Departures from bs7671, certification.

[odawire]

Hi, I have always made sure my installs have no departures from bs7671 but I'm doing a ccu change next week and have done some preliminary testing and the heating circuit (boiler and heating controls) has low IR readings, had a look in all obvious places and cant find any problems, had trouble breaking the circuit up as its a bit messy, client has just decorated so he doesn't want any damage to the house, seeing as its all fixed equipment (I'm unsure on the cable routes but id guess its buried less than 50mm at some point) is it acceptable to leave this circuit unprotected and note it on the departures section? all the earthing/bonding is mustard. Any experience on this would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[telectrix]

firstly, what was the IR reading for the heating circuit? secondly, the cable buried <50mm deep -- if it's going to be RCD protected, then no problem. don't forget that the IR would need to be under 10KΩ to cause RCD tripping.

 

[odawire]

Hi, should have explained, I have a rig I made up I use sometimes, its basically an rcd adaptor that I wire into and plug into a socket, when I did this it tripped, the IR reading was bouncing around I think it settled around 7Mohms across all points, I remember it was the exact same number. The reason Im asking is, I want to know if its acceptable to leave it off the RCD side if I have to, as I don't think I can leave them with no heating at this time of year, can I note it as a departure as the cable is probably less than 50mm deep

 

[telectrix]

at 7MΩ, i wouldn't worry. BS7671 quotes 2MΩ as a minimum, so just RCD protect the circuit.better still, fit a RCBO in the non RCD section of the CU.

 

[odawire]

thanks for your response but im not worried about the circuit, when I put it on an rcd it was tripping straight way, so I don't want to RCD protect it, I want to put it on an MCB with no rcd protection.

 

[telectrix]

then there's a fault on either the circuit or the heasting system. does it still trip with the boiler out of circuit?

 

[Guitarist]

Personally, I wouldn't just put it on a non-protected side due to a fault. Tell the owner that it will need to be sorted before the CU can be changed.

 

[Richard Burns]

Just as a reminder departures from BS7671 are only cases where the circuit is not designed to BS7671 but is still safely designed, it is not a non compliant situation, which is what you are describing (circuit requiring RCD protection not RCD protected because of a fault on the circuit).

That said if you are changing a CU you only need to ensure that the circuits you are reconnecting are safe for continued use (which may well be dubious in this case) not that they meet current regulations.
I would do as Guitarist says, tell them they need that fault rectified before changing the CU.

 

[DPG]

thanks for your response but im not worried about the circuit, when I put it on an rcd it was tripping straight way, so I don't want to RCD protect it, I want to put it on an MCB with no rcd protection.

So...Would you sleep soundly at night knowing that you had connected this known-faulty circuit to the non-RCD side so that the fault wouldn't show up? Daz

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Hi, I have always made sure my installs have no departures from bs7671 but I'm doing a ccu change next week and have done some preliminary testing and the heating circuit (boiler and heating controls) has low IR readings, had a look in all obvious places and cant find any problems, had trouble breaking the circuit up as its a bit messy, client has just decorated so he doesn't want any damage to the house, seeing as its all fixed equipment (I'm unsure on the cable routes but id guess its buried less than 50mm at some point) is it acceptable to leave this circuit unprotected and note it on the departures section? all the earthing/bonding is mustard. Any experience on this would be appreciated, thanks.

what do you want?...a round of applause?
i had this down as standard...

 

[Guitarist]

So...Would you sleep soundly at night knowing that you had connected this known-faulty circuit to the non-RCD side so that the fault wouldn't show up? Daz

I've known of builders and plumbers doing that when they change a CU and the RCD goes out on the RFC.

 

[DPG]

I've known of builders and plumbers doing that when they change a CU and the RCD goes out on the RFC.

Good point. Odawire, are you a plumber/builder/qualified electrician? Daz

 

[odawire]

Thanks for replies, I am a qualified electrician, I will be fully testing the circuits prior to the change and will try to rectify the fault before. As I said before, I have looked at all circuit connections and cannot see any problems, I will break it down and try to find the fault but I fear part of the circuit will need re-wiring and I don't think they will want this. Because of the fault being the same across all conductors I think that points to cable damage/insulation breakdown, as long as other tests were acceptable then putting it un-rcd protected would only be a C3 recommendation code

- - - Updated - - -

what do you want?...a round of applause?
i had this down as standard...

What's the point of a comment like this?

