Hi, So I was changing a CU the other week and upon testing the circuits, had 0.00mOhms on N-E on the socket circuit. In which was tripping the RCD straight away. I tried everything to find the fault, opening all sockets and spurs and could not locate the the fault. I traced it to a cable between the two rooms which could possible have been nicked with floorboards ect. I explained the fault to the owner who did not want me ripping up her floor and of course wanted the sockets working as this was also powering the boiler. So I have taken the socket circuit of the RCD and connected it with a new bus at coming off the main isolator. I have stated on the certificate that there is a fault on the NE. I know this shouldn't really be done but I have not left it in any worse condition than what it was in before? It was old rewireable fuses. The owner did not want this fixed. Any views on this ? Is this ok since I have stated on the certificate that it has the fault. Thanks!
Good point yeah. Forgot to mention that there has been a jointbox with a spured socket between this. So in removing the link, would've killed a socket in the hall. Cheers
Still would of removed radials maybe fit new socket in hall, is it possible to access this junction box sounds like this is were your fault is
Hello, Nope, was under the floorboard, which the owner was adiment she did not want lifted and would imagine wanting to keep her socket in the hall.
Not sure I would of left sockets without rcd protection, think I would of done radials left her without hall socket
Difficult this, you have left the installation with a known fault. My approach would have been to explain to the customer in writing, the nature of the fault and the hazards that may arise from it. It would then be for the customer to reply in writing or to sign that they are willing to accept the risk posed by the fault and that they have instructed you to not to fix it and to leave the sockets off the RCD protection, put a note on the inspection cert to lead anyone to this letter which you will keep safe. The certificate would not have been issued until I had signature from the customer relieving me of responsibility.
Of course it's not OK to remove RCD protection because it's doing its job. You know this and what you have done is dangerous. Furthermore a neutral/Earth fault can be a real fire hazard. Unbelievable.
Yes I am aware that the RCD is doing its job. But as I mentioned I have not left the property in any worse state than what it was previously in... I know the reading are classed as a C2 and should be fixed.. The owner did not want me ripping up floors to investigate..and I couldn't leave them without power or heating.. I stated on the certificate that their is a NE fault on the existing install.. along with a risk assessment. Surley you guys have been in the same position and have done the same thing! I've seen it been bypassed before (not by myself) so I know others do it! Not that I'm saying that it's the correct thing to do..
The problem you (a skilled professional) have is that you have left someone who has no comprehension of the risks. That is why gas Safe will lock off your supply if they find a hazard that can't be fixed. They don't care what the home owner says it would sign. If there were to be a fire you would be solely responsible, the fact it was like that before you went is no excuse. You found the problem, you know it's dangerous and you walked away. Those will be the words the judge used to you.
I am on Steven's side on this one. It is NOT dangerous to have sockets unprotected by an RCD. Steven didn't put the fault there, it was there already and probably has been for several years. I have been in similar situations where a circuit was tripping. Like Steven said, it is NO WORSE than it was before and the owner has been told about the fault and even told her where the section of circuit is. If she is preventing him from getting at the fault then what else can he do.? Put the old consumer unit back on and leave it as it was before? I fully support him in this situation. RCDs are supplementary protection to add to safety, they are not a necessary to make a circuit safe. This is a common mistake. The basic fault protection on a circuit is against overload and short-circuit, both of which are afforded by circuit breakers. The fact that Steven cannot add the RCD protection as well is NOT his fault and is not his problem because the customer won't let him repair it. I am sorry if this doesn't fit with anybody elses point of view but that's mine and I stick by it. The profession is rife with people who cannot and will not accept that you can't always do 100% by the book. I am tired of the rhetoric about 'fires' as well. "If there is a fire" then you are responsible. It is funny how people refer to fires when talking about electric faults. What about shocks and electrocution? Fire is least likely event in the context. how is a fire going to start in this situation? It wont fgs.
In other words RCDs make a circuit safer, this does not mean without one a circuit is unsafe. That is bo££ocks
Thanks for your comments guys! I understand that if worst case scenario, if something serious where to happen within that circuit (not that I think it will). A judge would say that I found the fault and I should've rectified it! Socket circuits should ALWAY be protected by an RCD, ONLY if the sockets are likely to be used for outside equipment. This property was on the 2nd floor flat and would definestly not be getting used for outside equipment. So not having them on a RCD would be deemed as satisfactory. But yes there was a dead short between a line and earth conductor which is deemed as needing repaired. In my case, as unphased also noted, I found the fault, told the owner where it was, was willing to repair the fault but the owner wouldn't allow me to repair it as it would've been an extra cost for her to repair the flooring. (Not that I have proof of this conversation). So yes, I think in future I would either need a signed letter from the owner stating that they are willing to take responsibility for the fault and not willing to let me repair it! Thanks
You are completely ignoring the fact that there is a neutral/Earth fault - a known and demonstrable fire hazard. And there really is no justification for ommiting RCD protection from socket outlets anyway - the rest of the world has been decades ahead in this regard.
Don't forget, you have done her a favour finding the fault. Had you not done so she would have been none the wiser. Pre-RCDs were circuits considered unsafe? No, else no circuits would ever have been installed. Since the invention of RCDs there has been a requirement to install them . This is easy when installing new circuits, rewiring, and altering circuits without inherent faults. But, when changing a CU you are not able to guarantee there will be no faults in the circuits , nor are you taking responsibility for the circuit, you are only changing the CU and that is where your responsibility ends. This, I know, goes against the vast majority of views but I have rationalised my thinking after several years in the trade. Is there any precedent in Law which states that changing a CU makes you responsible for the entire installation? I don't think so. I doubt that a judge would see it that way either.
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop