This article could do with input/suggestions:

http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...tary_b onding


There are extra considerations for [[House Wiring for Beginners|
electrical wiring]] in a bathroom.

Article currently incomplete.


==Zones==
[[:Category:Bathrooms|Bathrooms]] are divided into zones for
electrical purposes.
===Zone 0===
* The interior of the bath or [[Showers|shower]]
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] here must be IPX7
* Electrical appliances here must run on 12v maximum SELV

===Zone 1===
* area directly above zone 0, upto a height of 2.25m above the bath or
[[showers|shower]]
* Electrical appliances must be SELV with the transformer in zone 3 or
beyond
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be IPX4 or
better

===Zone 2===
* area beyond zones 0&1, extends 60cm horizontally and upto 2.25m
vertically beyond zones 0&1.
* Also area within 60cm of [[Plumbing|sinks]], plus area directly
below this
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be IPX4 or
better
* Electrical appliances here must run on SELV wth transformer in zone
3 or beyond

===Zone 3===
* zone 3 ceased to exist in 2008 with the 17th edition of the wiring
regs.
* area beyond zone 2, extending to 2.4m horizontally and 2.25m
vertically.
* No [[:Category:Appliances|appliance]] IP requirement
* Some appliances are marked unsuitable for bathrooms
* Some appliances are not thus marked, but are still unsuitable. CRT
[[:Category:TV|TVs]] are one example.
* Shaver units permitted
* SELV appliances permitted

===Unzoned===
* Outside zone 3
* Under the bath if a [[Hand Tools|tool]] is required to gain access
* Non-selv portable [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be
physically prevented from entering zone 3



==Supplementary bonding==
[[image:equi bond outdoor 1537-2.jpg|thumb|outdoor equipotential
bonding clamp]]

Why do it, when required
* not normally required on existing installs

What to bond
* all major pieces of metalwork, eg pipes, bath if metal, ceiling
light if metal, radiators, etc

[[Cable]] size
* usually 4mm^2 insulated
* soldered copper pipes are also acceptable as equipotential bonding
conductors

Connector types
* pipe
* radiator
* outdoor pipe

Other bonding options,
bonding bathroom items outside the room is accetptable, this is
sometimes useful to minimise visibility of bonding
* soldered copper pipe is acceptable as an equipotential bonding
conductor too

==Showers==
Section to be written.

Installing [[House Wiring for Beginners|mains electrics]] in
[[showers]] is definitely frowned upon. But remarkably, it has been
done!

See [[Earthing_and_Bonding]]

==See Also==
* [[Special:Allpages|Wiki Contents]]
* [[Special:Categories|Wiki Subject Categories]]



[[Category:Electrical]]
[[Category:Bathrooms]]


NT

NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:

http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...tary_b onding


There are extra considerations for [[House Wiring for Beginners|
electrical wiring]] in a bathroom.

Article currently incomplete.


==Zones==
[[:Category:Bathrooms|Bathrooms]] are divided into zones for
electrical purposes.
===Zone 0===
* The interior of the bath or [[Showers|shower]]
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] here must be IPX7
* Electrical appliances here must run on 12v maximum SELV

or up to 30V DC - in both cases the source must be installed outside of
zones 0 - 2

===Zone 1===
* area directly above zone 0, upto a height of 2.25m above the bath or
[[showers|shower]]

Or to a height dictated by the maximum reach of the shower head if that
is greater.

* Electrical appliances must be SELV with the transformer in zone 3 or
beyond

Outside the zones now...

* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be IPX4 or
better

===Zone 2===
* area beyond zones 0&1, extends 60cm horizontally and upto 2.25m
vertically beyond zones 0&1.
* Also area within 60cm of [[Plumbing|sinks]], plus area directly
below this
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be IPX4 or
better
* Electrical appliances here must run on SELV wth transformer in zone
3 or beyond

Again outside the zones.

===Zone 3===
* zone 3 ceased to exist in 2008 with the 17th edition of the wiring
regs.
* area beyond zone 2, extending to 2.4m horizontally and 2.25m
vertically.
* No [[:Category:Appliances|appliance]] IP requirement
* Some appliances are marked unsuitable for bathrooms
* Some appliances are not thus marked, but are still unsuitable. CRT
[[:Category:TV|TVs]] are one example.
* Shaver units permitted
* SELV appliances permitted

We could do with some diagrams really...


===Unzoned===
* Outside zone 3

Zone 2

* Under the bath if a [[Hand Tools|tool]] is required to gain access
* Non-selv portable [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be
physically prevented from entering zone 3

Not sure I follow that last bit?

==Supplementary bonding==
[[image:equi bond outdoor 1537-2.jpg|thumb|outdoor equipotential
bonding clamp]]

Why do it, when required
* not normally required on existing installs

Huh?

The only time it is not required is when additional protection is
provided for all circuits in the room via RCD, and the main EQ bonding
is in place.

(its often omitted on older installs - but that is not the same as not
required)

What to bond
* all major pieces of metalwork, eg pipes, bath if metal, ceiling
light if metal, radiators, etc

The bath is not itself capable of introducing a potential into the zone.

Might be better to link to the Earthing and Bonding article here rather
than duplicate too much.


[[Cable]] size
* usually 4mm^2 insulated
* soldered copper pipes are also acceptable as equipotential bonding
conductors

Connector types
* pipe
* radiator
* outdoor pipe

Other bonding options,
bonding bathroom items outside the room is accetptable, this is
sometimes useful to minimise visibility of bonding
* soldered copper pipe is acceptable as an equipotential bonding
conductor too

==Showers==
Section to be written.

Installing [[House Wiring for Beginners|mains electrics]] in
[[showers]] is definitely frowned upon. But remarkably, it has been
done!

"mains electrics" is a bit vague and gives the wrong impression here.

Installing socket outlets in a shower enclosure is more than just
"frowned upon" ;-)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jul 20, 2:57*pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:

http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme....

There are extra considerations for [[House Wiring for Beginners|
electrical wiring]] in a bathroom.

Article currently incomplete.

==Zones==
[[:Category:Bathrooms|Bathrooms]] are divided into zones for
electrical purposes.
===Zone 0===
* The interior of the bath or [[Showers|shower]]
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] here must be IPX7
* Electrical appliances here must run on 12v maximum SELV

or up to 30V DC - in both cases the source must be installed outside of
zones 0 - 2

===Zone 1===
* area directly above zone 0, upto a height of 2.25m above the bath or
[[showers|shower]]

Or to a height dictated by the maximum reach of the shower head if that
is greater.

* Electrical appliances must be SELV with the transformer in zone 3 or
beyond

Outside the zones now...

* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be IPX4 or
better

===Zone 2===
* area beyond zones 0&1, extends 60cm horizontally and upto 2.25m
vertically beyond zones 0&1.
* Also area within 60cm of [[Plumbing|sinks]], plus area directly
below this
* Electrical [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be IPX4 or
better
* Electrical appliances here must run on SELV wth transformer in zone
3 or beyond

Again outside the zones.

===Zone 3===
* zone 3 ceased to exist in 2008 with the 17th edition of the wiring
regs.
* area beyond zone 2, extending to 2.4m horizontally and 2.25m
vertically.
* No [[:Category:Appliances|appliance]] IP requirement
* Some appliances are marked unsuitable for bathrooms
* Some appliances are not thus marked, but are still unsuitable. CRT
[[:Category:TV|TVs]] are one example.
* Shaver units permitted
* SELV appliances permitted

We could do with some diagrams really...

===Unzoned===
* Outside zone 3

Zone 2

* Under the bath if a [[Hand Tools|tool]] is required to gain access
* Non-selv portable [[:Category:Appliances|appliances]] must be
physically prevented from entering zone 3

Not sure I follow that last bit?

==Supplementary bonding==
[[image:equi bond outdoor 1537-2.jpg|thumb|outdoor equipotential
bonding clamp]]

Why do it, when required
* not normally required on existing installs

Huh?

