Do socket outlets in a Pub need to be RCD/RCBO protected!

[MerlinGremlin]

What are peoples thoughts on this, should socket outlets in the general public areas be RCD/RCBO protected? I believe they do and have put them down as a C2 on a recent EICR but recently got a phone call to say it's a C3!

 

[Ian1981]

I'm not aware that the general public randomly plug in their own equipment into the sockets inside the pub.
Usually these sockets are for pub game machines and for cleaners
If you generally feel these sockets present a danger then C2
However if it's just a improvement C3 it.
Sockets upto 20 amps should be rcd protected unless a documented risk assessment has deemed it not necessary.
Cables buried in walls feeding these sockets may also need additional protection from an rcd.
My first thoughts are it's a C3 but that's without knowing all the variables such as do any sockets supply outdoor equipment, heaters or used for outdoors especially in summer
It then may sway to a C2.

 

[Octopus]

Phone call from whom ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes they should now be provided with RCD protection.
As for determining a code, that depends on when they were installed and their intended use.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

with a pub if it has living accommodation above it and both the pub and the accommodation share a main supply it comes under part p nonsense.
if they have different supplies then part p doesnt apply.
Spent most of my career working on pub, cafe and restaurant refits.
I have seen many a good gaffer get into arguments with labc over this. always funny to watch.
Just check in case you do any work which is normally notifiable if it were in a house as i have seen builders refurbing pubs masquerading as sparks get pulled up by building control and the licensing committee when they have queried emergency lighting, cctv etc and asked who did the work and due to the part p nonsense subsequently get fined as they werent part of a scam. only seen it twice but a pain none the less.

 

[buzzlightyear]

read regs 411.3.http://www.cfecltd.co.uk/files/pdf/17_edition_factsheet_02.pdf3 /522.6.7 down load ECA key fact sheet

 

[Deleted member 93172]

I'm afraid they do need RCD protection, I was picked up on this a long long time ago from a NICEIC inspection.

 

[buzzlightyear]

http://www.cfecltd.co.uk/files/pdf/17_edition_factsheet_02.pdf
please read.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

The cables supplying them are less than 50 mm depth and I've started seeing a lot more people charging phones, laptops or tablets for kids. Personally I think there a C2 because of the above and more and more sites are starting to change there sockets for the ones with the USB charge outlets.

 

[buzzlightyear]

What are peoples thoughts on this, should socket outlets in the general public areas be RCD/RCBO protected? I believe they do and have put them down as a C2 on a recent EICR but recently got a phone call to say it's a C3!

I would be c2

 

[Ian1981]

http://www.cfecltd.co.uk/files/pdf/17_edition_factsheet_02.pdf
please read.

It's a bit out of date buzz at it still refers to skilled and instructed persons 2008

 

[The Ghost]

please read.

Well of course that has been updated now so that Skilled persons bit has been removed.
Aha beaten to it by @Ian1981

 

[The Ghost]

Yeh but still would like to know who the hell rung you and told you your report was wrong, what do they know you don't?

 

[Ian1981]

The cables supplying them are less than 50 mm depth and I've started seeing a lot more people charging phones, laptops or tablets for kids. Personally I think there a C2 because of the above and more and more sites are starting to change there sockets for the ones with the USB charge outlets.

To be honest I would C3 sockets domestically say for upstairs were sockets are generally not likely to be used for supplying outdoor equipment yet they can be multiple USB type so I don't see any relevance.
This is not domestic of course

 

[MerlinGremlin]

Yeh but still would like to know who the hell rung you and told you your report was wrong, what do they know you don't?

It was the QS and Electrical Manager

 

[The Ghost]

QS and Electrical Manager

Ah well thats different then...

 

[Ian1981]

It was the QS and Electrical Manager

Your QS?

 

[Ian1981]

It was the QS and Electrical Manager

Your QS?

