The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement
I thought this was an interesting consideration from NICEIC Q and A on AFDDs. I would have thought the regulation was focused at what might end up connected to a socket rather than the AFDD protection for the circuit. Were that to be the case, then what about all the other circuits that do not have sockets?
Humm, I'm not sure I follow the logic behind the NICEIC's answer - while I agree that current regs aren't retrospective to the existing installation, they surely do apply to the new work - i.e. the new length of cable and the new socket. I can't see how the addition can be said to comply with the latest regs in such cases if an AFDD wasn't provided. It smacks rather like saying you don't need to correct inadequate or defective main bonding when making an indoors addition that relies on ADS ... because the bonding was part of the existing installation.
- Andy.
Yes and no!
Earthing and bonding must be adequate for the addition or alteration: 132:16.
More pragmatically, suppose that a customer obtains two quotes. One says that you must have AFDD, the other does not. Which will you choose?
Wouldn’t it make sense to offer two pricing options—one with AFDDs and one without? That way, the client can decide based on their budget and priorities. While AFDDs aren’t a strict requirement, I always explain that they’re recommended (C3 on a EICR) for improving safety. Give the client the information they need to make an informed decision.
You could also go one step further and give options for PVC/PVC T&E vs LS0H. Caveat time, there are differences between LSF (Low Smoke and Fume) and LSOH (Low Smoke Zero Halogen) cables. Now LS0H is not a requirement for a domestic dwelling BUT it is safer if used. Is this not the realm of a designer and for a small operation the Electrician is the Designer/Installer/Commissioner /Tester
Give the client the information they need to make an informed decision.
And the informed decision will be to go with the cheapest option.
And the informed decision will be to go with the cheapest option.
That's a bit cynical.
I think that I would seek justification for the additional expense - same as for any other tradesman, including a surgeon.
Well a truly informed decision will require the fires and accident figures so lacking from the AFDD sales literature.
Mike.
40 years ago, if you were ill, you tended simply to accept doctor's advice. Nowadays, the decision has to be fully informed or else any odd side effect such as gambling all your savings away, or going a bit kinky as in this week's news is the doctor's fault.
I see no reason why the same principles should not apply to any expert's advice.
This year, my house insurers required me to install better fire detectors. AFDDs were not required, so that must give an indication as to their value.
Wouldn’t it make sense to offer two pricing options—one with AFDDs and one without? That way, the client can decide based on their budget and priorities. While AFDDs aren’t a strict requirement...
In the OP's situation of HRRBs, HMOs, etc, the wording of 421.1.7 is "shall" - which seems like an absolute requirement to me.
Earthing and bonding must be adequate for the addition or alteration: 132:16.
Indeed, but I'd suggest that's not an exception to the rule, but rather it's merely reinforcing the general requirements of 132.16 "No addition or alteration ... shall be made to and existing installation unless it has been ascertained that the rating and condition of any existing equipment ... will be adequate for the altered circumstances". To my mind that's saying that if we need the supply circuit to have upstream AFDD protection and it's not there, we can't make the addition. Which leaves us with the alternatives of either creating a new circuit with AFDD protection to supply our new socket, or upgrade the exiting circuit so it does.
After all we wouldn't accept high Zs or excessive v.d. on a new socket, just on the ground that it's caused by the existing installation.
(I can appreciate that some of the doubt around the effectiveness of AFDDs may give rise to a temptation to look for ways of omitting them, but that can't really justify undermining the principles of the regs.)
- Andy.
Hi Andy. I agree that the new circuit should include AFDDs in the specified installations. However, the work being carried out would fall under Regulation 644.1 as a minor works. Does this imply that omitting AFDDs would fail to comply with Regulation 644.1.2
-Andrew
Hi Andy. I agree that the new circuit should include AFDDs in the specified installations. However, the work being carried out would fall under Regulation 644.1 as a minor works. Does this imply that omitting AFDDs would fail to comply with Regulation 644.1.2
-Andrew
Does this imply that omitting AFDDs would fail to comply with Regulation 644.1.2
It certainly reads that way to me (for HRRBs, HMOs etc, not as a general case).
- Andy.
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
