Adding RCD to existing installation - what options are now allowable?

[aesmith]

Hi,

First off let me say that this will be a professional job, but I want to fully understand the possible options before getting anyone to look at and quote for the work. I'm posting in DIY as I'm not an electrician, although I think I understand many aspects.

The house has had a very recent new consumer unit fitted to replace an old fuse board, but without a rewire. The board is a standard looking Hager model with two pole main switch, 9 MCB circuits, and five available ways. As far as I can determine there is no RCD either in or outside the CU. I'm surprised as I though that RCD protection was fitted as a matter of course nowadays, but I guess the practice is different when working on an existing installation. I am trying to get hold of the paperwork from the CU replacement, in case that provides more info.

What options do you think we would have? I believe, but please correct me, that it's now allowed to have a single external RCD protection the whole installation which is what we had in a previous house. Is it likely that the Hager CU could be reconfigured to create a split RCD/non-RCD configuration, or could that only be determined by an electrician looking inside?

Any comments welcome.

Thanks, Tony S

 

[Plonker 3]

Could you post a picture of your new CU, it will make things a lot easier. If you can't post a pic try uploading it to a hosting site or until a mod gives you rights too.

 

[Octopus]

I would advise AGAINST a single up front RCD, unless the house is tested thoroughly, or you could be walking into a lot of hassle. To post a picky you need 6 posts

 

[aesmith]

Here you go ...

 

[Plonker 3]

That's just a standard DB, not even split load, all those circuits should be RCD protected. You may be able to get a kit to turn it into a dual RCD board, do you have a certificate with test results on it issued to you?

If I was you I would be asking the original contractor to come back and install one that complies with the regs. All at no cost to yourself.

 

[GMES]

As above get the contractor back and get him to put it right, if your not paying for it tell him you would like rcbo's on each circuit.

 

[aesmith]

OK, thanks for the last two comments. I'll do as you advise.

 

[Plonker 3]

Any problems come back and we will give you some reg numbers to throw at them.That should make them listen abit more

 

[Octopus]

Was this done for you or the previous owner? your op isn't clear.

 

[overskilled]

If you get hassle from said electrician, I'd be willing for a small fee to come, do some tests and write a report outlining the faults with the board and any issues missed, Might give you some more leverage, especially with Trading Standards etc, who might have more than a passing interest.
Also is the electrician registered with SELECT, NICEIC etc?

 

[aesmith]

Thanks everyone. The work was done for us, but sub-contracted by the firm that was doing some building repairs. The CU replacement was his electrician's recommendation following a visit to repair a fault.

Is it quite clear that a CU replacement would need to include RCD protection in order to comply? I wasn't sure on that, after all replacing fuses with MCBs is a step in the right direction even as it stands. It would be helpful if you could point out some regulations to that effect.

Thanks, Tony S

 

[telectrix]

reg. 411.3.3 ( socket outlets). 701.415.2 (bathrooms), and 522.6.101 ( cables in walls) for starters.

 

[aesmith]

Cheers, and are those retrospective - ie any work on the installation needs to bring it into compliance with these regs? I just want to make sure I'm completely sure before I start making a fuss.

 

[telectrix]

those regs apply to any installation done after july 2008. so it's not a question of being retrospective. should have had a dual RCD board fitted ( or RCBOs) when it was installed. in fact, reg 411.3.3 goes back even further in time.

 

[aesmith]

Sorry, I guess retrospective wasn't the right term, I meant applicable to work done on an existing installation. The house and at least some of it's electrics will predate the 16th Edition let alone the 17th. I wanted to be 100% clear that installation of a replacement CU needs to be to current standard, and can't be done on a like for like basis. I'm preparing for a possible argument, and the defence may be that the house had no RCD before the work, and replacing fuses with MCBs is an improvement in itself.

Tony S

 

[telectrix]

any work done on an existing installation has to be done to current regulations. however, existing , untouched parts of the installation need not be altered to comply with current regs, although must be safe for continued use. earthing and bonding need to be checked and if necessary, fitted, prior to carrying out a CU replacement.

 

[Octopus]

Any sparky would know that a replacement CU would need RCD's. That said if and I say IF, he found low IR he may have decided to fit a non RCD board - only reading the EIC would tell you and us the reason. If you haven't paid for the board yet, don't until some paperwork and explanations are forthcoming.

 

[aesmith]

Thanks for the comments. I'm still chasing this up, and don't have the EIC for CU replacement yet. I have been sent the Minor Works certificate for a repair by the same guys in Jan 2013 and which recommended replacement of the CU.

