Restoring circuits after temporary "distress change"

[happysteve]

Am currently pondering the following situation:

- Single phase PVC board, domestic, in an area where TN-C-S is the norm (underground supply etc).

- Most circuits protected by 30mA RCD, except lights (B6 60898 MCBs).

- Pre-checks before simple job (on garage circuit) reveal no earthing conductor (10mm bonding to gas, 6mm bonding to water with loose clamp - upgraded to 10mm with new clamp while I was there)

- Zs @ DB = 27.1Ω

- Happysteve notes lots of shiny metal light switches, and rather old looking metal light fittings. Board looks like a 1990's DIY special (the BS951 clamp on the end of the SWA supplying the garage, for instance).

- Have chat with customer about necessity of having an earth, explain WPD will charge for this, they are happy to get WPD to provide one. Phone WPD on behalf of customer, get the ball rolling.

- As a temporary measure, to provide shock (and fault) protection, move 2x lighting circuits to 1x B6 on RCD-protected side of board.

- All circuits now protected by 1x 30mA RCD (same as having an RCD main switch).

Question is, when I go back to the job (to do the actual "simple job") after WPD supply a reliable earth, do I move the lighting circuits back to the non-RCD side of the board? Would not comply with current regs on at least 2, possibly 3 counts (cables buried in wall, domestic lighting circuit, possibly bathroom but haven't checked for supplementary bonding)* but on the other hand would be no worse off than before I made the "distress change". Board is Steeple - not sure on availability of RCBOs (and probably wouldn't fit anyway), could put the lighting circuits on a couple of RCD spurs I guess.

Think of it this way: if earthing/bonding had been in place, and I'd been working on a circuit other than a lighting circuit, I would have left them alone; and the only reason I moved them was I couldn't in good faith have left it like that, given the very real shock risk due to the presence of a single fault on an installation that didn't give me confidence it was installed professionally.

Any thoughts? I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, and I'll probably have a couple of weeks to mull it over!

* Edit: clearly 3 counts, even if there was supplementary bonding. Head was in "EICR mode", sorry!

 

[ipf]

I'd leave it as you've put it, using RCD. Remember, it's not a double RCD board so no need for separate lighting up and down (although preferable). With the state of the existing installation I'd be thinking RCD is better than not.

 

[Wilko]

Hi - given metal fronted light switches I would not change back to the non RCD side. It’s the lesser of two evils in my view .

 

[telectrix]

here perhaps. and loads of other listings. buy one, test it, fit it.

Steeple RCBOs 40,32,16,6 Priced Individually | eBay

<p>Steeple RCBOs 40,32,16,6 Priced Individually. Condition is Used. Dispatched with Royal Mail 1st Class. Will sell as job lot if the price is right. Feel free to message</p>

www.ebay.co.uk

 

[Marvo]

I'd leave lights via the RCD in this case. I just think sacrificing the customer convenience of not have them via RCD would be a good trade for user safety given the state of the installation. Maybe fit one or two cheap emergency lamps (bulbs) with battery backup in strategic locations if the residents are old or infirm.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Must admit when I read the title of this post I looked for buzzlighyear's monica?