The only time it is not required is when additional protection is
provided for all circuits in the room via RCD, and the main EQ bonding
is in place.

(its often omitted on older installs - but that is not the same as not
required)

What to bond
* all major pieces of metalwork, eg pipes, bath if metal, ceiling
light if metal, radiators, etc

The bath is not itself capable of introducing a potential into the zone.

Might be better to link to the Earthing and Bonding article here rather
than duplicate too much.





[[Cable]] size
* usually 4mm^2 insulated
* soldered copper pipes are also acceptable as equipotential bonding
conductors

Connector types
* pipe
* radiator
* outdoor pipe

Other bonding options,
bonding bathroom items outside the room is accetptable, this is
sometimes useful to minimise visibility of bonding
* soldered copper pipe is acceptable as an equipotential bonding
conductor too

==Showers==
Section to be written.

Installing [[House Wiring for Beginners|mains electrics]] in
[[showers]] is definitely frowned upon. But remarkably, it has been
done!

"mains electrics" is a bit vague and gives the wrong impression here.

Installing socket outlets in a shower enclosure is more than just
"frowned upon" ;-)

OK this all should be incorporated now, or at least when it gets
willing to save the new draft. I've clarified the bit about keeping
portable appliances out of zone 2 in there too. Cheers.


NT

On Jul 21, 1:33*am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57*pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:

http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.


NT

NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now.

The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).

However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jul 21, 6:01*pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... *then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now.

The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).

However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.


Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.


NT

"NT" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now.

The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).

However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.


Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.


NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the 16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting and
the shower.

HTH

Adam

On Jul 22, 5:34*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:



NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now.

The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).

However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.

Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.

NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the 16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting and
the shower.

HTH

Adam


So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.


NT

"NT" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:



NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do
now.

The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).

However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.

Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.

NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the
wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the
16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for
the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical
installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would
need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting
and
the shower.

HTH

Adam


So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.


NT


I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.


Adam

On Jul 22, 7:43*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:



"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:

NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...

The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."

Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do
now.

The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).

However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.

Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.

NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the
wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the
16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for
the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical
installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would
need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting
and
the shower.

HTH

Adam

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP..

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam

indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.


NT

NT wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:



NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...
The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."
Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.
Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now.
The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).
However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.
Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.

NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the 16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting and
the shower.

HTH

Adam


So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

I think there are two things at issue he

One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing,
then installing bonding is not "required". However, if no change is
being made or contemplated, why refer an article on bathroom electrics
in the first place? Chances are if you are looking for information on
this, then you plan to make some alterations, at which point this work
becomes required. Also if we are addressing competent DIYers seeking to
improve bad things on their electrical system, then encouraging them to
add bonding when its required but missing, is a "good thing" IMHO. Its
cheap, easy to do, and depending on the circumstances can make a life or
death difference should you be unlucky enough to have something go bang
unexpectedly.

Secondly, there is the issue of severity. I expect based on comments you
have made in the past that you don't consider the lack of "required"
bonding to be of particular concern. However as I see it (and as Adam
highlights, as any form of proper inspection would see it), it is
classed as a fairly severe fault.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

NT wrote:

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam

indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.

Which only demonstrates that many of them are poorly informed about
these things.

Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

I am not sure why you consider this to be of "near zero safety" benefit.

It is equal I would say to having no RCD protection on a outdoor power
feed. It is after all the greatly increased risk of severe shock imposed
by the surroundings that make the RCD protected supply desirable. Same
applies in a bathroom.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote
NT wrote

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.

Which only demonstrates that many of them are poorly informed about
these things.

One could certainly argue that. But I think the average householder is
well aware that on their list of priorities its extremely low, and in
safety terms theyre quite correct on that point.


Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

I am not sure why you consider this to be of "near zero safety" benefit.

The near zero number of resulting deaths. When you compare the spend
per benefit of equi bonding to many other measures one can take, it
simply ceases to be a path worth pursuing unless one is for some
reason obliged to do so.


It is equal I would say to having no RCD protection on a outdoor power
feed.

Unless I'm mistaken, the level of fatalities don't agree with that
claim.


It is after all the greatly increased risk of severe shock imposed
by the surroundings that make the RCD protected supply desirable. Same
applies in a bathroom.

But that is an incorrect way to assess safety. There is no end of
things that could happen, what matters is which ones do and how often.


On Jul 23, 12:33*am, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

....
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:

NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...
The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."
Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement to
do so.
Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do now.
The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).
However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.
Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.

NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the 16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection for the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting and
the shower.

HTH

Adam

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

I think there are two things at issue he

One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing,
then installing bonding is not "required".

Thats a true fact, not semantics

However, if no change is
being made or contemplated, why refer an article on bathroom electrics
in the first place? Chances are if you are looking for information on
this, then you plan to make some alterations, at which point this work
becomes required.

Many times people get a PIR done that says you need to fit equi
bonding, and they mistakenly believe it to be so. Our article should
tell them the truth, that there is no requirement to fit it unless
youre carrying out electrical work.

Theres nothing wrong with also adding a section of whether we think
you should, but I dont think we ought to tell porkies by saying yes
you're required to do it.


Also if we are addressing competent DIYers seeking to
improve bad things on their electrical system, then encouraging them to
add bonding when its required but missing, is a "good thing" IMHO. Its
cheap, easy to do, and depending on the circumstances can make a life or
death difference should you be unlucky enough to have something go bang
unexpectedly.

So opinion is mixed. If, as we did once before, guess the average cost
of installing it, multiply by the number of houses, and divide by the
number of lives it saves per year it works out at a phenonmenally high
price per life, when many other simple domestic works for the same
money/time would yield far greater safety improvement. It just isnt
warranted on safety grounds.

Why not...

Lets say install cost £20 materials, 4 hours labour for a diying
novice, including going and getting the bits.
Total cost £20 + 4x7-15, perhaps £40 as a balpark figure
= £60 total

x20 million houses = £1.2 billion

If this saves one life every 5 years, thats a cost of 6 billion per
life saved, which is orders of magnitude higher than a whole swathe of
more practical constructive measures one can take.


Secondly, there is the issue of severity. I expect based on comments you
have made in the past that you don't consider the lack of "required"
bonding to be of particular concern. However as I see it (and as Adam
highlights, as any form of proper inspection would see it), it is
classed as a fairly severe fault.

That only shows a recognised flaw in such testing, namely that the
results given are sometimes entirely unrealistic and to encourage
needless spending.


NT

note top and bottom replies

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam

indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

"NT" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote
NT wrote

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.

Which only demonstrates that many of them are poorly informed about
these things.

One could certainly argue that. But I think the average householder is
well aware that on their list of priorities its extremely low, and in
safety terms theyre quite correct on that point.


Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

I am not sure why you consider this to be of "near zero safety" benefit.

The near zero number of resulting deaths. When you compare the spend
per benefit of equi bonding to many other measures one can take, it
simply ceases to be a path worth pursuing unless one is for some
reason obliged to do so.


It is equal I would say to having no RCD protection on a outdoor power
feed.

Unless I'm mistaken, the level of fatalities don't agree with that
claim.


It is after all the greatly increased risk of severe shock imposed
by the surroundings that make the RCD protected supply desirable. Same
applies in a bathroom.

But that is an incorrect way to assess safety. There is no end of
things that could happen, what matters is which ones do and how often.


On Jul 23, 12:33 am, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:34 pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:

NT wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:33 am, NT wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:57 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:
This article could do with input/suggestions:
http://tinyurl.com/mewmhe
or
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...trics#Suppleme...
The article is now edited to read
"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the
17th edition... then supplementary equipotential bonding is
required."
Are you saying that there is a requirement to bring all existing
installations into line with this? I'm not aware of any requirement
to
do so.
Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting the sense of "required" to
mean
something that building regs or some other authority say you must do
now.
The "requirement" is a technical one from BS7671. There is no *legal*
obligation to install missing bonding (unless you a changing something
electrical in the room anyway, when one might argue that part P would
make it so).
However, to wire or alter a room containing bath or shower then one
*may* be required (for reasons of complying with BS7671 and for best
practice / good workmanship) to install or upgrade bonding. I use the
word "may" since the 17th edition is the first version in recent times
to offer an alternative to installing bonding.
Sounds like we agree on the principle, but differ on the wording. I
wanted to try and clarify it in the article as its a much
misunderstood area, and many people sent into a tailspin over nothing,
or paying out for work that doesn't need doing.

