumstances of this OP?
Sounds good, but....Retrospective improvements to old installations should be based on a cost vs risk assessment - circa £30 for an RCD sounds like a sensible cost given the significant risk reduction it achieves as a result. However, I don’t believe the installation should have failed in the first instance.
You may have been miss-led but I don’t believe you have been ripped-off.
That will give a C3 requires improvement on the next inspection.Sounds good, but....
What use is an improvement that doesn’t comply?
No Risteard, what it means, is that an installation doesn’t require upgrading just because it doesn’t comply with new requirements.No. What the Regulations are stating is that an installation installed to an earlier Edition may not necessarily be unsafe. We can take this to mean that this isn't referring to damage etc. - it's referring to an installation actually complying with an earlier Edition. Therefore the Regulations are clearly stating that it may or may not be unsafe - this must be determined.
It isn't unsafe because it complies with an earlier Edition - it may, however, be unsafe (or less safe than it should be) due to some of the things which have been done which now aren't considered acceptable or even considered now to be unsafe.
Or if there were any justice a conviction for fraud.That will give a C3 requires improvement on the next inspection.
Do you actually not know the difference between "doesn't require" and "doesn't necessarily require"?No Risteard, what it means, is that an installation doesn’t require upgrading
I think perhaps you should look up the dictionary definition of necessarily.Do you actually not know the difference between "doesn't require" and "doesn't necessarily require"?
The repetition and incorrect assertions are becoming boring.
And leave the rest NOT covered? Surely bathroom lights have been reqd to have rcds for at least 10 years and the rest needs it for cables buried in wallsA far better solution would have been rcbo's for the socket circuits.
And leave the rest NOT covered? Surely bathroom lights have been reqd to have rcds for at least 10 years and the rest needs it for cables buried in wallsA far better solution would have been rcbo's for the socket circuits.
It is this type of lazy approach to sparking that bothers me. Itnis not a given fact that just installing RCDs ‘make it safer’.
The ‘RCD everything’ approach without no design or thought behind it is not what we ahould be doing. We could just say ‘wire everything in SWA makes it safer’. Why do we not do this? Because we need to ise our skill and interpretation to determine if these extra precautions are actually needed.
In this instance a safe installation has been made less safe by installing an ‘up-front’ RCD which is not to Regs.
Hi PeterHi All
Recently joined the forum to ask for some information.
I recently bought a flat to let. I was advised by the letting agent to get the electrics tested, although not a legal requirement. The test was carried out by their electrical contractor. He failed the test due to the fuse board not having an RCD fitted. The fuse board is the original board fitted in 2003 when the flats where built. There has been no mods or circuits added to the system and everything is working as it should. I paid £348.00 for the test and the RCD to be installed. I have since been told that the test should not have failed due to the lack of the RCD. Have I been stitched up.
Any comments gratefully recieved
Peter
Some members on here have not taken into account that there could be a whole range of different occupiers.This has turned into a farce.
Firstly unless the original flat is ground floor a code 3 would be appropriate for lack of RCD protection to any circuit.... unless SB is not in place in bathrooms , that and lack of additional protection to sockets which may supply equipment outdoors would warrant a code 2.
The only issue here is that as a remedial measure the electrician has introduced another non-compliance, which should itself warrant a code 3.
It has been said that some would not even mention an up front 30ma RCD on an EICR. A recent ground floor flat that I tested had just that, and I gave it a code 2 as the flat was occupied by an elderly lady and the CU was out of reach at ceiling level.
presumably because above ceilings and below floors, the cables have been installed deep enough to not be subject to nail or screw penetration.Is having a single RCD that never gets tested safer than not having any RCD at all?
Is having a single RCD that never gets tested safer than having separate RCBOs that never get tested?
If RCDs are so much safer, why are they no an option for cables above ceilings and below floors?
Reply to Test failed due to missing RCD in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.