C
cookiemonster
I had my assessment for joining the competent persons scheme with NICEIC last week. I showed the inspector my first job – one a full rewire with accompanying brand new 17th edition board – passed with flying colours. I then showed the inspector my second site which was the addition on a single socket outlet to the ground floor ring main wired as a spur off an existing kitchen socket. So as an extension to a special location this is a notifyable minor works. So we walked around the kitchen and he examined my handiwork and he seemed impressed. we discussed the issues I had encountered along the way which included discovering that the ring was a broken ring when I tested the circuit and that I had pinpointed this to an outlet that presumably had fed an extractor fan above hob in years gone by. So in fitting and testing this circuit and fixing the broken ring circuit I had arguably made this installation safer. The inspector asked had the circuit passed all circuit tests and I said yes.
So then the inspector starts to examine the paperwork. We get to the box entitled “Details of Departures, if any, from BS 7671”. I here I had put “Two different wire colouring systems in use. Consumer unit pre-dates BS7671 – 17th Edition”. All apparently good so far; he reads on. Then in the Comments box I had put that I had advised the customer that the circuit should really be protected by an RCD. At this point the inspector looks up and asks “is there no RCD on this circuit then?” No as stated on the Details of Departures the consumer unit pre-dates BS7671 – 17th Edition and it doesn’t have an RCD fitted. In fact the consumer unit wasn’t even a split board with a single RCD on let alone split with 2 RCD’s on as per 17th edition. “oh dear” says inspector “that’s not good, not good at all”. It dawned on me that he was trying to tell me that due to the lack of an RCD I’d failed my assessment. Ouch.
The fact that I was going to have to find another £450 quid to be re-tested didn’t exactly endear me to the inspector but truth be told the inspector had been very helpful and friendly and had only highlighted my mistake, so really I’ve got no grounds to knock the bloke.
However, this does raise some issues. I asked the inspector what my options were to put this right. He said I could either fit an RCBO to that circuit – well this was an old Contactum board and the current RCBO’s are not compatible with this old board which is fitted with 60898 mcb’s because where they attached to the bus bar doesn’t line up with the old bus bar positioning. Or failing that I could take a feed of the existing B32 mcb out to a single way RCD protected consumer unit and fit this next to the existing consumer unit. In an ideal world I should update the consumer unit to a 17th edition one. In essence because I was adding a socket to an existing circuit the entire circuit had to bought upto current BS7671 standards e.g. must be 17th edition compliant.
Anyway what I am most curious about is what is the little box on the Minor Works Certificate entitled “Details of Departures, if any, from BS 7671” box there for if no departures are allowed? Or put another way why is a departure in the form of old wiring colours an allowed departure but the absence of an RCD isn’t? Where is the published list of allowable departures and not allowable departures in the 17th Edition? Surely the fact that the inspector seems to be suggesting that an RCD should be incorporated retrospectively whenever a socket outlet is added to an existing circuit on a non 17th edition board then this means that every time we encounter this situation then a consumer unit update is prescribed? In which case what is the point of the Minor Works Certificate for any minor job other than to an installation which already has a current 17th edition consumer unit. Is the Minor Works Certificate relevant to any work carried out to circuits connected to non 17th Edition boards?
This doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Surely you can have a socket outlet fitted to a circuit on a pre-17th edition without having to fit either an RCBO (if the board will accept one) or fit a single way RCD protected consumer unit just for that circuit or update to a 17th edition consumer unit.
In the real world a customer phones me up to ask me to fit an single additional socket outlet to an existing circuit. I arrive and discover that they don’t have a 17th edition board. In fact they don’t even have a split board so it’s not possible to add an RCD to cover all circuits as it not allowed under 17th edition for failure of any one circuit to affect all other circuits. Adding a socket means in most scenarios that a consumer unit change is required. The customer might conclude that I may just be a cowboy builder who is trying to sell him a consumer unit he doesn’t need and tell me to get on my bike. I walk away and he gets to live with his non-RCD protected circuit for a few more years or worse still has a bash at doing the work himself ?