So in short there is no real world requirement for such bonding to be
retrofitted to existing wiring unless electrical work is being carried
out, in which case the end result should be regs compliant.

I propose adding a sentence to explain that, probably much further up
in the article since it affects most of it.

NT

Hi

The lack of supplementary bonding would be flagged up on a PIR if the
wiring
was to the 16th edition. However the lack of RCD protection for cables
behind plaster would also be flagged if the system was installed to the
16th
edition.

The main difference is that the the lack of supplementary bonding would
be
code 1 (requires immediate attention) and the lack of RCD protection
for the
cables would be code 4 (does not comply with BS17671:2008).

I would suggest that supplementary bonding "when required but not
present"
should be installed ASAP regardless of any proposed electrical
installation.
As John pointed out, any installations are part P governed and so would
need
the supplementary bonding to be installed.

The other point to note is that any alterations to bathroom or kitchen
electrics also need the main equipotential bonding to be brought up to
current standards when the work is carried out.

A mixture of RCD protected and non RCD protected bathroom electrics
still
need supplementary bonding. eg a split load 16th edition install with
the
bathroom lights non RCD protected and then an electric shower is added
to
the RCD side. Supplementary bonding must be fitted between the lighting
and
the shower.

HTH

Adam

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

I think there are two things at issue he

One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing,
then installing bonding is not "required".

Thats a true fact, not semantics

However, if no change is
being made or contemplated, why refer an article on bathroom electrics
in the first place? Chances are if you are looking for information on
this, then you plan to make some alterations, at which point this work
becomes required.

Many times people get a PIR done that says you need to fit equi
bonding, and they mistakenly believe it to be so. Our article should
tell them the truth, that there is no requirement to fit it unless
youre carrying out electrical work.

Theres nothing wrong with also adding a section of whether we think
you should, but I dont think we ought to tell porkies by saying yes
you're required to do it.


Also if we are addressing competent DIYers seeking to
improve bad things on their electrical system, then encouraging them to
add bonding when its required but missing, is a "good thing" IMHO. Its
cheap, easy to do, and depending on the circumstances can make a life or
death difference should you be unlucky enough to have something go bang
unexpectedly.

So opinion is mixed. If, as we did once before, guess the average cost
of installing it, multiply by the number of houses, and divide by the
number of lives it saves per year it works out at a phenonmenally high
price per life, when many other simple domestic works for the same
money/time would yield far greater safety improvement. It just isnt
warranted on safety grounds.

Why not...

Lets say install cost £20 materials, 4 hours labour for a diying
novice, including going and getting the bits.
Total cost £20 + 4x7-15, perhaps £40 as a balpark figure
= £60 total

x20 million houses = £1.2 billion

If this saves one life every 5 years, thats a cost of 6 billion per
life saved, which is orders of magnitude higher than a whole swathe of
more practical constructive measures one can take.


Secondly, there is the issue of severity. I expect based on comments you
have made in the past that you don't consider the lack of "required"
bonding to be of particular concern. However as I see it (and as Adam
highlights, as any form of proper inspection would see it), it is
classed as a fairly severe fault.

That only shows a recognised flaw in such testing, namely that the
results given are sometimes entirely unrealistic and to encourage
needless spending.


NT

Hi


I do not accept that there is a flaw in a test procedure that correctly
identifies a fault an electrical installation.

The Wiki article on bathroom electrics does have a link to supplementary
bonding requirements and that is good.

Maybe the words

"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the 17th
edition then supplementary equipotential bonding is required."

could read

"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the 17th
edition then supplementary equipotential bonding should be installed to
BS7671 regulations if you ever want a pass certificate on your house
electrics when you want to sell your house and do not want the buyer to
start knocking money off if the buyer is looking for faults"

or

"Unless an installation complies with the latest requirements of the 17th
edition then supplementary equipotential bonding should be installed to
BS7671 regulations"

For some reason there seems to be far much trouble caused by using the word
"required".

Adam

NT wrote:

I think there are two things at issue he

One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing,
then installing bonding is not "required".

Thats a true fact, not semantics

Not really - the wiring regs still say its required. The fact that there
is no legal compulsion to update the exiting install to follow those
requirements does not make the requirement go away.

We could include extra verbage at the top that highlights what is meant
by "required" etc, but then why single out this article? Few of the
others contain similar. Its not as if this one is focussed on specific
advice on a task like changing a CU or installing outside power feeds.
Its just an overview of the right things to do in bathrooms and a heads
up as to why they are different from other rooms.

However, if no change is
being made or contemplated, why refer an article on bathroom electrics
in the first place? Chances are if you are looking for information on
this, then you plan to make some alterations, at which point this work
becomes required.

Many times people get a PIR done that says you need to fit equi
bonding, and they mistakenly believe it to be so. Our article should
tell them the truth, that there is no requirement to fit it unless
youre carrying out electrical work.

PIRs don't include an in depth analysis of the implications of things
like missing bonding. In some cases you could argue that a particular
installation has very few if any failure modes where EQ bonding would
mitigate. Equally however, there may be some that make it very well
worth having.

By all means tell em that they are not legally obliged to carry out the
work; but if the PIR has highlighted a fault that should be fixed,
unless they are in a position to carry out enough analysis to say if
there is a better cost benefit trade off to be had elsewhere, they ought
to carry out the fix. Any other advice would be reckless.

A couple of example scenarios:

e.g.

1) 16th edition PMR head end, small shower room, plastic pipes
everywhere and the only electrical circuits in use are the lighting one,
and a spur from a upstairs ring circuit to feed a towel rail. The lights
are SELV downlighters. The actual risk of serious shock in this
circumstance is negligible. Since mains never manifests in the room
anywhere other than the towel rail, and there are no other extraneous
conductive paths (the CPC of the lighting circuit does not present in
the room - the metalwork of the down lighters is floating, the switch is
non conductive and out of reach on a string). According to to the Regs
Bonding is still required, however the implications of ignoring the
requirement are to all intents nil as things stand.

2) 15th edition install, re-wireable fuses, TT head end (overhead wire
supply), no bonding at all (main or supplementary), a VO ELCB is
connected inline with the main earth provided by a gas pipe. There are a
number of borrowed neutrals and neutral earth faults. a 13A socket is
installed beside the sink to allow a hairdrier etc be plugged in.
Bathroom has CH piped towel radiator, metal pipes to all taps and
cistern, and an electric shower, plus fan heater, and some class 1
luminaries on a low ish ceiling controlled by a nice polished chrome
wall switch next to the shower. In this case there are any number of
fault scenarios that could present serious and life threatening shock
hazards i.e. faults that could leave high touch voltages on metal
surfaces for extended periods, with ready access to an independent earth
close to hand. Now obviously a PIR would highlight all manner of
shortcomings here. The long term solution would probably be a package of
measures including a re-wire or at least a new head end. However
installing main and supplementary bonding PDQ would be cheap and
effective way to lower the rooms status from "death trap" to something
more acceptable.

Theres nothing wrong with also adding a section of whether we think
you should, but I dont think we ought to tell porkies by saying yes
you're required to do it.

Depends on your interpretation of required. See comments above.

Also if we are addressing competent DIYers seeking to
improve bad things on their electrical system, then encouraging them to
add bonding when its required but missing, is a "good thing" IMHO. Its
cheap, easy to do, and depending on the circumstances can make a life or
death difference should you be unlucky enough to have something go bang
unexpectedly.

