Discuss Advice on Installation in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

I figured I could put the RCD FCU next to the DB?

So the existing cable that comes from the fuse to the lighting circuit, essentially, split that in two, connect the side from the fuse to the supply side of the RCD FCU and then the cable that then runs to the lights on the load side of the RCD FCU....

That way the whole circuit is protected and the new fused unit stays out of sight but would still be accessible and I don't have to tamper with the fuse board too much (aside from safe isolation and testing etc)

Again, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong?
That’s what I suggested at the start, but with a stand alone RCD in an enclosure.
If you would rather install an RCD FCU, that’s up to you.
 
It’s in the wording of the Regulation, same as for locations containing baths or showers.
The requirement is for the circuit to be provided RCD protection.
This is not the same as protecting cables concealed in walls or protecting items plugged into socket-outlets.

Don't suppose you have the reg number to hand, I may have to seek advice on this one.

I change a lot of lights which are covered by a MWC as I see this as work on the circuit.If they are click or similarly connected then no certification.

If what you say is correct then any fitting change that is not on a click type connector would require RCD addition.

Now, there's money to be made there but only if it is a requirement.
 
411.3.4 Additional requirements for circuits with luminaires
Within domestic (household) premises, additional protection by an RCD with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA shall be provided for AC final circuits supplying luminaires.
 
411.3.4 Additional requirements for circuits with luminaires
Within domestic (household) premises, additional protection by an RCD with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA shall be provided for AC final circuits supplying luminaires.
 
Had me worried there for a moment, phoned NAPIT tech help this morning to confirm their interpretation of this reg.

As the OP is adding to an existing circuit there is no requirement to retro fit RCD protection for the whole circuit only to ensure his addition has RCD protection.

So he can either run the risk of borrowed neutrals and put an RCD at the beginning of the circuit, thus protecting the whole circuit, or find a position to put in an RCD FCU at the point he extends the lighting circuit, protecting only his additional works. Both would be compliant from the advice I have had.

I'd be pushing for the latter, you can spend time confirming there are no borrowed neutrals, as going back to the customer after the event to run in a dedicated neutral would prove embarrassing, or KISS.
 
Don't think an RCD FCU will cut it anymore with the passing of the 18th edition.

The BS number they are constructed under is not recognised by 7671 as offering additional protection.

Edit: This is just what I have heard, I do not yet own a copy of the 18th.
 
@Rob is absolutely on the money.

531.3.6 RCDs for additional protection
The use of RCDs with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA is recognized as additional protection in compliance with Regulation 415.1. These RCDs shall be provided to comply with the requirements of Regulation 411.3.3.

RCDs for additional protection in AC installations shall comply with:
- BS EN 61008 series, or
- BS EN 61009 series, or
- BS EN 62423.

Where installed at the origin of a final circuit or a group of final circuits, an RCD with a rated residual current not exceeding 30 mA may provide fault protection and additional protection simultaneously.

NOTE: Consideration shall be given to the division of the installation (see Regulations 531.3.2 and 314.2).


Section 531 has been significantly revised and now stipulates the standards RCDs used for additional protection must comply with. As best as I can tell, this effectively rules out the use of any RCD socket outlets and RCD fused spurs as these generally appear to be manufactured to BS 7288.

In the 17th addition, it was sufficient for the devices to have the characteristics specified in 415.1.1 i.e. 30mA trip current and an operating time not exceeding 40ms for 5x rated trip current.

So, is this another case of manufacturers influencing the regs for their benefit?
 
This is the sort of thing where the regs need to be a bit clearer, especially since it is saying that something which was a compliant method before is no longer such.
 
This is the sort of thing where the regs need to be a bit clearer, especially since it is saying that something which was a compliant method before is no longer such.

It's got me thinking now about all the cases where a nice simple job becomes a bigger undertaking that will ultimately mean a higher price and the potential for clients to go for a cheaper option with Dangerous Dave from the pub.

Things like say downlights in a bathroom in older installs where there is no RCD protection at the board. Up until now that's been easy, take the bathroom off the main lighting circuit and supply it via an RCD fused spur secreted in the airing cupboard for example. Yes it can be argued just install an RCD at the origin, but as has been discussed in this thread that brings with it other issues such as borrowed neutrals.

