RCBO's

copier_guy

Hi.

My mate and his wife are foster parents.

Every year he has to have a gas safety test and every 5 years an electrical safety test.

The electrician has been out to his house today and failed his electrical safety test. It was failed on the consumer unit not having RCBO's fitted.

Its has MCB's fitted.

The house was fully rewired 5 years ago top to tail including a new consumer unit.

Anyone else have this problem or can anyone shed any light on it

Thanks

Weird_Nev

Not had the problem as I don't need my house to be tested, but if it's a realtively new consumer unit you can get RCBO's that slot into it on each circuit, although they are about £20 each.
A new consumer unit would cost about £400 supply and fit, according tomy electrician.

withabix

You mean RCBOs are a legal requirement for Fostering?

As they are providing a very rare and sought after service, the local authority should be paying for the work if that is the case.


Sounds like the usual drunk-with-power-but-scared-of-their-own-shadows social workers applying too much red tape.

zax47

RCBO is a mix of MCB and RCD - providing both over-current (MCB) and fault (RCD) protection in one device.

If he had a new CU 5 years ago then he surely will have, at least, one RCD covering the socket MCBs (as required by 16th edition regs.), even better would be a split-load board with 2 RCDs covering half the circuits each. Can't see why a lack of RCBOs would fail ANY test - if there is SOME RCD protection there.

Sounds like extremely onerous, nay over-zealous, critera to meet if this is really true and there hasn't been some mis-understanding of what the real situation is. Does he have ANY RCD protection in the CU at all? Look for a MCB-like device but with a TEST button. Who did this test?

Steve_the_fitter

If its a recent board it should have a main RCD switch. Then it only needs mcb's.

zax47

Steve_the_fitter wrote: »

If its a recent board it should have a main RCD switch. Then it only needs mcb's.

No, it should at least have a pair, for a split-load board, if it was that recent. Single RCD as the main switch does not meet any regs regarding nuisance tripping, never has.

Anyway, the OP says its 5 years old and already has MCBs. No word on how many RCDs, if any (but I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one protecting the sockets as this was 16th edition requirement, in force 5 years ago).

Steve_the_fitter

Iknw more recent boards have 2 rcd's but wouldnt one fitted with just one rcd pass a landlord type test which is what i imagine is needed in this case?

zax47 wrote: »

No, it should at least have a pair, for a split-load board, if it was that recent. Single RCD as the main switch does not meet any regs regarding nuisance tripping, never has.

Anyway, the OP says its 5 years old and already has MCBs. No word on how many RCDs, if any (but I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one protecting the sockets as this was 16th edition requirement, in force 5 years ago).

tartanterra

The only scenario I can think of, is if the consumer unit was changed five years ago, and there is no RCD protection whatsoever.

The electrician who has just looked at the unit has probably recommended that the MCB's are changed for RCBO's which provide both overcurrent and earth fault protection. This would meet the requirement that if a circuit failed, it would not adversly affect another.

If it was changed 5 years ago and no RCD's were fitted, then I suggest your friend pursue the installer. Their details will be on the installation certificate.

zax47

Steve_the_fitter wrote: »

Iknw more recent boards have 2 rcd's but wouldnt one fitted with just one rcd pass a landlord type test which is what i imagine is needed in this case?

Just one RCD - in addition to a main switch - protecting the socket circuits would be all that was required under the 16th edition regs, in force (only just) when the board was changed. One RCD, AS A MAIN SWITCH wouldn't have met ANY version of the regs, TTBOMK.

DVardysShadow

zax47 wrote: »

RCBO is a mix of MCB and RCD - providing both over-current (MCB) and fault (RCD) protection in one device.

If he had a new CU 5 years ago then he surely will have, at least, one RCD covering the socket MCBs (as required by 16th edition regs.), even better would be a split-load board with 2 RCDs covering half the circuits each. Can't see why a lack of RCBOs would fail ANY test - if there is SOME RCD protection there.

Sounds like extremely onerous, nay over-zealous, critera to meet if this is really true and there hasn't been some mis-understanding of what the real situation is. Does he have ANY RCD protection in the CU at all? Look for a MCB-like device but with a TEST button. Who did this test?

I think that there are 2 aspects to the report

• the rcd arrangement is not adequate
• the electrician has suggested that RCBOs be used to fix the problem

and I think that these 2 issues have become conflated [by the electrician, OP's mate or OP] as 'the installation failed because it does not have RCBOs'

YorkshireBoy

zax47 wrote: »

One RCD, AS A MAIN SWITCH wouldn't have met ANY version of the regs, TTBOMK.

It met the 15th edition.

At the time (1980's) I was installing MK Sentry equipment and they had such a unit (enclosure c/w 80A RCD as the main switch, so all you needed were the MCBs) available back then.

Never installed them myself though, preferring to go the split-load route instead.