So opinion is mixed. If, as we did once before, guess the average cost
of installing it, multiply by the number of houses, and divide by the
number of lives it saves per year it works out at a phenonmenally high
price per life, when many other simple domestic works for the same
money/time would yield far greater safety improvement. It just isnt
warranted on safety grounds.

Statistical exercises like this can be useful for setting government
policy[1]. However we are not really concerned with overall impacts,
targets, costs to the nation etc, and are focussing on one electrical
installation. What is best for the majority has no bearing on what is
best for Joe Internet Searcher, 32 Acacia Avenue who has just moved into
a place and had a PIR throw up reams of faults that he does not
understand; missing bonding being one of them. The only sensible advice
we can give in a general purpose guidance article is to say you need to
be lead by the professional opinion of the people you have paid for
advice and here is what the bonding does and how it works if you want to
know. The implications of it not being there may be trivial, or may be
very serious, we can't tell you from here.

(Note also this is partly a circular argument. We have very safe
electrics in the UK as a general rule - both fixed, and appliances (the
former more so than the latter). Deaths are very rare, and injury
relatively rare. Part of the reason for this is that we do specify and
install safety measures like EQ bonding, RCD protection and a host of
other measures. Its almost impossible to say how many extra injuries etc
we would have had without these measures, other than a casual
observation that numbers of deaths etc have been falling for years (at
least until the intro of part p anyway), and electrical installations as
a whole have been getting better as more are updated and rewired to
current standards).

Why not...

Lets say install cost £20 materials, 4 hours labour for a diying
novice, including going and getting the bits.
Total cost £20 + 4x7-15, perhaps £40 as a balpark figure
= £60 total

So the question that matters to me is, could that £60 save the life of
someone in the family should something go wrong? The answer is usually yes.

So the next question is, how likely is it that something will go wrong
in a dangerous way, with my particular installation, that means I would
get to "use" that £60s worth of investment and hence make it worth
spending here and not on mitigating some other risk. If the answer is
"high to moderate" then you spend the £60. If the answer is "I don't
know" the next question is can I get sufficient expert analysis at less
cost, that would tell me if its going to make a difference. If the
answer is no, then you spend the £60. If the answer is yes then you
spend the money on that instead, and then possibly spend the £60
afterwards as well depending on the outcome.

x20 million houses = £1.2 billion

If this saves one life every 5 years, thats a cost of 6 billion per
life saved, which is orders of magnitude higher than a whole swathe of
more practical constructive measures one can take.

We are not talking about spending billions, since we are not writing an
article to advice policy makers. We are talking to the individual ones
looking at your £60 bill.

Secondly, there is the issue of severity. I expect based on comments you
have made in the past that you don't consider the lack of "required"
bonding to be of particular concern. However as I see it (and as Adam
highlights, as any form of proper inspection would see it), it is
classed as a fairly severe fault.

That only shows a recognised flaw in such testing, namely that the

Its a flaw in the process that one accepts since it controls the cost of
such testing. A PIR plus the cost of remedial action is in many many
cases going to be significantly less that the cost of a test with a
detailed analysis and risk assessment to go along with it. Also doing
the work once often saves repeating the exercise later to justify that
something non standard is actually ok in this circumstance.

results given are sometimes entirely unrealistic and to encourage
needless spending.

Agreed; and sometimes the results will be highly realistic, and
encourage spending on something that needs doing as a matter of urgency.

How do you differentiate without detailed technical knowledge?

Perhaps there is a whole new article there; "My PIR said X, how much
notice should I take?".

[1] although following the logic, part P would never have been
introduced - which shows up the disparity between stated and real agenda.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but

In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!

The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but

In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!

The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?

er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

NT wrote:

[...]
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

Here's one recent case where the benefit of some supplementary bonding
would have been far from zero:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8140632.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...bath-taps.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-new-home.html

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:
NT wrote:

[...]
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.

Here's one recent case where the benefit of some supplementary bonding
would have been far from zero:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8140632.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...bath-taps.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-new-home.html

They don't help matters when the experts start spouting confusing and
incorrect terminology:

Jonathan Keane, an electrical expert, told the inquest in Truro,
Cornwall, that the home hadn't been rewired or inspected electrically
since 1981.

He said: "The combination of the lack of *earth bonding* and the faulty
heater created a lethal charge to the taps - killing Thirza when she
touched them."

[my emphasis]


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?

er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.

Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:26:53 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?

er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.

Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.

Thanks John.
The lighting circuit is only commoned on the bus in the CU, but even I
can't reach the switch or fitting. The rad. is way out of reach from the
bath but is next to the basin. The basin has no metal to it, the floor is
non-conductive, so if there were an earth fault and the RCD didn't trip any
bonding would just make the taps live whereas atm they're isolated.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:26:53 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?
er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.
Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.

Thanks John.
The lighting circuit is only commoned on the bus in the CU, but even I
can't reach the switch or fitting. The rad. is way out of reach from the
bath but is next to the basin. The basin has no metal to it, the floor is
non-conductive, so if there were an earth fault and the RCD didn't trip any
bonding would just make the taps live whereas atm they're isolated.

The taps should not be included in the bonding anyway since they are not
connected to a conductor that leaves the room. (even if they had metal
tails for the first meter and then transitioned to plastic)

The simple way to analyse these things from first principles, is to ask
is "x" capable of bringing a potential into your equi-potential zone
(even if that potential it brings is that of the earth). If the answer
is no, then it does not want to be bonded.

As I said earlier, in your particular case you can make an analysis that
the fault scenarios that could lead to the bonding becoming decisive in
outcome are fairly obscure. (I can't think of many!). So you could argue
that skipping it entirely is unlikely to pose any significant risk, and
you can save some cash which you could now spend taping down the lose
carpet at the top of the stairs etc. However for completeness, it still
ought to be there on the grounds that additions/changes may be made in
the future - possibly by someone not aware of the trade off analysis you
have made.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:08 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:26:53 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?
er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.
Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.

Thanks John.
The lighting circuit is only commoned on the bus in the CU, but even I
can't reach the switch or fitting. The rad. is way out of reach from the
bath but is next to the basin. The basin has no metal to it, the floor is
non-conductive, so if there were an earth fault and the RCD didn't trip any
bonding would just make the taps live whereas atm they're isolated.

The taps should not be included in the bonding anyway since they are not
connected to a conductor that leaves the room. (even if they had metal
tails for the first meter and then transitioned to plastic)

The simple way to analyse these things from first principles, is to ask
is "x" capable of bringing a potential into your equi-potential zone
(even if that potential it brings is that of the earth). If the answer
is no, then it does not want to be bonded.

As I said earlier, in your particular case you can make an analysis that
the fault scenarios that could lead to the bonding becoming decisive in
outcome are fairly obscure. (I can't think of many!). So you could argue
that skipping it entirely is unlikely to pose any significant risk, and
you can save some cash which you could now spend taping down the lose
carpet at the top of the stairs etc. However for completeness, it still
ought to be there on the grounds that additions/changes may be made in
the future - possibly by someone not aware of the trade off analysis you
have made.

Right, I'll check the CH, as that's the only part with copper.
There's an E tail by the stopcock but it's no longer connected - the
stopcock is the only metal there, as the supply is HDPE.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:08 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:26:53 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?
er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.
Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.
Thanks John.
The lighting circuit is only commoned on the bus in the CU, but even I
can't reach the switch or fitting. The rad. is way out of reach from the
bath but is next to the basin. The basin has no metal to it, the floor is
non-conductive, so if there were an earth fault and the RCD didn't trip any
bonding would just make the taps live whereas atm they're isolated.
The taps should not be included in the bonding anyway since they are not
connected to a conductor that leaves the room. (even if they had metal
tails for the first meter and then transitioned to plastic)

The simple way to analyse these things from first principles, is to ask
is "x" capable of bringing a potential into your equi-potential zone
(even if that potential it brings is that of the earth). If the answer
is no, then it does not want to be bonded.