It just smacks of the regs being written by people with a vested interest and/or not having a bloody clue any more because they haven't been on the tools in decades.
 
SC maybe you are being a little unfair ?

I know by accident one of the guys who is on the advisory committee and he is a very practical guy, however....

The situation you describe will always occur when one is updating and improving in the light of EU legislation, or as a result of experience or accidents.

We have had this situation in the Railway Industry for 150 odd years with the advent of new equipment or lessons from incidents. Fortunately we are able to use judgement to determine what is the highest risk and then rank locations accordingly. This is something that in the domestic/commercial electrical field would not be easy to implement.

I would imagine the problem with basis compliance on an individual's risk assessment is that (as can be seen on a number of threads) people's perceptions vary widely, and indeed some people do not appear to be fully aware of the new 18th Edition requirements which I do not understand as there are training courses and I believe a requirement for Inspectors (I&T) to have sat and been upgraded in order to retain their Competence ???

I think there has to be a point where it has to be accepted that an installation may result in having to be upgraded far and beyond its existing edition simply because standards have moved on. To me this is just one of the costs of home ownership and maintaining the property in a good condition is a requirement of the mortgage provider as well as the Insurance Company. People unfortunately do not take this into consideration.

The only way to deal with the Dangerous Dave from the pub is to enact Legislation as they have done in Ireland which makes it a criminal offence to work on electrical equipment unless you are a registered electrician. Obviously there are one or two minor jobs that do not require this legal competence.

As a relative newbie to this side of the house, I am surprised at the complete lack of advice given by Government agencies about the changes to electrical regulations and I cannot understand why with something like 8 out of 10 fires being attributed to electrical faults, there is no real impetus to run advertising campaigns nor any action to require DIY shops to restrict the sale of electrical equipment / components to non trained people.

It could be argued that deaths from electrical accidents are far greater than from knife crime for example. It raises the question whether of whether it is for the IET or some other organisation such as a trade body to raise the matter in a much stronger way than might be the case.
 
SC maybe you are being a little unfair ?

I know by accident one of the guys who is on the advisory committee and he is a very practical guy, however....

The situation you describe will always occur when one is updating and improving in the light of EU legislation, or as a result of experience or accidents.

We have had this situation in the Railway Industry for 150 odd years with the advent of new equipment or lessons from incidents. Fortunately we are able to use judgement to determine what is the highest risk and then rank locations accordingly. This is something that in the domestic/commercial electrical field would not be easy to implement.

I would imagine the problem with basis compliance on an individual's risk assessment is that (as can be seen on a number of threads) people's perceptions vary widely, and indeed some people do not appear to be fully aware of the new 18th Edition requirements which I do not understand as there are training courses and I believe a requirement for Inspectors (I&T) to have sat and been upgraded in order to retain their Competence ???

I think there has to be a point where it has to be accepted that an installation may result in having to be upgraded far and beyond its existing edition simply because standards have moved on. To me this is just one of the costs of home ownership and maintaining the property in a good condition is a requirement of the mortgage provider as well as the Insurance Company. People unfortunately do not take this into consideration.

The only way to deal with the Dangerous Dave from the pub is to enact Legislation as they have done in Ireland which makes it a criminal offence to work on electrical equipment unless you are a registered electrician. Obviously there are one or two minor jobs that do not require this legal competence.

As a relative newbie to this side of the house, I am surprised at the complete lack of advice given by Government agencies about the changes to electrical regulations and I cannot understand why with something like 8 out of 10 fires being attributed to electrical faults, there is no real impetus to run advertising campaigns nor any action to require DIY shops to restrict the sale of electrical equipment / components to non trained people.

It could be argued that deaths from electrical accidents are far greater than from knife crime for example. It raises the question whether of whether it is for the IET or some other organisation such as a trade body to raise the matter in a much stronger way than might be the case.
Thoughtful and appreciated post.

It's not just us on the coal face guys that find it confusing, as I mentioned earlier my scheme technical helpline specifically said I can continue to use RCD FCUs and sockets, no mention of them not being compliant.

