Minor Works Certificate – Details of Departures from BS7671?

[Deleted member 26818]

Mark Coles wrote an article on the introduction of RCD protection to additions & alterations to final circuits.

Yes and Mark is now no longer the Chief Engineer since that article was published.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

Mark Coles wrote an article on the introduction of RCD protection to additions & alterations to final circuits.

Thanks Lenny,

That article has confirmed that the RCD S/O and the FCU RCD options that have been suggested are not compliant.

Just what I needed to know.

Thanks also to Richard and Spin, for taking the time with their longish (Long in Spin's case) responses. I was already aware of the main reasons behind RCDs but somehow, the requirement because of concealed cables <50mm had evaporated from my mind, even though I now remember learning it. I guess I'm just getting old :sad:

Cheers

 

[Richard Burns]

I think I will rely on the testing complying with BS7671 rather than fully upgrading an entire ring circuit to BS7671 for a socket addition, that could be a bit expensive. Though I would normally protect the entire circuit with an RCD (if required).

 

[Jeffmo65]

Long gone thread maybe , but where do we stand then on replacement of say a broken external back box or broken socket , with regards to RCD protection and or even testing . ????? . Or shall i just put the Gas Safe sticky tape back on , thank her for the cuppa and bugger off .

 

[Jeffmo65]

Gas safe sticky tape by the way that was on it when i arrived , whilst she was happily working on her lap top from said socket which happened to suddenly be void of neutral on minor wobble of said skt . ooooh scary , poor Danish student .

 

[Knobhead]

Long gone thread maybe ,

Yes it is so why resurrect it?

Try using the search facility and read first before asking questions that have been answered ad nauseam.

 

[Jeffmo65]

Nineed tobe so touchy Tony . It may be I'm not fully ofey with the way the site works . Sorry sparky not IT expert

 

[malcolmsanford]

Jeff are you asking if your repairing an accessory and the circuit/ accessory does not have RCD, protection should we fit it.

No mate your carrying out maintenance as such, see the definition in part 2

 

[gibbyisking]

could of fitted an rcd socket mate

 

[Mark42]

… It has also been determined that ordinary persons are quite thick, and will now indulge in DIY (especially when there is a bank holiday).
These people will insist on drilling and nailing where any reasonable person would not.

An amusing, informative, and well-written post. Thanks.

I wonder if the inspector would have accepted an RCD spur? I suspect not: even if it might (just) be within the letter of the regulations, surely it isn’t within the spirit. It smacks of a ‘jobsworth’ interpretation: there you go, MY single additional socket complies, but stuff the other twenty sockets on the same RFC.

It does (sort of) make sense that if you have to RCD-protect new or additional work, then you should protect the whole circuit which feeds that work. It could be argued that ALL the final circuit cabling supplying your new socket is now adopted by you and hence falls under current regulations.

But what about existing cabling which is not installed in the ‘safe zones’. It would clearly be absurd to have to tell a client that in order to add a single new socket somewhere you have to change all the cabling in the walls of maybe many rooms, because it doesn’t run in just exactly the right places. Apologies if this is specifically excluded and I’ve missed it.