As I said earlier, in your particular case you can make an analysis that
the fault scenarios that could lead to the bonding becoming decisive in
outcome are fairly obscure. (I can't think of many!). So you could argue
that skipping it entirely is unlikely to pose any significant risk, and
you can save some cash which you could now spend taping down the lose
carpet at the top of the stairs etc. However for completeness, it still
ought to be there on the grounds that additions/changes may be made in
the future - possibly by someone not aware of the trade off analysis you
have made.

Right, I'll check the CH, as that's the only part with copper.
There's an E tail by the stopcock but it's no longer connected - the
stopcock is the only metal there, as the supply is HDPE.

Is the rest of the house metal or is that plastic as well?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:17:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:08 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:26:53 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?
er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.
Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.
Thanks John.
The lighting circuit is only commoned on the bus in the CU, but even I
can't reach the switch or fitting. The rad. is way out of reach from the
bath but is next to the basin. The basin has no metal to it, the floor is
non-conductive, so if there were an earth fault and the RCD didn't trip any
bonding would just make the taps live whereas atm they're isolated.
The taps should not be included in the bonding anyway since they are not
connected to a conductor that leaves the room. (even if they had metal
tails for the first meter and then transitioned to plastic)

The simple way to analyse these things from first principles, is to ask
is "x" capable of bringing a potential into your equi-potential zone
(even if that potential it brings is that of the earth). If the answer
is no, then it does not want to be bonded.

As I said earlier, in your particular case you can make an analysis that
the fault scenarios that could lead to the bonding becoming decisive in
outcome are fairly obscure. (I can't think of many!). So you could argue
that skipping it entirely is unlikely to pose any significant risk, and
you can save some cash which you could now spend taping down the lose
carpet at the top of the stairs etc. However for completeness, it still
ought to be there on the grounds that additions/changes may be made in
the future - possibly by someone not aware of the trade off analysis you
have made.

Right, I'll check the CH, as that's the only part with copper.
There's an E tail by the stopcock but it's no longer connected - the
stopcock is the only metal there, as the supply is HDPE.

Is the rest of the house metal or is that plastic as well?

The water is plastic and the CH metal.

It all used to be bonded back to the incoming water pipe, but that was
renewed, then I had a combi and the HW pipes didn't like the pressure so I
replumbed in plastic.
There's no earth AFAIK except for the CU. It is, ISTR, PME.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:17:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:08 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:26:53 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:12:49 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:03:14 -0700 (PDT), NT wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you also think equi bonding only need
be installed if and when electrical work is done. Note I say 'need
be', not 'is an option'.

NT

I would consider an electrical inspection (diy or professional) to be
electrical work. If the supplementary bonding is found to be missing (and is
needed because it is not a 17th edition installation) then the house
electrics are not up to standard and the bonding should be installed ASAP.

However I do not think that any authority can cut a supply to a house due to
a lack of supplementary bonding and people cannot be made to add the bonding
just because it is missing.

Adam
indeed... so there is no requirement.

Whether it ought to be fitted is another matter, one of opinion, and
the job is one which most households arent concerned about doing.
Given the near zero safety benefit I'd personally agree with them.
I took the bonding off the metal bath when I re-plumbed, as there's no
metal to/from the bath at all. The shower's on a RCD (nominally 30mA but
In which case the bath should not have been bonded anyway. As you say,
it just complicates the situation.

goes between 20 - 25mA) and if the shower were to become live there's no
path to earth anyway. If a fault develops and the RCD fails, I'd rather not
be the link beween 240V and a bonded earth!
The shower presumably has its own CPC from its supply circuit?
er, CPC? It's earthed back to the CU, if that's it.
Yup (CPC = Circuit Protective Conductor = Earth wire). The earth wire to
the shower ought to be included in any bonding that you do have. That
way if the shower goes faulty it will try and pull its earth toward
mains voltage, and the bonding will make sure that anything else the
room that you could touch at the same time will go with it. In your case
there may be little else to bond to - the CPC of the lighting circuit
perhaps and a CH pipes if metal.

It does not sound like a particularly high risk environment.
Thanks John.
The lighting circuit is only commoned on the bus in the CU, but even I
can't reach the switch or fitting. The rad. is way out of reach from the
bath but is next to the basin. The basin has no metal to it, the floor is
non-conductive, so if there were an earth fault and the RCD didn't trip any
bonding would just make the taps live whereas atm they're isolated.
The taps should not be included in the bonding anyway since they are not
connected to a conductor that leaves the room. (even if they had metal
tails for the first meter and then transitioned to plastic)

The simple way to analyse these things from first principles, is to ask
is "x" capable of bringing a potential into your equi-potential zone
(even if that potential it brings is that of the earth). If the answer
is no, then it does not want to be bonded.

As I said earlier, in your particular case you can make an analysis that
the fault scenarios that could lead to the bonding becoming decisive in
outcome are fairly obscure. (I can't think of many!). So you could argue
that skipping it entirely is unlikely to pose any significant risk, and
you can save some cash which you could now spend taping down the lose
carpet at the top of the stairs etc. However for completeness, it still
ought to be there on the grounds that additions/changes may be made in
the future - possibly by someone not aware of the trade off analysis you
have made.
Right, I'll check the CH, as that's the only part with copper.
There's an E tail by the stopcock but it's no longer connected - the
stopcock is the only metal there, as the supply is HDPE.
Is the rest of the house metal or is that plastic as well?

The water is plastic and the CH metal.

It all used to be bonded back to the incoming water pipe, but that was
renewed, then I had a combi and the HW pipes didn't like the pressure so I
replumbed in plastic.
There's no earth AFAIK except for the CU. It is, ISTR, PME.

How does the gas get into the place? (assuming its a gas boiler - same
question but for oil if its one of those). It sounds like you may be
missing a main bond to that.

It sounds like the CH pipes are the only ones that can do much mischief
then, since they probably romp all over the house carrying a potential
potential with them ;-)

(imagine a fault in the boiler leaving the pipes live etc)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jul 23, 8:23*pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:

snip

If I get the time I'll address some of the confusion here


NT

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:04:27 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

snip as me mouse wheel is overheating

The simple way to analyse these things from first principles, is to ask
is "x" capable of bringing a potential into your equi-potential zone
(even if that potential it brings is that of the earth). If the answer
is no, then it does not want to be bonded.

As I said earlier, in your particular case you can make an analysis that
the fault scenarios that could lead to the bonding becoming decisive in
outcome are fairly obscure. (I can't think of many!). So you could argue
that skipping it entirely is unlikely to pose any significant risk, and
you can save some cash which you could now spend taping down the lose
carpet at the top of the stairs etc. However for completeness, it still
ought to be there on the grounds that additions/changes may be made in
the future - possibly by someone not aware of the trade off analysis you
have made.
Right, I'll check the CH, as that's the only part with copper.
There's an E tail by the stopcock but it's no longer connected - the
stopcock is the only metal there, as the supply is HDPE.
Is the rest of the house metal or is that plastic as well?

The water is plastic and the CH metal.

It all used to be bonded back to the incoming water pipe, but that was
renewed, then I had a combi and the HW pipes didn't like the pressure so I
replumbed in plastic.
There's no earth AFAIK except for the CU. It is, ISTR, PME.

How does the gas get into the place? (assuming its a gas boiler - same
question but for oil if its one of those). It sounds like you may be
missing a main bond to that.

It sounds like the CH pipes are the only ones that can do much mischief
then, since they probably romp all over the house carrying a potential
potential with them ;-)

(imagine a fault in the boiler leaving the pipes live etc)

Gas is via plastic pipe to the meter on the front wall then copper to the
boiler. It has no connection to it in the box.
This means that the house has no earth other than the CU. Here it looks as
if there's an E bonded to the SWA and connected to the CU and to the
incoming N.

If the pipes were to become live, at least the rad. in the bathroom
wouldn't be to dangerous as there's no other reachable earthed place to
touch - it'd need the pull switches to have their covers off or, at a
stretch, the fan heater (I could reach that but most people couldn't).
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On Jul 23, 8:23*pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:

I think there are two things at issue he

One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing,
then installing bonding is not "required".

