IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Rcd spur for bathroom remedial work.
Topic Summary:
Created On: 13 September 2017 09:27 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 13 September 2017 09:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



hertzal123

Posts: 471
Joined: 26 August 2007

A bathroom towel rail has been wired thro a stud wall to a switched spur off the ring final in the adjacent bedroom.My first thought was to change for an rcd spur,but has the whole bathroom heater cct now got to be on rcd,not just the bathroom section?Thanks for any advice.
Regards,Hz
 13 September 2017 09:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



KFH

Posts: 554
Joined: 06 November 2010

I would be happy with just the bathroom on the RCD but have not gone to the regs to check. I assume it is a problem putting the other circuits on an RCD?
 13 September 2017 09:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



hertzal123

Posts: 471
Joined: 26 August 2007

I have 3 spare ways for rcbos for shower,lights and imm htr,but tight for space for 4 ways.
Regards,Hz
 13 September 2017 10:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 1759
Joined: 15 June 2010

Quote: "Circuits serving the location".

You decide.
 13 September 2017 10:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OlympusMons

Posts: 65
Joined: 05 February 2016

Might need supplementary bonding too 701.415.2

If you are spurring off a ring final circuit which is not RCD protected, surely it makes sense to protect the whole circuit. Can you swap the ocpd with an rcbo?

Edited: 13 September 2017 at 10:57 PM by OlympusMons
 14 September 2017 03:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



spinlondon

Posts: 5494
Joined: 10 December 2004

The Regulations require the whole circuit be protected, not just the spur.
It can be argued that the Regulations in fact require all the circuits of the location be protected, not just the one being worked on.
 14 September 2017 06:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4390
Joined: 21 November 2008

Now I can see all the arguments, but if you have a client that requires a small job, like a towel rail fitting in the bathroom that can simply be spurred from an easily accessible RFC, as quite a reasonably priced job, it might suddenly be so expensive to comply with the letter of one interpretation of the regs that the job is not worth doing.

So one option might be to install a rcd spur from the ring complete with a fuse. Many have argued that this is a new circuit. So that a nice simple solution. Or imagine the following scenarios. You can say to the client, sorry you have to have an RCD fitted for the entire RFC. It might be supplied from a BS3036. So it starts getting very complicated and expensive. Then you say, we need to fit an RCD to the local lighting circuit and the existing heater circuit. Before you know it the cheapest alternative is to fit an new consumer unit. Unfortunately there are one or two issues with existing circuits, so you have to ask the client for additional money to rectify the problems, perhaps a N-E fault that has been undetected for the last 30 years.

So a job that started off at £120 sudden becomes £750. And actually, how unsafe is the towel rail supplied from the RCD spur likely to be? I can think of a few situations that it might add to danger by introducing an exposed conductive path but that's about it, and that could be checked for quite easily before commencement. It obviously depends on the situation and consideration of all factors, but if it were on my own house I would just fit it from an RCD spur.

I'm just off to hide in a bunker now as I am sure to be under extreme fire!
 14 September 2017 08:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



hertzal123

Posts: 471
Joined: 26 August 2007

Thanks for the advice.
Hz
 14 September 2017 09:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



KFH

Posts: 554
Joined: 06 November 2010

I agree with leckie.

hertzal, if you have spare ways can you not put the towel rail on the RCBO lighting circuit?
 14 September 2017 03:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



weirdbeard

Posts: 3116
Joined: 26 September 2011

Remedial work suggests an EICR has been carried out, what code was given for this departure from BS7671?

-------------------------
:beer)
 14 September 2017 08:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



hertzal123

Posts: 471
Joined: 26 August 2007

Since a builder did it recently,I gave it a C2.If old installation would it be C3?
Hz
 14 September 2017 09:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4390
Joined: 21 November 2008

Now am I the only one that finds that interesting?

We inspect to the current standard, and code accordingly. So if I looked at that I would probably code it as a C3 depending on a few other variables. But I would add a letter and say that the work that had been carried out was not installed in accordance with the regulations in place at that time - if I knew that to be a fact. It's then up to the client to decide what to do about it. But that doesn't make the Intallation any more or less unsafe.
 20 September 2017 09:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15997
Joined: 13 August 2003

Now am I the only one that finds that interesting?

I agree - we should code according to how dangerous it is now - whether it was done in 1950 to 1950s standards or 2010 to 1950 standards doesn't alter that.

So one option might be to install a rcd spur from the ring complete with a fuse. Many have argued that this is a new circuit. So that a nice simple solution.

+1 for that.

You could substitute a small CU instead of RCD FCU if you really want - but as the laws of physics won't operate any differently so won't improve safety at all. I personally don't believe the wording of the regs require it either.

- Andy.
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..