Inadequate inspections on the safety of wiring in buildings across England are increasing the risk of fires, E&T has found. A flawed regulatory system has sparked a race to the bottom, with some businesses profiting at the expense of the public’s safety.
Please get in touch with any comments/thoughts you may have
In some ways we might have gone full circle.
Back in the 1980’s when I had a fuse board without RCD protection I installed a RCD protected fused connection unit to supply a outdoor socket, then my home fully complied with the requirements for RCD protection.
If I were in the same situation now it could be argued that without any RCD protection for the sockets at all there should be a Code 2 making an EICR, but it would only need one or two SRCD for outdoor sockets to reduce the code to C3 making an EICR possibly satisfactory.
So we are back in the situation where swapping a socket for a SRCD or installing a dedicated outdoor SRCD for not a lot of money could be the difference between a satisfactory and unsatisfactory EICR.
I have considered unwanted tripping and I have concluded that the risks involved by such should be prevented at all costs. Obviously the wise regulation writers have considered this matter very carefully as the need for comment is manifested in this observation.
131.1 (vi).
Z.
Andy, why are you attempting to falsify a situation, trying to use examples which I have not suggested or even vaguely discussed? From your post it appears that you are also attempting to modify the actual regulations to suit your OWN perceptions of risk? BS7671 is a minimum set of standards for electrical installations, and my single RCD suggestion EXACTLY follows that theme. You seem to be suggesting that an RCD per circuit IS A REQUIREMENT, it is not, because following though this pattern immediately takes one to only one load per circuit, with its own RCD, in case the trip is "dangerous" to the installation user!
A single RCD could be inconvenient to the user if it trips. It will not unless a potentially dangerous fault is present, and is an indication that immediate attention to something is required. If your van stops suddenly it could be very dangerous, but we cope with it. You seem not to realise that the RCD is "additional protection" in TN systems except in particular unusual circumstances. (531.1.1 etc & 410.3.2). In TT systems it is used for basic protection on Earth faults.
The regulations now require that some circuits have RCD protection as standard, but they do not specify that this must be per circuit or anything else, even though the manufacturers would like this to be the case! The RCBO is an attempt to drive this forward, again it is an enhancement that some customers may wish to pay for, although it probably means all the RCD test buttons will be ignored. The new 6 months test time is a sop!
I know many people who fear calling in any trades because they cannot afford any more cash outflow without going without food. This is a terrible situation, and much worse than a single RCD. You seem unaware of such people and certainly appear not to care. The proportion of jobs where I make a nominal charge or nothing is increasing, they need the money more than I do. You may note that the PRH regulations try to improve this in one sector by putting the costs where they belong.
I don't know why you have brought up cases where there were fatal accidents (there are very few), but notice has been taken of these. It appears that in such cases there is usually bad workmanship involved, or regulatory failure, and Grenfell tower is no different. BS7671 has been changed to attempt to protect against these cases, but you will notice that the costs which may well not be inconsiderable are balanced against very tiny risks, but the statistics quoted are usually misrepresented as the correct ones are not collected being so rare. Most people drilling into a cable in a wall will be unaware of anything, particularly as we now have battery drills. Did this cause any deaths, and do ordinary people know about safe zones, which often are not.
Andy and Zoom, It is rather disingenuous to suggest I am a dinosaur because I say fitting a single RCD (not none as you seem to suggest) is an easy and cheap way to significantly improve an installation.
I don't agree 100 %. It wouldn't be viable, because it's not unusual to see 5-8 mA of protective conductor current "standing" in the installation, which increases in winter when cold concentric mineral-insulated heating elements switch on (ovens, grills, washing machine, some tumble dryers), and not considering "surge protective conductor currents" ... and when more lamps are placed with LED, etc., things will only get worse.
Making something "pass" is one thing, but making a usable installation is another thing entirely.
I think there will be a lot of people in the industry who think a minimum of 2 no. RCDs would be required to prevent unwanted tripping in modern houses (one RCD for some flats, on the other hand, might get away with one as you say).
Most people drilling into a cable in a wall will be unaware of anything, particularly as we now have battery drills. Did this cause any deaths, and do ordinary people know about safe zones, which often are not.
Yes well some of us remember Stanley (other makes existed) hand cranked drills, which made poor progress through walls. Or you could use a Rawlplug No. 14 chisel for want of a better name. I still use mine 'cos it goes where I point it more or less. But if you have one in your fist and you are dozy enough to make a hole right above a socket, could you let go? At one point when rewiring Daughter's house, I was concerned that I might not be able to pull up a cable (under capping) 'cos she had nailed in a picture hook directly above the socket. She had missed by a few millimetres, but could she have let go?
So in fact, RCD protection is to protect the stupid from their Darwinian acts.
True Chris, but they have insufficient progeny to make any difference, so why bother?
I think you have a problem Andy and Zoomup. You are not discriminating between additional protection, and faulty wiring. If a shower has a perfectly good Ze then it is not dangerous and the RCD has nothing to do. Y
But the shower is unlikely to be installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions (many leading manufacturers have been specifying RCDs since at least early 'naughties' if not before.
And if the shower has been installed since 2008, it won't have been installed in accordance with BS 7671 in force at that time?
We can't keep putting off improvements indefinitely?
I think we have two threads becoming intermixed here.
1) Should rented accommodation have RCD protection because the property is being let as a profit-making business?
2) Do RCDs enhance safety for the end user even though an installation not equipped with one or more RCDs, still meets the disconnection times for the existing OPDs employed?
My answer to 1) is that it is important to distinguish between a privately owned property occupied by it's owner and a privately owned property let for rent/reward.
It is arguable that the former should be an environment whereby the owner should be free to determine his/her own level of what is acceptable in terms of safety measures and their associated expense.
My answer to 2) is that because the property is being let to a third party for financial gain, then the enhanced safety provided a RCD should not be omitted.
Unlike other recent additions to the requirements of BS7671, The physics behind the workings of a RCD are well known and proven, plus, the costs of adding even a single device to the tails isn't that great in terms of cost.
I await with bated breath as to what coding will be given to a plastic consumer unit full of type A/C RCBOs under a staircase!
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