 

[buzzlightyear]

Well of course that has been updated now so that Skilled persons bit has been removed.
Aha beaten to it by @Ian1981

weather its been up dated or not reg are the regs.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

To be honest I would C3 sockets domestically say for upstairs were sockets are generally not likely to be used for supplying outdoor equipment yet they can be multiple USB type so I don't see any relevance.
This is not domestic of course

We have the same issue with outdoor light fittings not being mechanically protected and wanting to put them on rcd/RCBO protection, it always gets knocked back.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

Your QS?

Yep

 

[buzzlightyear]

tell them, and its down to the test engineer and your the one that testing it.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

tell them, and its down to the test engineer and your the one that testing it.

Told them that and had many an argument over it, he changes the codings without us knowing it, we found out by one of the lads in the office telling us.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Told them that and had many an argument over it, he changes the codings without us knowing it, we found out by one of the lads in the office telling us.

the answer for that tell him to sign all the eicr test sheets .

 

[The Ghost]

I did some commercial buildings (EICR) and this is a very grey area. Not one CPS scheme can agree on this there is no coherent standard to work from and it is very much up to you the man on site to make your judgement. There were only about 10% RCD protected units/offices. In the end we recorded C3 for all the lack of RCD contingent upon the CEO agreeing to put in place a program of upgrades where RCD was lacking. It is a very contentious area at the moment, I fear it will get worse with the 18th. We did a general risk assessment for the lack of RCDs and it was noted that they had a very good system of checking regularly equipment, no history of accidents and maintenance was really good and conscientious. If it had lacked these factors we would definitely have recorded C2 for a lot of the lack of RCDs. I just wonder what the general condition of the pub was and maintenance etc. This would sway my decision accordingly. So what if you put it in writing and kept the email copy?

 

[Ian1981]

Told them that and had many an argument over it, he changes the codings without us knowing it, we found out by one of the lads in the office telling us.

Well that's nice of him to tell you and your guys.
It's poor management skills really and if he has issues with any coding going on he should have a talk about it to all operatives under his management/supervision

 

[buzzlightyear]

I bet he did not go the job!

 

[The Ghost]

sign all the eicr test sheets

Well he should anyway as QS

 

[buzzlightyear]

Well he should anyway as QS

your right their .

 

[davesparks]

We have the same issue with outdoor light fittings not being mechanically protected and wanting to put them on rcd/RCBO protection, it always gets knocked back.

That makes no sense at all, of course you've been knocked back.
An RCD does not provide any sort of mechanical protection, if mechanical protection is required then you need to install mechanical protection to rectify it.

 

[Deleted member 93172]

I was once a QS on a contracting company, I was told that you can't change the certificates unless you get the testing engineer to explain his findings, or he should go to site and checkout the defects of the results with the testing guy.

 

[davesparks]

Yes they should now be provided with RCD protection.
As for determining a code, that depends on when they were installed and their intended use.

The code doesn't change based on when they were installed, the EICR and the codes applied are based solely on the current edition of bs7671

 

[buzzlightyear]

I was once a QS on a contracting company, I was told that you can't change the certificates unless you get the testing engineer to explain his findings, or he should go to site and checkout the defects of the results with the testing guy.

what you see is what you find.

 

[Toneyz]

If an installation has been installed to a previous addition of BS7671 eg 15th/16th and still complies with that edition should not make the installation warrant a C1 (danger present .risk of injury immediate action required ) or C2 (potentially dangerous) the standard of additional safety of which electrical installations are installed to has changed/improved .Other regulations eg H & S acts may come into play and require RCD protection. I can't see what Part P has to do with a EICR however if I am correct it comes into play if certain work is undertaken when the domestic and business premises share the same meter.

