Domestic. Has anyone seen this before?

[Flanders]

Where is the RCD protection for the shower ?

 

[amckay]

Still in the wholesalers waiting to be bought

 

[Deleted member 9648]

There are thousands of installs like this with no single point of isolation,usually a number of isolators from a henly block. All it needs is a label stating that all isolators need to be off in order to isolate the entire installation. It's a code 3 for me,I cant see a potential danger unless standard safe isolation proceedures are not followed,which is not something which can be reasonably allowed for.

 

[Flanders]

There are thousands of installs like this with no single point of isolation,usually a number of isolators from a henly block. All it needs is a label stating that all isolators need to be off in order to isolate the entire installation. It's a code 3 for me,I cant see a potential danger unless standard safe isolation proceedures are not followed,which is not something which can be reasonably allowed for.

Yes agree code 3 for no single point of isolation but code 2 for no RCD on shower thinks

 

[Pete999]

I see that method used all the time. 6mm taken off the tails on mains side of switch. It's very common practice. Rough as!

A badgers bum?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Yes agree code 3 for no single point of isolation but code 2 for no RCD on shower thinks

Nope...code 3 as well,otherwise all showers installed prior to 2005 are potentially dangerous.

 

[amckay]

2005?
I only did my 2330 in 2011 so I'm not clued up on previous versions of 7671

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Prior to 2005 there was no requirement for showers....or any other bathroom circuits to be on an RCD as long as disconnection times were met by the OCPD

 

[ipf]

2005?
I only did my 2330 in 2011 so I'm not clued up on previous versions of 7671

So, every non RCD'd circuit in a domestic installation in a code 2, then, is it?

 

[amckay]

So, every non RCD'd circuit in a domestic installation in a code 2, then, is it?

And when is it you think I said this?
Of course I don't think that!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

So, every non RCD'd circuit in a domestic installation in a code 2, then, is it?

Dont think Amckay is implying that,although I do think there is a tendency amongst the more recently qualified to panic at anything not on an RCD.

 

[ipf]

Dont think Amckay is implying that,although I do think there is a tendency amongst the more recently qualified to panic at anything not on an RCD.

Not having a go, ....just an example of what could be presumed and no doubt is, on occasions.

 

[Geoffsd]

To be pedantic, there is no requirement to 'RCD protect' a shower.

It is the circuit which would nowadays require the RCD protection as, indeed, would any other circuits in a bathroom.

This may have the same outcome but would anyone similarly code the light fitting?

 

[Simonslimline]

Yes agree code 3 for no single point of isolation but code 2 for no RCD on shower thinks

Why? Code 3 surely.

 

[Flanders]

Why? Code 3 surely.

I used to go with the code 3 observation for no RCD for a showers but was pulled up by my scam that it should be a code 2 . If there was supplementary bonding I would Code 3 it though , and as stated its the circuits not the appliance that as to be protected any way , I think its a tuff one to call and would no argue with the code 3 if on a report done by others,but would go for a code 2 in most situations if I was doing the test unless you can convince me otherwise.

 

[Simonslimline]

I used to go with the code 3 observation for no RCD for a showers but was pulled up by my scam that it should be a code 2 . If there was supplementary bonding I would Code 3 it though , and as stated its the circuits not the appliance that as to be protected any way , I think its a tuff one to call and would no argue with the code 3 if on a report done by others,but would go for a code 2 in most situations if I was doing the test unless you can convince me otherwise.

Surely if it complies with the regulations it was installed to then it can't warrant a C2 and be potentially dangerous!

What reason did you're scam give for it being a C2 out of interest?

 

[Flanders]

They said that if there was earth leakage and no supplementary bonding and you are soaking wet in the shower then the risk of electric shock is higher and use of an RCD would give you the additional protection.
I feel that just because it a new regulation and was not in the 16th it not necessary just a deviation from the regulations and code 3 it ,it down to each installation for example maybe a care home full of venerable people or a rented accommodation where the tenant will use any excuse to say the electrics are unsafe An RCD would be a good idea, were do we draw the line as regs get updated, I know we test the installation to the regs at the time it was installed but surely the regs are updated to improve the safety of the installation and just giving all new reg deviations a code 3 does not seem right.

 

[Geoffsd]

They said that if there was earth leakage and no supplementary bonding and you are soaking wet in the shower then the risk of electric shock is higher and use of an RCD would give you the additional protection.

Well, yes but that's a different matter, isn't it?
Without RCD protection at the time there should have been supplementary bonding so a code 2 would be for the lack of bonding, not lack of RCD.

I feel that just because it a new regulation and was not in the 16th it not necessary just a deviation from the regulations and code 3 it ,it down to each installation for example maybe a care home full of venerable people or a rented accommodation where the tenant will use any excuse to say the electrics are unsafe An RCD would be a good idea, were do we draw the line as regs get updated,

The regs. are rarely retrospective so 'improvement recommended'.

I know we test the installation to the regs at the time

We test to the current regs. and bear in mind the regs at the time of installation.
If it was considered 'safe' at the time it cannot be potentially dangerous now - so improvement recommended.

it was installed but surely the regs are updated to improve the safety of the installation and just giving all new reg deviations a code 3 does not seem right.

Even safer now does not mean it was dangerous.

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?

 

[Pete999]

Well, yes but that's a different matter, isn't it?
Without RCD protection at the time there should have been supplementary bonding so a code 2 would be for the lack of bonding, not lack of RCD.


The regs. are rarely retrospective so 'improvement recommended'.


We test to the current regs. and bear in mind the regs at the time of installation.
If it was considered 'safe' at the time it cannot be potentially dangerous now - so improvement recommended.


Even safer now does not mean it was dangerous.

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?

A profound statement

 

[Deleted member 9648]

All of which proves if you get two reports on the same installation by two different electricians one might be a satisfactory.....and one an unsatisfactory.
Dont inspire confidence does it?