I am not dismissing the input from the experienced folk on here as what they quote seems quite clear.

But the amount of money they charge for their (IET) publications, the time and effort they put into their revisions and amendments yet they constantly fail to give clear guidance.

That is not just unclear to me but to those that are supposed to have the knowledge and understanding to advise on such matters.

I personally am becoming very disheartened.
 
Don't think an RCD FCU will cut it anymore with the passing of the 18th edition.

The BS number they are constructed under is not recognised by 7671 as offering additional protection.

Edit: This is just what I have heard, I do not yet own a copy of the 18th.
Here is a link to the latest BEAMA RCD handbook.
Supposedly up to date with the 18th:
http://www.beama.org.uk/asset/7062C3E9-70C0-4196-83FE5C315D958BC3/
Make of it what you will.
 
SC maybe you are being a little unfair ?

I know by accident one of the guys who is on the advisory committee and he is a very practical guy, however....

Maybe I am being a little unfair. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are representatives of manufacturers sitting in the committees. How can they present an unbiased opinion on anything when it is in their interests to have new regulations that require the installation of new equipment?

I guess what I'm most curious about is the why.... why is a standard that has been around for years now no longer considered suitable? Or is it a case of this has slipped through the net and is going to be corrected in an amendment or maybe another corrigendum?

This afternoon I've been to see an elderly gentleman about adding a socket in his garage. Yes, one socket outlet plate. The existing installation is a spur on a spur but I have access to a socket on the ring final, so my plan, extend the ring to the end of the run, stitch the additional socket in, job done. Check his fusebox... BS 3036.
6 weeks ago RCD socket outlets were the answer, now I have to either convince him he needs a new consumer unit or install an external 61008 in an enclosure. I don't fancy either of these for a variety of reasons, but suddenly it's a much bigger job and I'm beginning to feel a bit like a bandit robbing this guy. Do I think I'm going to get any work from him? Probably not now no and could he tell people I'm a rip off merchant? Possibly yes based on a lack of understanding.

The situation you describe will always occur when one is updating and improving in the light of EU legislation, or as a result of experience or accidents.

And I can accept that.

I think there has to be a point where it has to be accepted that an installation may result in having to be upgraded far and beyond its existing edition simply because standards have moved on. To me this is just one of the costs of home ownership and maintaining the property in a good condition is a requirement of the mortgage provider as well as the Insurance Company. People unfortunately do not take this into consideration.

Fundamentally I agree, but in the real world, this guy wants one new socket. How can you even begin justifying the expense of a new board for one socket. I started discussing it with him and I got the classic "It's worked and it's been alright for x years, why do I need that?".

The only way to deal with the Dangerous Dave from the pub is to enact Legislation as they have done in Ireland which makes it a criminal offence to work on electrical equipment unless you are a registered electrician. Obviously there are one or two minor jobs that do not require this legal competence.

I agree, but we're not there yet and to be honest, I just don't see that happening any time soon. But is Dangerous Dave the problem or a symptom of the problem? I think Dangerous Dave is a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of people are blissfully unaware of the regs etc. and so when someone rocks up who's going to do a regs compliant job they appear to be overpriced compared to those who don't give a hoot.

As a relative newbie to this side of the house, I am surprised at the complete lack of advice given by Government agencies about the changes to electrical regulations and I cannot understand why with something like 8 out of 10 fires being attributed to electrical faults, there is no real impetus to run advertising campaigns nor any action to require DIY shops to restrict the sale of electrical equipment / components to non trained people.

This is one of my gripes, that there is a lack of effort on the part of the IET to educate the average Joe on the street.
 
OK so is this not one for you to risk assess as a departure from BS7671 ?
The mitigation being that there is no increased risk because the socket is protected by a RCD so the requirement for RCD protection is maintained.
A further mitigation could be the risk of the socket being installed by a non-competent person whose work fails to meet BS7671 and who thus increases the risk.
This could be done in a simple 5x5 matrix
 
Last edited:

Reply to Advice on Installation in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

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.

I've Disabled AdBlock