 

[odawire]

then there's a fault on either the circuit or the heasting system. does it still trip with the boiler out of circuit?

haven't got that far with the testing yet, ill let you know

 

[Jdsparky]

It would only be a c3 if doing a periodic and it was done to old regulations, but u are effectively updating the installation to 17th edition regs by applying Rcd protection, and as u say u think cable is in wall less than 50mm so to 17th obviously needs Rcd protection. But I would explain to customer that it needs sorting before changing Fuseboard, as you have tested circuit and it fails test so further investigation is required.
i also applaud you for testing installation prior as many don't, and has also potentially got you more money out of the job rather than sorting later at your expense/time finding and fixing fault.

 

[Guitarist]

With the greatest respect, don't "try" to rectify the fault, but make it clear that it MUST be sorted before you proceed further. If your test was 7 meg and that was an end to it, then all well and good. A note that IR tests were low would have covered you. However, as it is taking the RCD straight out, then there is something very wrong somewhere.
How would you feel if there's a fire due to this fault, and you'd walked away saying "I had a look, but nothing I could do"?

 

[odawire]

It would only be a c3 if doing a periodic and it was done to old regulations, but u are effectively updating the installation to 17th edition regs by applying Rcd protection, and as u say u think cable is in wall less than 50mm so to 17th obviously needs Rcd protection. But I would explain to customer that it needs sorting before changing Fuseboard, as you have tested circuit and it fails test so further investigation is required.
i also applaud you for testing installation prior as many don't, and has also potentially got you more money out of the job rather than sorting later at your expense/time finding and fixing fault.

Thanks for the reply, BS7671 does not require circuits to be upgraded to current regulations to be connected to a replacement ccu, only for it to be ascertained that they are not an immediate danger (which I would read as no C1's or C2's), GN3 even says there is no obligation to inspect or test any part of the installation!

Also found this : www.niceic.com/Uploads/File1950.pdf Guidance on cu replacement, which also says the same. interesting reading.

 

[odawire]

So...Would you sleep soundly at night knowing that you had connected this known-faulty circuit to the non-RCD side so that the fault wouldn't show up? Daz

Its not necessarily "faulty"

 

[Platinum lad]

Just a thought I would disconnect any zone valves or circulation pump I know from experience they can be a pain

 

[telectrix]

disconnect at the FCU> if it's only single pole, then take the N out of the terminal. then test your circuit. if the fault is on the heating then you need the customer to get it sorted, either by you or a heating " engineer" (that's usually a plumber that can read and write).

 

[DPG]

Its not necessarily "faulty"

Is the circuit faulty or not? It trips the RCD - yes? Daz

 

[odawire]

With the greatest respect, don't "try" to rectify the fault, but make it clear that it MUST be sorted before you proceed further. If your test was 7 meg and that was an end to it, then all well and good. A note that IR tests were low would have covered you. However, as it is taking the RCD straight out, then there is something very wrong somewhere.
How would you feel if there's a fire due to this fault, and you'd walked away saying "I had a look, but nothing I could do"?

That's not what Im saying, its a bit more complicated then that, it may be that the client does not want any work done in which case I need a reason for the circuit to be on a rcd, which to be honest there isn't

 

[telectrix]

odawire, if you get the same reading L-E as N-E, then its one or the other with a load still connected. do continuity L-N first, then 250V L-N this will give you a better idea.

 

[Rockingit]

If you've got an IR measurement of 7MOhms, then you're chasing up a tree. 230/700000 = something too small to bother with, certainly not enough to trip a 30mA RCD. So, test and test again. Have you considered something as mundane as a borrowed neutral somewhere?

 

[odawire]

Is the circuit faulty or not? It trips the RCD - yes? Daz

Yes, which I assume is down to IR breakdown

 

[DPG]

That's not what Im saying, its a bit more complicated then that, it may be that the client does not want any work done in which case I need a reason for the circuit to be on a rcd, which to be honest there isn't

I don't get this, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It's not a case of whether the circuit should or should not be on an RCD. The issue is the fact that the circuit should work fine if it is on an RCD, but it doesn't. The reason you are putting forward for not protecting it with an RCD is not a regs issue, it's because it won't work when it is fed from one. Daz

 

[odawire]

If you've got an IR measurement of 7MOhms, then you're chasing up a tree. 230/700000 = something too small to bother with, certainly not enough to trip a 30mA RCD. So, test and test again. Have you considered something as mundane as a borrowed neutral somewhere?

