Two ways of looking at this:

(1) Do as you are told; or more formally, do what it says in the contract. I am not sure what "simple test" means - is that just pressing the test button?

(2) Test the RCD properly. Yes, a satisfactory response to the test button shows that the RCD still functions to a certain level, but in the absence of paperwork, I think that ideally the trip time (at IΔn) should be tested. I think that testing it somewhere down the circuit is more than intended because then you are testing the circuit as well, so just test the RCD in the DB.

Apologies Chris, to clarify:

(1) "Simple test" should read "simply test" (damn you autocorrect) I'm talking about the 0.5x 1x and 5x + ramp test, that's what I'm asked to do anyway.

(2) I just think that regardless of what I'm asked or what is intended (and we get instructions to test Ze while people are still using the system (whole residential buildings for example) to run full electrical testing cycles on co-axial cables and all sorts) the point of testing is to ensure that the system is still safe and so why not throw in the whole circuit and be as thorough as you can be. Especially considering the circumstances.

I should probably mention that I am being expected to sign off the work so if anything is actually wrong it is on me.

:)

Doesn't 643.8 cover the R.C.D. testing situation?

Also 415.1.1  and 415.1.2 may apply.

Z.

Refer you back to no initial verification paperwork and no periodic inspections ever.. and conductors popping out. Also 643.8 doesn't specify whether the test is the RCD or the RCD and Earth Fault Loop. The RCD in any case could pass but the circuit could fail and it's an existing system. 

Testing the R.C.D is one thing, and testing the wiring is another thing. The R.C.D. can be tested at the R.C.D. or by plugging in a tester on the load side of the R.C.D. What actually are you required to test?

You can always qualify your testing by accurately specifying what you have actually tested and state any omissions.

Z.

I'm only required to test the RCD itself but I think given the lack of periodic inspections and the fact that conductors needed to be tightened/re-terminated gives me little confidence that it is actually safe and will disconnect within the required time. Personally I think it is "jobsworth-y" to just follow the paperwork you're given when you suspect that it is dodgy. Hence the post.

Thanks for your replies though

:) 

Being conscientious is good. The other thing to consider is; is the correct type of R.C.D. installed 531.3.3?

Z.

I think so, but I may double check as one of the aforementioned RCD's failed and I have orders to replace the whole CU. 

Look back later Trig. There will be many more responses. Don't move that dial, as we used to say about a good radio station.

P.S. There are many new types of R.C.Ds these days.

Z.

TrigPoint said:

Our sheets actually direct us to simple test the RCD at the RCD.

Depending on how that test is carried out, it can be dangerous without carrying out other tests first.

If you are testing by returning the fault current down a protective conductor, and that protective conductor has not been verified first, hazardous touch-voltages and touch-currents can be imposed on parts of the installations for a period of time.

This is covered in IET Guidance Note 3.

Chris Pearson said:

wo ways of looking at this:

(1) Do as you are told; or more formally, do what it says in the contract. I am not sure what "simple test" means - is that just pressing the test button?

Doing 'as you are told' when it's not safe is a potential breach of legislation.

Zoomup said:

Doesn't 643.8 cover the R.C.D. testing situation?

It doesn't tell you exactly how to do the test (and when it may not be safe to do the test) ... as the person carrying out the test is supposed to be competent.