Have a two gang RCD protected metal clad socket in the conservatory which has failed - RCD will no longer latch on. It is part of one of the kitchen rings which isn't RCD protected at the CU - it feeds the washing machine etc and other things which are left plugged in permanently. Needs to be an RCD as likely to be used for things outside the house.
Dunno the brand - it came from TLC. Notice you can pay between about £25 to £80 for similar. Is this sort of failure common at the cheaper end?
Do you know how its failed? some lose the these days, often plastic spring through exposure to heat and cold, but others just lose the pip that the latch uses. Probably not that easy to get apart. the former failure can be often fixed but the latter is not so good. The old plastic engineering problem again. Does it have to have the protection on the socket, or would a plug in one be OK? I've seen those about. Brian
I'll ask the stupid questions:
Won't latch on with nothing plugged in? Checked nothing untoward in the wiring? It has got power? Some RCDs won't latch without power and unlatch when power is lost (maybe a fail safe feature of plugin units only though).
Correct.
I'd be most surprised if anything has changed there.
It sometimes buzzes. Very unlikely both sides of the rings have failed - while everything else on it works OK.
It should not buzz, normally. Brian
I would say so.
Called out a few months ago to the horse sales in Doncaster. This was an unheated room next to the vets office. In order to get the 2m distancing they decided to use this room.
Two 10 year old unused RCD metal clad sockets had failed.
Just a tip on buying a new one Dave. Try to get one to BS7288:2016 and not old stock that is to BS7288:1990.
Cheers
Adam
The old stock is possibly better as it doesn't require additional protection upstream of the RCD socket.
The later standard requires upstream protection. I don't know if the socket itself has changed.
BS7288 has been omitted from the 18th Edition Wiring Regulations for providing RCD protection to sockets. It's an issue of some discussion on the IET forums.
Owain
This is what I've used:
Is there a significant difference?
From some light googling it would appear that BS7288:2016 devices are not suitable for use in this situation. The standard says they are only to be used as additional protection where there is an additional RCD.
Dave
I don't have access to the full text but thought the wording was different and more nuanced - viz "SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD." So yes, an SRCD to BS 7288:2016 can /never/ meet the requirements of BS 7671:2018 for additional protection. But then nor would one to the 1990 standard. Luckily, Roland is not required to bring the circuit up to the current regs. All I think he is doing is making a like-for-like replacement (which is of course a darn sight safer circuit than if he fitted a socket with no RCD protection). And ISTM Adam is right that he might as well do so with one to the latest standard.
Arrgh. Delete "Roland", insert "Dave" :(
Donno, but having read other responses I'm very confused.
What is this additional "protection" that a 2016 compliant socket based RCD requires? Overload or another RCD? If the latter what happend to discrimination over which one trips first?
Shouldn't buzz. It doesn't latch on so is bust so has to be replaced, just do you wanta 2016 or 1990 spec one? B-)
And of course the enquiring mind wants to know what/why it has failed.
Send it to Clive ...
Go nicely with the CU RCD and MCB he's recently done.
As it happens, it's very rarely used anyway. But if having to replace it, would like one which is the best for the job. ;-)
Given the vast spread in prices, could just be cheap tat. But unusual with TLC.
replaced,
Well quite, and preferably loosely in line with the regs, even if you don't strictly have to comply.
Yeah, TLC tend not sell cheap tat.
I think it just comes down to BS7288 not being listed in the regs.
I believe the new 2016 version has a better current breaking capacity.
Would that need lube:-)?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required