Yea, I have thought that, I will be checking that

 

[odawire]

I don't get this, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It's not a case of whether the circuit should or should not be on an RCD. The issue is the fact that the circuit should work fine if it is on an RCD, but it doesn't. The reason you are putting forward for not protecting it with an RCD is not a regs issue, it's because it won't work when it is fed from one. Daz

My original question was about departures being noted on an EIC, but its turned into me turning my back on a dangerous situation which I haven't.

- - - Updated - - -

Just a thought I would disconnect any zone valves or circulation pump I know from experience they can be a pain

Thanks, ill keep that in mind

 

[odawire]

odawire, if you get the same reading L-E as N-E, then its one or the other with a load still connected. do continuity L-N first, then 250V L-N this will give you a better idea.

Good point, ill keep that in mind

N-L was the same too

 

[Octopus]

Hi, should have explained, I have a rig I made up I use sometimes, its basically an rcd adaptor that I wire into and plug into a socket, when I did this it tripped, the IR reading was bouncing around I think it settled around 7Mohms across all points, I remember it was the exact same number. The reason Im asking is, I want to know if its acceptable to leave it off the RCD side if I have to, as I don't think I can leave them with no heating at this time of year, can I note it as a departure as the cable is probably less than 50mm deep

Maybe you should go back and retest the IR as I wouldn't expect the value you claim to trip an RCD if it really was across all 3 "points"

 

[Heisenberg]

Thanks for the reply, BS7671 does not require circuits to be upgraded to current regulations to be connected to a replacement ccu, only for it to be ascertained that they are not an immediate danger (which I would read as no C1's or C2's), GN3 even says there is no obligation to inspect or test any part of the installation!

Also found this : www.niceic.com/Uploads/File1950.pdf Guidance on cu replacement, which also says the same. interesting reading.

The document you refer to also says this:

Where a consumer unit is being replaced, additional protection by means of RCDs in accordance with Regulation 415.1 should be provided to the extent required by the current edition BS 7671, such as for:

• socket-outlets (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• mobile equipment for use outdoors (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• cables concealed in walls or partitions, where required by Regulations 522.6.6 to 522.6.8, and
• circuits of locations containing a bath or shower (Regulation 701.411.3.3 refers).

So if you are changing the CU you need to use RCD/RCBOs. You can't just avoid putting that circuit on a RCCD because it keeps tripping. And sod what the customer says, it won't be him appearing in front of the men in funny wigs if it all goes south. Do it the way it's meant to be done or walk away, simples.

 

[odawire]

The document you refer to also says this:

Where a consumer unit is being replaced, additional protection by means of RCDs in accordance with Regulation 415.1 should be provided to the extent required by the current edition BS 7671, such as for:

• socket-outlets (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• mobile equipment for use outdoors (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• cables concealed in walls or partitions, where required by Regulations 522.6.6 to 522.6.8, and
• circuits of locations containing a bath or shower (Regulation 701.411.3.3 refers).

So if you are changing the CU you need to use RCD/RCBOs. You can't just avoid putting that circuit on a RCCD because it keeps tripping. And sod what the customer says, it won't be him appearing in front of the men in funny wigs if it all goes south. Do it the way it's meant to be done or walk away, simples.

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

 

[R G]

Best to get this sorted before you do any work , if you speak to the customer and explain the problem they would see your point , but if you did the job as it stands now , the client probably wouldn't bother getting it sorted

 

[fog]

can be nightmare, personnally you could try taking some temporary 1.5/2.5 mm flex directly to fused connection unit, from board or your RCD socket, eliminating anything else on circuit see if that works, then eliminate heating circuit parts i.e pump, valves, i often take temporary flex to circuit loads eliminating other loads on circuit, to see where the problem is? but it must be RCD protected on a cu change. as said before if the fault still exists more investigation required, explain that the work must be carried out, otherwise no point in cu change. be wary of untruthful customers who say nothing is wrong, getting a quote and fixed price on board change is a good way of customer getting there faults fixed? when i first started got had on this one had to rewire most of upstairs lighting circuit due to rodent damage, customer just kept saying you quoted x thats all you getting

 

[Heisenberg]

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

Where exactly is the contradiction? You have already been told by Richard Burns that your interpretation of the 'departures' section is incorrect, so I'll say it again. You can't use the 'departures' section to mitigate the fact that you have not installed, or are intending to not install, the CU in accordance with BS7671.

 

[DJ Ovengloves]

Wow, I mean wow. Just because your peers are telling to do a job properly and quite clearly you don't have a clue to do so, there no need to start throwing your toys. Either fix the problem (if you can) or walk away, ensuring you let your customer why. Sorry mods, but I find this kind of attitude disgusting if I'm honest.