Also it seems a bit strange that as long as I make sure the circuit I work on is complaint (by just fitting an RCBO or single way consumer unit to that circuit only) then I could walk away from the job in the knowledge that the upstairs ring main was non’RCD protected and therefore non compliant and therefore deemed unsafe.
In the instance of my socket outlet circuit with no RCD protection this circuit had passed all other tests obviously including the all-important IR and Zs tests.
Have I got this wrong? I’d be really interested to hear other folks thoughts on this one if you can help. Many thanks,
So then the inspector starts to examine the paperwork. We get to the box entitled “Details of Departures, if any, from BS 7671”. I here I had put “Two different wire colouring systems in use. Consumer unit pre-dates BS7671 – 17th Edition”. All apparently good so far; he reads on. Then in the Comments box I had put that I had advised the customer that the circuit should really be protected by an RCD. At this point the inspector looks up and asks “is there no RCD on this circuit then?” No as stated on the Details of Departures the consumer unit pre-dates BS7671 – 17th Edition and it doesn’t have an RCD fitted. In fact the consumer unit wasn’t even a split board with a single RCD on let alone split with 2 RCD’s on as per 17th edition. “oh dear” says inspector “that’s not good, not good at all”. It dawned on me that he was trying to tell me that due to the lack of an RCD I’d failed my assessment. Ouch.
The fact that I was going to have to find another £450 quid to be re-tested didn’t exactly endear me to the inspector but truth be told the inspector had been very helpful and friendly and had only highlighted my mistake, so really I’ve got no grounds to knock the bloke.
However, this does raise some issues. I asked the inspector what my options were to put this right. He said I could either fit an RCBO to that circuit – well this was an old Contactum board and the current RCBO’s are not compatible with this old board which is fitted with 60898 mcb’s because where they attached to the bus bar doesn’t line up with the old bus bar positioning. Or failing that I could take a feed of the existing B32 mcb out to a single way RCD protected consumer unit and fit this next to the existing consumer unit. In an ideal world I should update the consumer unit to a 17th edition one. In essence because I was adding a socket to an existing circuit the entire circuit had to bought upto current BS7671 standards e.g. must be 17th edition compliant.
Anyway what I am most curious about is what is the little box on the Minor Works Certificate entitled “Details of Departures, if any, from BS 7671” box there for if no departures are allowed? Or put another way why is a departure in the form of old wiring colours an allowed departure but the absence of an RCD isn’t? Where is the published list of allowable departures and not allowable departures in the 17th Edition? Surely the fact that the inspector seems to be suggesting that an RCD should be incorporated retrospectively whenever a socket outlet is added to an existing circuit on a non 17th edition board then this means that every time we encounter this situation then a consumer unit update is prescribed? In which case what is the point of the Minor Works Certificate for any minor job other than to an installation which already has a current 17th edition consumer unit. Is the Minor Works Certificate relevant to any work carried out to circuits connected to non 17th Edition boards?
This doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Surely you can have a socket outlet fitted to a circuit on a pre-17th edition without having to fit either an RCBO (if the board will accept one) or fit a single way RCD protected consumer unit just for that circuit or update to a 17th edition consumer unit.
In the real world a customer phones me up to ask me to fit an single additional socket outlet to an existing circuit. I arrive and discover that they don’t have a 17th edition board. In fact they don’t even have a split board so it’s not possible to add an RCD to cover all circuits as it not allowed under 17th edition for failure of any one circuit to affect all other circuits. Adding a socket means in most scenarios that a consumer unit change is required. The customer might conclude that I may just be a cowboy builder who is trying to sell him a consumer unit he doesn’t need and tell me to get on my bike. I walk away and he gets to live with his non-RCD protected circuit for a few more years or worse still has a bash at doing the work himself ?
Also it seems a bit strange that as long as I make sure the circuit I work on is complaint (by just fitting an RCBO or single way consumer unit to that circuit only) then I could walk away from the job in the knowledge that the upstairs ring main was non’RCD protected and therefore non compliant and therefore deemed unsafe.
In the instance of my socket outlet circuit with no RCD protection this circuit had passed all other tests obviously including the all-important IR and Zs tests.
Have I got this wrong? I’d be really interested to hear other folks thoughts on this one if you can help. Many thanks,