Thats a true fact, not semantics

Not really - the wiring regs still say its required. The fact that there
is no legal compulsion to update the exiting install to follow those
requirements does not make the requirement go away.

it means that, by definition, it isn't required for most houses.

There is simply no requirement for most houses to be to current
standards, and the great majority aren't.



We could include extra verbage at the top that highlights what is meant
by "required" etc, but then why single out this article?

You removed the statement that it was required if doing electrical
work, replacing it with the erroneous claim that its required in all
cases.


However, if no change is
being made or contemplated, why refer an article on bathroom electrics
in the first place? Chances are if you are looking for information on
this, then you plan to make some alterations, at which point this work
becomes required.

Many times people get a PIR done that says you need to fit equi
bonding, and they mistakenly believe it to be so. Our article should
tell them the truth, that there is no requirement to fit it unless
youre carrying out electrical work.

PIRs don't include an in depth analysis of the implications of things
like missing bonding. In some cases you could argue that a particular
installation has very few if any failure modes where EQ bonding would
mitigate. Equally however, there may be some that make it very well
worth having.

By all means tell em that they are not legally obliged to carry out the
work; but if the PIR has highlighted a fault that should be fixed,
unless they are in a position to carry out enough analysis to say if
there is a better cost benefit trade off to be had elsewhere, they ought
to carry out the fix.

There is simply no basis for saying the missing bonding should be
fixed. The cost/benefit analysis shows it to be at best worthless, and
the legal position is that it is not required in most cases.


Any other advice would be reckless.

Telling the truth about the legal position is not reckless or unwise.


A couple of example scenarios:

e.g.

1) 16th edition PMR head end, small shower room, plastic pipes
everywhere and the only electrical circuits in use are the lighting one,
and a spur from a upstairs ring circuit to feed a towel rail. The lights
are SELV downlighters. The actual risk of serious shock in this
circumstance is negligible. Since mains never manifests in the room
anywhere other than the towel rail, and there are no other extraneous
conductive paths (the CPC of the lighting circuit does not present in
the room - the metalwork of the down lighters is floating, the switch is
non conductive and out of reach on a string). *According to to the Regs
Bonding is still required, however the implications of ignoring the
requirement are to all intents nil as things stand.

2) 15th edition install, re-wireable fuses, TT head end (overhead wire
supply), no bonding at all (main or supplementary), a VO ELCB is
connected inline with the main earth provided by a gas pipe. There are a
number of borrowed neutrals and neutral earth faults. a 13A socket is
installed beside the sink to allow a hairdrier etc be plugged in.
Bathroom has CH piped towel radiator, metal pipes to all taps and
cistern, and an electric shower, plus fan heater, and some class 1
luminaries on a low ish ceiling controlled by a nice polished chrome
wall switch next to the shower. In this case there are any number of
fault scenarios that could present serious and life threatening shock
hazards i.e. faults that could leave high touch voltages on metal
surfaces for extended periods, with ready access to an independent earth
close to hand. Now obviously a PIR would highlight all manner of
shortcomings here. The long term solution would probably be a package of
measures including a re-wire or at least a new head end. However
installing main and supplementary bonding PDQ would be cheap and
effective way to lower the rooms status from "death trap" to something
more acceptable.

You're missing the point I made last time. You may /imagine/ some
unbonded bathrooms to be deathtraps, but the figures (ie facts) show
very clearly that they're not.



Theres nothing wrong with also adding a section of whether we think
you should, but I dont think we ought to tell porkies by saying yes
you're required to do it.

Depends on your interpretation of required. See comments above.

Also if we are addressing competent DIYers seeking to
improve bad things on their electrical system, then encouraging them to
add bonding when its required but missing, is a "good thing" IMHO. Its
cheap, easy to do, and depending on the circumstances can make a life or
death difference should you be unlucky enough to have something go bang
unexpectedly.

So opinion is mixed. If, as we did once before, guess the average cost
of installing it, multiply by the number of houses, and divide by the
number of lives it saves per year it works out at a phenonmenally high
price per life, when many other simple domestic works for the same
money/time would yield far greater safety improvement. It just isnt
warranted on safety grounds.

Statistical exercises like this can be useful for setting government
policy[1]. However we are not really concerned with overall impacts,
targets, costs to the nation etc, and are focussing on one electrical
installation. What is best for the majority has no bearing on what is
best for Joe Internet Searcher, 32 Acacia Avenue who has just moved into
a place and had a PIR

it seems evident that cost/benefit is relevant, and is in fact
precisely the grounds on which we make decisions as to what to spend
on safety.

Lets take an example: imagine you have 2 options, to spend £60 on
getting the car's brakes fixed or to spend on equi bonding. You know
that there are around 3500 deaths per annum from car crashes, and
around 0.2 from bathroom electrocutions. In each case spending the £60
would decrease those risks, but not to zero. Its obvious what one
would choose, the question is how? If you don't think its on cost/
benefit ratio, on what basis do you make the choice?


throw up reams of faults that he does not
understand; missing bonding being one of them.

If there are reams of faults, a rewire would be a lot more sensible
than fitting equi. And if Joe were too broke to do that, spending the
money on fixing some faults would be far more worthwhile than fitting
equi. And once all the faults are fixed, then adding equi becomes
valueless anyway in safety terms.


The only sensible advice
we can give in a general purpose guidance article is to say you need to
be lead by the professional opinion of the people you have paid for
advice

I don't see any reason for us to even comment on that.
Re equi bonding, why not just state the truth, that its required when
doing electrical work?


and here is what the bonding does and how it works if you want to
know. The implications of it not being there may be trivial, or may be
very serious, we can't tell you from here.

yes we can, we know ballpark figures on this.


(Note also this is partly a circular argument. We have very safe
electrics in the UK as a general rule - both fixed, and appliances (the
former more so than the latter). Deaths are very rare, and injury
relatively rare. Part of the reason for this is that we do specify and
install safety measures like EQ bonding, RCD protection and a host of
other measures.

the majority of domestic installs in the UK predate equipotential
bonding, and a large percentage still have no RCD. The national death
rates from electrocution apply to all systems, risks added up, not
specifically to newer one with rcd/equi.


Why not...

Lets say install cost £20 materials, 4 hours labour for a diying
novice, including going and getting the bits.
Total cost £20 + 4x7-15, perhaps £40 as a balpark figure
= £60 total

So the question that matters to me is, could that £60 save the life of
someone in the family should something go wrong? The answer is usually yes.

The answer is fairly clear: Yes in approx 1 per 5x 20 milion
households = 1 in 100 million odds of it being of any use in each
year.


So the next question is, how likely is it that something will go wrong
in a dangerous way, with my particular installation, that means I would
get to "use" that £60s worth of investment and hence make it worth
spending here and not on mitigating some other risk. If the answer is
"high to moderate" then you spend the £60. If the answer is "I don't
know" the next question is can I get sufficient expert analysis at less
cost, that would tell me if its going to make a difference. If the
answer is no, then you spend the £60. If the answer is yes then you
spend the money on that instead, and then possibly spend the £60
afterwards as well depending on the outcome.

we know the answer is around one time per 20 milion households per
year. 1 per 100 million.



x20 million houses = £1.2 billion

If this saves one life every 5 years, thats a cost of 6 billion per
life saved, which is orders of magnitude higher than a whole swathe of
more practical constructive measures one can take.

We are not talking about spending billions, since we are not writing an
article to advice policy makers. We are talking to the individual ones
looking at your £60 bill.

That misses the point entirely. The question that addresses is if we
have finite financial resources, as we always do, what measures are
worth taking using those resources. The calculation shows that equi
bonding is a long long way from being worthwhile. As a comparison, the
NHS has an across the board spending ceiling of £30,000 per qaly. That
is our current national level of spending on safety measures.