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

 

[Octopus]

Agree 110%^^^^^^

 

[Sintra]

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

Mate you have asked a question and been given the correct guidance by different members. Just because you may not like what you hear is not the fault of the forum.

 

[odawire]

Where exactly is the contradiction? You have already been told by Richard Burns that your interpretation of the 'departures' section is incorrect, so I'll say it again. You can't use the 'departures' section to mitigate the fact that you have not installed, or are intending to not install, the CU in accordance with BS7671.

In one part of the document it says rcd protection should be required for buried cables, but in another part (and in the regs) it says C3 can be connected to a new CCU, that is a contradiction.

 

[odawire]

Wow, I mean wow. Just because your peers are telling to do a job properly and quite clearly you don't have a clue to do so, there no need to start throwing your toys. Either fix the problem (if you can) or walk away, ensuring you let your customer why. Sorry mods, but I find this kind of attitude disgusting if I'm honest.

The point im making is tht is not the question I asked, Im perfectly able to diagnose and fix wiring faults, but that was not my question, Im not throwing any toys anywhere, can you please explain what you mean when you say you find my attitude disgusting?

 

[odawire]

Mate you have asked a question and been given the correct guidance by different members. Just because you may not like what you hear is not the fault of the forum.

Its not that I don't like what I hear, I don't know why people are talking about me being in court when all I did was pose a hypothetical question, there's a tendency for people on this forum to assume that your totally stupid and don't have a clue what your talking about and I find that a bit ridiculous, I wonder if some of these people have conversations like this in real life?

 

[DPG]

A few questions:
Is there a fault on the circuit in question?
Do you intend putting this circuit on the non-RCD side because it will trip if you put it on the protected side?
Would you say a faulty circuit counts as a 'Departure from bs7671 regulations'? (quoted from your thread title)

Be interested to see some YES/NO answers for these, rather than waffle.

It seems you are looking for a reg you can use to justify this, when the real issue is the fact that you have a faulty circuit. Daz

 

[Octopus]

The OP is very defensive. I reakon that he's actually done this already and was hoping for help in wording the cert.

tin hat on

 

[odawire]

A few questions:
Is there a fault on the circuit in question?
Do you intend putting this circuit on the non-RCD side because it will trip if you put it on the protected side?
Would you say a faulty circuit counts as a 'Departure from bs7671 regulations'? (quoted from your thread title)

Be interested to see some YES/NO answers for these, rather than waffle.

It seems you are looking for a reg you can use to justify this, when the real issue is the fact that you have a faulty circuit. Daz

Is there a fault on the circuit? Yes

Do I intend to put on non-rcd side? No but I was interested to hear peoples thoughts as it seems unclear.

Would I say a faulty circuit is a departue? Possibly yes, posibly no, don't have enough information yet.

I'm not looking for a reg to justify and I'm not waffling

 

[DPG]

Right, so you don't intend to put it on the non-RCD side. In that case you will be putting it on the RCD side. In which case, the fault will need fixing.

Daz

 

[Plonker 3]

In one part of the document it says rcd protection should be required for buried cables, but in another part (and in the regs) it says C3 can be connected to a new CCU, that is a contradiction.

1.No where in the regs does it say that it can be a C3 on a EICR

2. You will be filling in a EIC not a EICR so that totally contradicts what you are saying.

 

[odawire]

1.No where in the regs does it say that it can be a C3 on a EICR

2. You will be filling in a EIC not a EICR so that totally contradicts what you are saying.

I'm refering to it as a C3 (quicker to write) code as it says a fault not causing an imeadiate danger, and thankyou I'm well aware of what certificate I need to fill out, however an EICR is acceptable for a fuseboard change, but NIC says EIC and that's the only reason I do an EIC, BS7671 asks for a EICR.

 

[richy3333]

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

Yes it is...

 

[richy3333]

I'm refering to it as a C3 (quicker to write) code as it says a fault not causing an imeadiate danger, and thankyou I'm well aware of what certificate I need to fill out, however an EICR is acceptable for a fuseboard change, but NIC says EIC and that's the only reason I do an EIC, BS7671 asks for a EICR.

It's irrelevant what the NICEIC say. A CU change generates an EIC.

 

[Heisenberg]

BS7671 asks for a EICR.

For a board installation In the 'Merry Old Land of Oz' maybe, but not here.