Am I right in thinking that no matter how dysfunctional or prone to nuisance tripping it is, a 30mA whole house RCD still meets current regulations?
And in a 16 year old property that is to be let, does it NEED to meet current regulations anyway?
Current regulations would require split over dual RCDs (or individual RCBOs) but it only needs to meet what was current when built or modified.
no, need a split CU at the minimum And I would think an RCD that keeps nuisance tripping leaves the landlord open to the claim that the property does not satisfy the contract.
It needs an electrical inspection every 5 years, and anything that fails to meet current standard at those times be brought within spec. So yes.
NT
Only *needs* it if an HMO ... otherwise just needs to be safe, I suppose inspections are a good way of demonstrating that.
As a digression, I believe the rules have now changed so a consumer unit must be of metal construction. I assume this too is not retrospective.
Are you sure about that. I can think of many people around here renting out houses that still have the old wiring from the 70s but have had work done etc including smart meters. Brian
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 12/07/2018 :
Think about it, no it does not. Imagine having to rewire a property every five years, just to bring it up to current standards. Regulations are not applied retro spectively. What met regulations at the time it was installed, remains satisfactory now. Though it might be advisable to bring an installation more up to date with current regulations.
Do the same rules apply to rental properties. ISTR some of the gas safety rules had retrospective effect (eg, hard-wired smoke detectors). .
In England a landlord of an ordinary domestic property (not an HMO) is only required to keep the electrical installation in a safe condition. (Smoke and CO alarms don't have to be mains so are really a separate issue.) HMOs require more - eg a EICR every 5 years.
Scotland, Wales and NI do their own thing. Eg Scotland requires PAT for landlord-provided appliances.
Not quite:
Must be non combustible or contained in a non combustible enclosure.
(Not sure of the exact wording but basically that ^^)
However, that has been implemented as "metal" for the most part.
It is not retrospective.
It would be more to the point to improve standards for the MCB/device construction to avoid overheating in the first place. Proper screw terminals rather than cage clamps and double screws on larger current devices. No dissimilar metals - say all brass terminals and screws.
Not required.
Generally a house is given a 10 year certificate. For rental properties it is suggested that it is tested again on change of tenant. I would suggest that is a a bit overkill and that a visual inspection is good enough unless you know they have swapped light fittings etc.
IMO they didn't really give manufacturers much option when:
a. they require the CU or its enclosure to be of "non-combustible material"
b. they don't define "non-combustible material
c. they do say "NOTE 1: Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, is deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material."
Now it may be that I'm expecting too much from the drafters. But that use of "deemed to be" to me means that there would otherwise be room for argument that steel is a *not* a non-combustible material for the purposes of 421.1.201.
I may have missed where the point was discussed while the new reg. was in draft. But taking the reg. at face value I cannot see manufacturers taking a chance with another material. After all, perhaps the "deeming" was felt necessary because a steel CU might well burn if the occupier stored their medical oxygen cylinders in the cupboard where the CU is housed. So they'd have to come up with a material which doesn't burn in pure oxygen.
There is no requirement to replace them. I would however suggest that you check the tightness of the terminals.
You could swap just the body of the CU.
Or you could try these
Do we not also require to provide alarms that are hard-wired (2007 onwards) and interlinked? I understand the landlord can carry out the PAT testing if he/she passes a test in the subject.
Don't store your thermic lance in the meter cupboard ...
Why would anyone claiming to have electronic skills put up with an RCD constantly tripping?
I'd guess your view is tenants should be grateful for anything their gracious landlord provides.
Short answers: no, and no.
Pragmatic answer: It wants to be good enough that they tenants are not making a fuss and costing you money to keep investigating and fixing stuff...
Landlords (or their agents) must (i.e. are legally required to) have a gas safety check done annually.
Its in response to a number of house fires that have started in a CU, but were able to spread to the rest of the property.
So its certainly not pointless, but probably not a significant risk in the grand scheme of things, especially if the original quality of workmanship in the plastic CU was ok, and it gets some occasional maintenance (i.e. screws checked for tightness etc) from time to time.
You could buy an empty CU and re-use the contents if compatible.
Very true but this does not in itself make changes of regulations retrospective, which was the issue here. .
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.