Secondly, there is the issue of severity. I expect based on comments you
have made in the past that you don't consider the lack of "required"
bonding to be of particular concern. However as I see it (and as Adam
highlights, as any form of proper inspection would see it), it is
classed as a fairly severe fault.

That only shows a recognised flaw in such testing, namely that the

Its a flaw in the process that one accepts since it controls the cost of
such testing. A PIR plus the cost of remedial action is in many many
cases going to be significantly less that the cost of a test with a
detailed analysis and risk assessment to go along with it. Also doing
the work once often saves repeating the exercise later to justify that
something non standard is actually ok in this circumstance.

Reporting the omission more realistically as just NTCS would cost zero
more.


results given are sometimes entirely unrealistic and to encourage
needless spending.

Agreed; and sometimes the results will be highly realistic, and
encourage spending on something that needs doing as a matter of urgency.

How do you differentiate without detailed technical knowledge?

national death statistics. Then one calculates approx cost/benefit for
safety measures.


Perhaps there is a whole new article there; "My PIR said X, how much
notice should I take?".

or 'what does this mean in real terms?'


[1] although following the logic, part P would never have been
introduced - which shows up the disparity between stated and real agenda.



Spending money on safety measures that yield little only leaves less
money to spend on safety measures that are of genuine importance.

In this case the cost/benefit ratio is 1/ 6billion to 1/ 30k = a ratio
of 200,000:1. IOW spending that £60 per person on useful measures
could save 200,000 as many lives as by spending it on equi bonding. So
realistically, its fatal in many cases.

Given this, why claim its always required when it isn't?

Or if you think it is required for all houses to meet latest wiring
regs, which act of law do you believe says so?


NT

NT wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:23 pm, John Rumm wrote:
NT wrote:

I think there are two things at issue he
One is semantics - yes you could argue that if you are changing nothing,
then installing bonding is not "required".
Thats a true fact, not semantics
Not really - the wiring regs still say its required. The fact that there
is no legal compulsion to update the exiting install to follow those
requirements does not make the requirement go away.

it means that, by definition, it isn't required for most houses.

There is simply no requirement for most houses to be to current
standards, and the great majority aren't.

We can go round in circles on this. Yes I agree there is no legal
requirement to bring an old install up to current standards. Unless you
change anything. However that just means that it is allowed to to be non
compliant with the technical spec. The spec's requirement's however have
not changed.

By all means tell em that they are not legally obliged to carry out the
work; but if the PIR has highlighted a fault that should be fixed,
unless they are in a position to carry out enough analysis to say if
there is a better cost benefit trade off to be had elsewhere, they ought
to carry out the fix.

There is simply no basis for saying the missing bonding should be
fixed. The cost/benefit analysis shows it to be at best worthless, and

Your cost benefit analysis is looking at it from the wrong perspective.
I agree that there would be no point in legislating that all properties
must be inspected and have it added if required and missing. The cost
would be disproportionate to the benefit.

However that is a very different argument from the case where you have
been informed by a professional that the installation is at fault and
you need to asses the significance of that fault.

the legal position is that it is not required in most cases.

If you are doing nothing to an installation, then you are not obliged to
upgrade it to meet the requirements.

Any other advice would be reckless.

Telling the truth about the legal position is not reckless or unwise.

We are not talking about the legal requirements. We are talking about
giving good advice, and doing a proper job. We have already stated the
legal position. By all means add further words if you think it would help.

A couple of example scenarios:

e.g.

1) 16th edition PMR head end, small shower room, plastic pipes
everywhere and the only electrical circuits in use are the lighting one,
and a spur from a upstairs ring circuit to feed a towel rail. The lights
are SELV downlighters. The actual risk of serious shock in this
circumstance is negligible. Since mains never manifests in the room
anywhere other than the towel rail, and there are no other extraneous
conductive paths (the CPC of the lighting circuit does not present in
the room - the metalwork of the down lighters is floating, the switch is
non conductive and out of reach on a string). According to to the Regs
Bonding is still required, however the implications of ignoring the
requirement are to all intents nil as things stand.

2) 15th edition install, re-wireable fuses, TT head end (overhead wire
supply), no bonding at all (main or supplementary), a VO ELCB is
connected inline with the main earth provided by a gas pipe. There are a
number of borrowed neutrals and neutral earth faults. a 13A socket is
installed beside the sink to allow a hairdrier etc be plugged in.
Bathroom has CH piped towel radiator, metal pipes to all taps and
cistern, and an electric shower, plus fan heater, and some class 1
luminaries on a low ish ceiling controlled by a nice polished chrome
wall switch next to the shower. In this case there are any number of
fault scenarios that could present serious and life threatening shock
hazards i.e. faults that could leave high touch voltages on metal
surfaces for extended periods, with ready access to an independent earth
close to hand. Now obviously a PIR would highlight all manner of
shortcomings here. The long term solution would probably be a package of
measures including a re-wire or at least a new head end. However
installing main and supplementary bonding PDQ would be cheap and
effective way to lower the rooms status from "death trap" to something
more acceptable.

You're missing the point I made last time. You may /imagine/ some
unbonded bathrooms to be deathtraps, but the figures (ie facts) show
very clearly that they're not.

Again you are attempting to carry out an epidemiological study (without
access to the raw data I might add). We are dealing with rare events and
small sample sets. We may hear about the deaths, we probably don't hear
about the vast majority of injuries and shocks.

It remains the case that EQ bonding in a bathroom is a cheap and easy
fail safe measure that may well be conclusive in the event of another
failure.

it seems evident that cost/benefit is relevant, and is in fact
precisely the grounds on which we make decisions as to what to spend
on safety.

Lets take an example: imagine you have 2 options, to spend £60 on
getting the car's brakes fixed or to spend on equi bonding. You know
that there are around 3500 deaths per annum from car crashes, and
around 0.2 from bathroom electrocutions. In each case spending the £60
would decrease those risks, but not to zero. Its obvious what one
would choose, the question is how? If you don't think its on cost/
benefit ratio, on what basis do you make the choice?

You don't provide enough information to make the choice. If your
particular bathroom happened to be like the one that Andy W posted a
link about, then the liklihood that you are going to fall into your 0.2%
is very nearly 100%. Its a pretty good certainly that someone would get
a serious shock before long.

If money is so tight, then why pay the £200 - £400 for a PIR if you are
not going to be in a position to fix any faults it finds? You would be
better of fixing the car and spending some time reading about what
constitutes a safe electrical system.

throw up reams of faults that he does not
understand; missing bonding being one of them.

If there are reams of faults, a rewire would be a lot more sensible
than fitting equi. And if Joe were too broke to do that, spending the
money on fixing some faults would be far more worthwhile than fitting
equi. And once all the faults are fixed, then adding equi becomes
valueless anyway in safety terms.

I don't agree. EQ bonding is a fail safe technology. Fixing current
faults is no protection against those that may occur in the future.
Bonding is.


The only sensible advice
we can give in a general purpose guidance article is to say you need to
be lead by the professional opinion of the people you have paid for
advice

I don't see any reason for us to even comment on that.
Re equi bonding, why not just state the truth, that its required when
doing electrical work?

We have said you are not legally obliged to upgrade. That is closer to
the truth I would say.

Most informed people asked to say where the *requirements* for
electrical installations are specified, would say BS7671. According to
that, bonding is required (17th edtn spec installs excepted).

and here is what the bonding does and how it works if you want to
know. The implications of it not being there may be trivial, or may be
very serious, we can't tell you from here.

yes we can, we know ballpark figures on this.

Without detailed knowledge of the installation in question you don't,
you only have stats which by definition are not specific.

(Note also this is partly a circular argument. We have very safe
electrics in the UK as a general rule - both fixed, and appliances (the
former more so than the latter). Deaths are very rare, and injury
relatively rare. Part of the reason for this is that we do specify and
install safety measures like EQ bonding, RCD protection and a host of
other measures.

the majority of domestic installs in the UK predate equipotential
bonding, and a large percentage still have no RCD. The national death

Do you have a source for this claim? EQ bonding goes back to at least
the 14th edition - so that is 1966. I would be very surprised is pre
WWII wiring installs were still in the majority.

rates from electrocution apply to all systems, risks added up, not
specifically to newer one with rcd/equi.