Couple of oddities on the certificate - it cites BS 7671 2001 as the applicable standard, both in the section that says "... inspected and tested in accordance with BS 7671 (IET Wiring Regulations), amended to 2001..." and in the section for noting departures where again it's departures from 2001 regs that would be noted (none).

Allowing for ignorance on my part could it be that form has been used because it was a repair to a circuit that had been installed to that earlier standards, and is correct and normal practice?

The other oddity is that the earthing is marked as TN-C, is that conceivable?

Thanks, Tony S

 

[Deleted member 72666]

It sounds to me like this outfit have used an old Minor Works Cert dating back to the 16th edition and therefore not valid. What repairs have been carried out that are noted on this cert btw?
Also CU changes are notifiable with BC but I have a sneaky feeling this one wont have!

 

[overskilled]

AFAIK - In Scotland it isn't.....

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Yeah, missed location, oops!

 

[aesmith]

It sounds to me like this outfit have used an old Minor Works Cert dating back to the 16th edition and therefore not valid. What repairs have been carried out that are noted on this cert btw?

The MWC was for repair of a ring main following a fuse blowing, apparently a fault in a junction box, also replacement of two sockets with faulty shutters. The certificate doesn't detail the exact works, only the fact of the repair and test results following the repair (insulation resistance and earth fault loop impedance).

Tony S

 

[telectrix]

are you sure that cert. says 2001, not 2011?

 

[aesmith]

Def 2001. Here's the certificate with personal information erased. I've chased again for the certificate for the CU replacement, which is what I really want to see ..

 

[Octopus]

Nice. So that's definitely an old cert.

 

[Deleted member 72666]

This guy is not qualified to the current edition of the regs (17th edition) and is still testing to the 16th! He/she has even entered incorrect information on the cert as I've yet to see a BS1362 fuse greater than 13amps.( I'm sure it should read BS3036)

 

[telectrix]

a 30A BS1362 fuse????

 

[aesmith]

Nice. So that's definitely an old cert.

Old software? It looks like the form was filled in on a computer and then printed, not typed into an existing printed form.

 

[telectrix]

but the recommends for sockets and CU are typed. and where will you find a ring main in a house? what the F is EBADOS, is it an old computer op. system?

 

[Octopus]

Old software? It looks like the form was filled in on a computer and then printed, not typed into an existing printed form.

Wrong. PART of that form is definitely hand written.

 

[telectrix]

it's pure mickey mouse, however you look at it.

 

[Octopus]

Thanks everyone. The work was done for us, but sub-contracted by the firm that was doing some building repairs. The CU replacement was his electrician's recommendation following a visit to repair a fault.

Is it quite clear that a CU replacement would need to include RCD protection in order to comply? I wasn't sure on that, after all replacing fuses with MCBs is a step in the right direction even as it stands. It would be helpful if you could point out some regulations to that effect.

Thanks, Tony S

What did the quote from the builder/sparky say? If it clearly stated it would include RCD protection then threaten them with court action - if it was all done verbally - I'm sorry mate but you are on your own.

You do have a quote/estimate/invoice ??

 

[aesmith]

The quote was in writing, but didn't give enough detail in hindsight. I can't tell you how much I'm kicking myself for not dealing direct with the electrician. I should have learned my lesson by now regarding subcontracted work, but the temptation to deal with a single party is always there. Of course the quote didn't say that the installation wouldn't (or couldn't) comply with current standards so I hope that gives me some leverage.

 

[Octopus]

The quote was in writing, but didn't give enough detail in hindsight. I can't tell you how much I'm kicking myself for not dealing direct with the electrician. I should have learned my lesson by now regarding subcontracted work, but the temptation to deal with a single party is always there. Of course the quote didn't say that the installation wouldn't (or couldn't) comply with current standards so I hope that gives me some leverage.

Oops. What did the invoice say? Are you sure a sparky did the work?

 

[aesmith]

Oops.

Agree, I could well be *****ed. From memory the invoice was along the lines of "consumer unit replacement as quoted", I wouldn't expect any more detail on a fixed price invoice. The detail should have been on the quote, but we are where we are as they say. My plan I think is ...
(1) Chase for the installation certificate. For a start if there's a set of test results that will make me a bit happier in itself. If the certificate quotes out of date regulations, or has any other oddities it might give me some further points to argue.
(2) Make a pitch to the main contractor that his chosen electrician hasn't done acceptable work, and it needs proper RCD protection as required by current requirements.
(3) Be prepared to accept a compromise. Not really thought this through, but I might accept paying parts but not labour. Depends really on how the discussions turn up.

Tony S