 

[buzzlightyear]

the Q/S should be their with the persons who is testing it .and over seeing the testing

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The code doesn't change based on when they were installed, the EICR and the codes applied are based solely on the current edition of bs7671

Yes and the current edition/amendment just like all the other editions/amendments, states installations constructed to earlier editions may not necessarily be unsafe.
Failure to take on board this fact, is failure to conduct the inspection in accordance with the current edition/amendment of BS7671.

 

[The Ghost]

When all is said and done considering it is a pub and people are drinking and have access to sockets, well I am sure I do not have to underline the greater risk in that situation. Some pubs are crazy later at night. If I was the Landlord I would want to know how safe it was or was not. I would go with C2. I was asked to install a USB socket in a commercial catering and did so very reluctantly as I just do not trust the general public. Lets face it the classification of operatives (BA1 etc.) places ordinary people below children and handicapped! Which I find quite amusing.
P.S. It was on an RCBO!

 

[buzzlightyear]

Yes and the current edition/amendment just like all the other editions/amendments, states installations constructed to earlier editions may not necessarily be unsafe.
Failure to take on board this fact, is failure to conduct the inspection in accordance with the current edition/amendment of BS7671

weather it is 15th 16th and now 17th some body get hurt the h/s will be on some bodys back .

 

[westward10]

Think we may get some thunder this evening.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

That makes no sense at all, of course you've been knocked back.
An RCD does not provide any sort of mechanical protection, if mechanical protection is required then you need to install mechanical protection to rectify it.

We do put down for mechanical protection also along with rcd/RCBO protection. Sorry I didn't explain fully, I should of put it.

 

[buzzlightyear]

We do put down for mechanical protection also along with rcd/RCBO protection. Sorry I didn't explain fully, I should of put it.

to late now the horse has bolted .

 

[westward10]

Is this pub a one off or are your company involved with chain because your QS maybe maintaining continuity through the Reporting system.

 

[davesparks]

Yes and the current edition/amendment just like all the other editions/amendments, states installations constructed to earlier editions may not necessarily be unsafe.
Failure to take on board this fact, is failure to conduct the inspection in accordance with the current edition/amendment of BS7671.

It states that compliance with a previous version does not necessarily mean it is unsafe, it does not say that compliance with a previous version excuses non-compliance with the current version.

It means that you cannot code something purely and solely for the fact it complies with a previous version. if there is danger, potential danger or an improvement can be recommended for safety then it should be coded accordingly regardless of the previous editions. Otherwise no progress will ever be made.
A good example is that the old wiring colours comply with a previous version but do not comply with the current version, there is no danger, potential danger or improvement associated with it so it gets no code.
On the other hand an enclosure where live terminals can be accessed without the use of a key or tool complied with a previous version but do not comply now and would likely receive a C2
Thee are many more simple examples like this.

 

[davesparks]

We do put down for mechanical protection also along with rcd/RCBO protection. Sorry I didn't explain fully, I should of put it.

I still don't understand, if the only observation is a lack of mechanical protection then what is the point of recommending fitting an RCD?

 

[westward10]

I don't see this as a grey area at all. I do not concern myself with what ifs and maybes and scenarios you cannot predict or foresee, make a statement of fact that socket outlets do not have additional rcd protection, sensibly Code it, move on.

 

[buzzlightyear]

merlin Gering ,next time you do EICR take some picture and show your Q/S.
him your findings.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It doesn't matter whether it excuses compliance with current Regulations.
The fact remains that the IET are never going to say that a situation which was deemed safe in previous editions is now unsafe. (The legal ramifications would be enormous.)

BS7671 requires us to make observation on non-compliances which may give rise to danger.
If the Regs. do not consider a non-compliance which complied at the time of construction to be unsafe, how can you then state the situation is potentially dangerous?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Looks like the thunder has arrived.
At least here it has.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Looks like the thunder has arrived.
At least here it has.

not here!

 

[Ian1981]

the Q/S should be their with the persons who is testing it .and over seeing the testing

Not very practical the inspector should be able to carry out this kind of work unsupervised or shouldn't be doing it