Danger notice.

[Bobble23]

Hi,

I was called to a customer's today who'd had a spark in last week who left her with a danger notice (she wanted me to quote for the remedial work). The notice said that the danger was a 16th edition consumer unit which needed upgrading (nothing wrong with it, just 16th ed instead of 17th) and not all of the circuits (i.e. the lighting circuits) RCD protected.

As far as I know the regs aren't retrospective, so as long as the installation complied with the 16th ed at the time there's no danger requiring a formal danger notice. Have I got this wrong?

Thanks.

 

[MDJ]

No you haven't got it wrong, unless you didn't see something your right, the guy sounds like a chimp.

 

[trev]

Disgusting, should you name and shame?

 

[tazz]

Dont worry....he was a German spark....and just want thank the client...!!

 

[R G]

No you haven't got it wrong, unless you didn't see something your right, the guy sounds like a chimp.

Not an ape then ,,,,,hehehe..

 

[cotty]

Disgusting, should you name and shame?

Sounds like British Gas!!!!!

 

[Guest55]

......... the guy sounds like a chimp.

oh the irony ! lol

 

[jackhammerJIM]

Was this on an EICR ?

 

[rattlehead85]

As long as the circuitry in the bathroom has sufficient sup bonding in place or tests prove it isn't needed then a lack of 17th edition RCD protection would only warrant a code 3 departure on an EICR just as a circuit buried in a wall at less than 50mm deep with no mech protection would do. Scandalous to say the least which makes you question if the guy actually knows what the purpose of an EICR actually is!

 

[Badged01]

Disgusting, should you name and shame?

Woh, before you go doing that just let me check if I did any EICR's last week .....

 

[Risteard]

As long as the circuitry in the bathroom has sufficient sup bonding in place or tests prove it isn't needed then a lack of 17th edition RCD protection would only warrant a code 3 departure on an EICR

But supplementary bonding is always needed if there is no RCD protection to the bathroom circuits. The tests to demonstrate whether it is not required for the purposes of the 17th Edition is based upon the premise that all circuits in the location WILL be RCD protected.

 

[UNG]

The way I see it this is a product of the minimal training system if all you have is a 17th edition qualification nothing else exists so if it doesn't comply with the 17th it is dangerous and then creates work that is deemed unnecessary by the more qualified sparks

 

[Engineer54]

The way I see it this is a product of the minimal training system if all you have is a 17th edition qualification nothing else exists so if it doesn't comply with the 17th it is dangerous and then creates work that is deemed unnecessary by the more qualified sparks

Yep sounds like yet another wannabe at work here. He's really pushing his luck issuing ''Danger Notices'' where none are needed. Just goes to show how little they actually know about the really simple stuff, let alone anything else!!

 

[Risteard]

I'm surprised everyone didn't drop dead before RCDs were used excessively lol.

 

[MDJ]

I don't RCDs myself, I totally understand why they are used in kitchens and domestic situations but would avoid them at all costs if designing a commercial Job, thats just me, tin hat still in the van :sifone:

 

[Engineer54]

That really depends on what the commercial installation is...

 

[Knobhead]

No wonder the trades in the gutter with bully boy tactics like this.

Definite case for name and shame. The local press and trading standards may be interested.

 

[MDJ]

That really depends on what the commercial installation is...

appreciate that, would always try to design a job to avoid if possible though, I am aware it isn't easy to achieve on some projects.

 

[Engineer54]

appreciate that, would always try to design a job to avoid if possible though, I am aware it isn't easy to achieve on some projects.

I just straight away thought of Hotels, Nursing Homes, etc etc....and even hospitals as being classed as Commercial.


Maybe Industrial would have been a better example to make ...lol!!

 

[MDJ]

I just straight away thought of Hotels, Nursing Homes, etc etc....and even hospitals as being classed as Commercial.


Maybe Industrial would have been a better example to make ...lol!!

LOL, I think you are right haha

 

[UNG]

I'm surprised everyone didn't drop dead before RCDs were used excessively lol.

I often wonder whether the RCD everything attitude was introduced in to the 17th edition to make Part P look like it was making a difference on the safety front the thing is for statistical purposes it difficult to separate the two as to what gain has been made by each individually

The question has to be is the burdensome legislation of Part P is actually doing what it was intended to do or is it the changes made in the 17th edition that are making a case that Part P is working

 

[Robotstar5]

Sounds like British Gas!!!!!

The secretary at work has home emergency cover from BG and they told her the 16th ed board needed replacing, she bought the form into work detailing all the "faults" for our advice, I should have copied it to post on here.
The maint manager tested the installation and no faults/problems found, saved her a few bob.

 

[Geordie Spark]

The secretary at work has home emergency cover from BG and they told her the 16th ed board needed replacing, she bought the form into work detailing all the "faults" for our advice, I should have copied it to post on here.
The maint manager tested the installation and no faults/problems found, saved her a few bob.

There's no such thing as a British Gas Engineer. They're just target-driven high pressure salesmen with a tool box.

Why the hell they had to get involved with electrics when they struggle to fix simple faults on central heating boilers is beyond me.

 

[rattlehead85]

But supplementary bonding is always needed if there is no RCD protection to the bathroom circuits. The tests to demonstrate whether it is not required for the purposes of the 17th Edition is based upon the premise that all circuits in the location WILL be RCD protected.

So from what you are implying all the following is irrelevant then....No RCD means you have to sup bond regardless of any testing or results.

Checking Sup Bonding.

Main Protective Bonding must be correct.

Supplementary bonding in the bathroom is applied to extraneous-conductive-parts and exposed-conductive-parts to reduce the potential difference between them to a level that is deemed safe in fault conditions - 50V.

To determine this, firstly, measure the resistance between all parts which may be extraneous and the Main Earthing Terminal.

If greater than 23kΩ (some prefer 46kΩ) then the part is considered not extraneous and no supplementary bonding is required.

Next, measure the resistance between all the parts which are extraneous and between these parts and the CPCs of the circuits in the bathroom.

If less than 50V/Ia then supplementary bonding is not required.

Ia being that for the highest rated OPD of the circuits in the bathroom.



If, for example, there is only a 6A lighting circuit in the bathroom then resistances between parts can be less than 50/30, that is 1.66Ω

Only above that is supplementary bonding required.

With a 40A shower circuit in the bathroom the figure is 50/200, i.e. 0.25Ω.



RCDs on ALL the circuits can with other criteria allow supplementary bonding to be omitted altogether.





So depending on your situation supplementary bonding may or may not be required.

You cannot tell by looking.

 

[Engineer54]

I'm surprised everyone didn't drop dead before RCDs were used excessively lol.

Stated that very same wonderment many times on here!! lol!! Perhaps we were all so much tougher, or thicker skinned in those days, ...than those of the modern, ''I want it all, ...and i want it Now'' era!!

 

[Risteard]

RCDs on ALL the circuits can with other criteria allow supplementary bonding to be omitted altogether.

After proving that it does not require supplementary bonding as it already effectively is, or that it doesn't require it. However that doesn't mean that if all circuits aren't RCD protected that it can still be omitted. I think that is ignoring the reason for the change from the 16th Edition to the 17th Edition. The 17th does not permit the omission of supplementary bonding where all circuits of the location are not RCD protected.

Personally I would rather rely on supplementary bonding than RCDs, but that's a separate issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Stated that very same wonderment many times on here!! lol!! Perhaps we were all so much tougher, or thicker skinned in those days, ...than those of the modern, ''I want it all, ...and i want it Now'' era!!

LOL. And they don't mention the failure rate of RCDs either!