Why not...
Lets say install cost £20 materials, 4 hours labour for a diying
novice, including going and getting the bits.
Total cost £20 + 4x7-15, perhaps £40 as a balpark figure
= £60 total
So the question that matters to me is, could that £60 save the life of
someone in the family should something go wrong? The answer is usually yes.

The answer is fairly clear: Yes in approx 1 per 5x 20 milion
households = 1 in 100 million odds of it being of any use in each
year.

useless analysis - we are not talking generalisations. I want to know
what it means for *my* installation.

So the next question is, how likely is it that something will go wrong
in a dangerous way, with my particular installation, that means I would
get to "use" that £60s worth of investment and hence make it worth
spending here and not on mitigating some other risk. If the answer is
"high to moderate" then you spend the £60. If the answer is "I don't
know" the next question is can I get sufficient expert analysis at less
cost, that would tell me if its going to make a difference. If the
answer is no, then you spend the £60. If the answer is yes then you
spend the money on that instead, and then possibly spend the £60
afterwards as well depending on the outcome.

we know the answer is around one time per 20 milion households per
year. 1 per 100 million.

we don;t actually - even in general terms. There could be hundreds of
people who are alive, well and uninjured or hurt that are possibly even
unaware that they were saved by a protective system such as those being
discussed.

results given are sometimes entirely unrealistic and to encourage
needless spending.

Agreed; and sometimes the results will be highly realistic, and
encourage spending on something that needs doing as a matter of urgency.

How do you differentiate without detailed technical knowledge?

national death statistics. Then one calculates approx cost/benefit for
safety measures.

No, I can't see the logic here.

Depending on the *actual circumstances* the chance that a protective
measure will have a decisive effect on the outcome will vary in
probability from nil to 100%. Personally, if the risk in my house is
nearing 100% I am not going to draw any comfort from the fact that
according to national statistics I died in a very improbable way.

Perhaps there is a whole new article there; "My PIR said X, how much
notice should I take?".

or 'what does this mean in real terms?'

yup. However to do any good, it is going to have to impart sufficient
technical know how to make a decision based on the facts of the actual
installation, and not just state heuristics based on statistical
likelihoods.

[1] although following the logic, part P would never have been
introduced - which shows up the disparity between stated and real agenda.

Spending money on safety measures that yield little only leaves less
money to spend on safety measures that are of genuine importance.

yup, I agree.

In this case the cost/benefit ratio is 1/ 6billion to 1/ 30k = a ratio
of 200,000:1. IOW spending that £60 per person on useful measures
could save 200,000 as many lives as by spending it on equi bonding. So
realistically, its fatal in many cases.

woosh...

Given this, why claim its always required when it isn't?

How about because the requirements say so?

Or if you think it is required for all houses to meet latest wiring
regs, which act of law do you believe says so?

I believe one is not legally obliged to upgrade to meet the current
requirements. If you want the requirements they are available from
Amazon et al.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

ok, to save going round this loop any more, I have added the following
words to the earthing and bonding article:

On the subject of main bonding:

"Note that if the main bonding is not present, it is considered to be a
serious electrical fault. As a result anyone carrying out modifications
to any part of an electrical installation should also check and rectify
any faults in this area at the same time. Note that although there is no
general legal obligation on house owners to upgrade the electrical
system to meet the current requirements as laid down in BS7671 (the
"wiring regs"), it is not uncommon for professional electricians to
refuse to undertake any other work unless their are also instructed to
perform any required remedial work on the main bonding at the same time."

and on the supplementary bonding bit:

"Again a householder is not legally obliged to upgrade or install
supplementary bonding when it is required (by the wiring regs) but
missing, (or in some other way substandard), unless they are carrying
out other work in the same room. "

I have also added a note to the bathroom article to the effect:

"One should also keep in mind that a room containing a bath or shower is
classed under Part P of the building regulations as a "special
location". This means that other than like for like changes of
accessories etc, or the installation / upgrading of supplementary
bonding, nearly all electrical work will be classed as a "major work"
for the purposes of part P. Hence to comply with the requirements the
work would need to be carried out under a building notice, or completed
by a person who is a member of one of the various part P competent
persons schemes. "

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:02:57 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


"One should also keep in mind that a room containing a bath or shower is
classed under Part P of the building regulations as a "special
location". This means that other than like for like changes of
accessories etc, or the installation / upgrading of supplementary
bonding, nearly all electrical work will be classed as a "major work"
for the purposes of part P. Hence to comply with the requirements the
work would need to be carried out under a building notice, or completed
by a person who is a member of one of the various part P competent
persons schemes. "

In England and Wales?

--
Geo

Geo wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:02:57 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


"One should also keep in mind that a room containing a bath or shower is
classed under Part P of the building regulations as a "special
location". This means that other than like for like changes of
accessories etc, or the installation / upgrading of supplementary
bonding, nearly all electrical work will be classed as a "major work"
for the purposes of part P. Hence to comply with the requirements the
work would need to be carried out under a building notice, or completed
by a person who is a member of one of the various part P competent
persons schemes. "

In England and Wales?

Yes good point - Probably Northern Ireland as well, but Scotland has its
own foibles.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

This means that other than like for like changes of
accessories etc, or the installation / upgrading of supplementary
bonding, nearly all electrical work will be classed as a "major work"
for the purposes of part P.

I suggest that should say "notifiable work" to avoid any confusion with
the major/minor distinction between work done on a 'normal' EIC, as
opposed to a minor works certificate (a separate, albeit related, issue).

Yes good point - Probably Northern Ireland as well, but Scotland has its
own foibles.

No Part P in NI, AIUI, unless things have changed.

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

This means that other than like for like changes of accessories etc,
or the installation / upgrading of supplementary bonding, nearly all
electrical work will be classed as a "major work" for the purposes
of part P.

I suggest that should say "notifiable work" to avoid any confusion with
the major/minor distinction between work done on a 'normal' EIC, as
opposed to a minor works certificate (a separate, albeit related, issue).

Yes, well spotted - even a minor work would be notifiable in a bathroom.

Yes good point - Probably Northern Ireland as well, but Scotland has
its own foibles.

No Part P in NI, AIUI, unless things have changed.

The irony is that we make "Irish" jokes, and yet this time its on us it
seems!

wiki updated...

any more observations before I take the "under construction" header off it?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

any more observations before I take the "under construction" header off it?

The picture at
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...oor_1537-2.jpg
in the bathroom article shows an incorrectly fitted BS 951 earth clamp.
The embossed aluminium label should be fixed through one of the round
holes, under the lock nut on the clamping screw.

--
Andy

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:

any more observations before I take the "under construction" header off
it?

The picture at
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...oor_1537-2.jpg
in the bathroom article shows an incorrectly fitted BS 951 earth clamp.
The embossed aluminium label should be fixed through one of the round
holes, under the lock nut on the clamping screw.

I hope not.
Something as soft as aluminium under the lock nut would encourage it to undo
IME.

--
Andy

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:

any more observations before I take the "under construction" header off
it?

The picture at
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...oor_1537-2.jpg
in the bathroom article shows an incorrectly fitted BS 951 earth clamp.
The embossed aluminium label should be fixed through one of the round
holes, under the lock nut on the clamping screw.

I hope not.
Something as soft as aluminium under the lock nut would encourage it to
undo IME.

They are usually under the locknut and cause no trouble. Having said that
the requirement is merely that they are visible and not [easily] removed.
Complaining about *how* they are attached is ridiculous.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...


They are usually under the locknut and cause no trouble. Having said that
the requirement is merely that they are visible and not [easily] removed.
Complaining about *how* they are attached is ridiculous.

They are so soft they are easy to remove however they are attached.
You just pull or even bend them a few times.