Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 27 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2416 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

John Peckham
Today's job inspect and test a domestic installation in a sheltered housing flat. TN-C-S earthing system. Main protective bonding correct. 


Wet room for disabled occupant. Electric shower and extract fan supplied from a Wylex 2 way consumer unit  with BS EN 61008 30mA RCD main switch. Recently installed.


RCD does not trip on X1 RCD test but does trip on X 5 and operation of test button. RCD does not tip on a second and third test after X 5 test and operation of the test button.


Thinking about the Note to Regulation 643.8 are you content with this installation as there are no other observations recorded and prepared to issue a "Satisfactory" EICR?


Parents
  • 0
    The question is why the need for change. It would be interesting to have the RCD that John condemned tested by Wylex for compliance with BSEN 61008.    Is this perhaps the problem? RCDs being tested for parameters that might be difficult to assess when tests are conducted on site then being condemned when they don't meet those parameters? Did the manufacturers have any sway with the JPEL64 committee, perhaps arguing that the 61008/9 parameters should be their responsibility?

    Absolutely no arguement with JPs reasoning, but like many, I would love to know the actual reason for the change rather than just speculate.
Reply
  • 0
    The question is why the need for change. It would be interesting to have the RCD that John condemned tested by Wylex for compliance with BSEN 61008.    Is this perhaps the problem? RCDs being tested for parameters that might be difficult to assess when tests are conducted on site then being condemned when they don't meet those parameters? Did the manufacturers have any sway with the JPEL64 committee, perhaps arguing that the 61008/9 parameters should be their responsibility?

    Absolutely no arguement with JPs reasoning, but like many, I would love to know the actual reason for the change rather than just speculate.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines