Opinions on coding for PIR.

[Dunc]

Just done a PIR today on a first floor flat. Just want a few opinions on codings for a couple of issues i noted.

Firstly, none of the sockets have 30mA RCD protection. Being a first floor flat the sockets are very unlikely to be used to feed equipment outside so the requirements of the 16th Edition (the edition it was wired to at a guess) would have been met so would you code this as a 4 or would you lean more towards the current regs and give it a 2?

Similarly none of the bathroom supplies have any RCD protection. Supplementary bonding is present and correct so would you give it a code 2 or 4.

Finally, (not a coding query this time) the flat is fed from the incoming main in the shop below. I was able to access the shop first thing this morning and got a quick look at the meters etc so was able to fill in the supply characteristics however i had to put limitations on certain parts. This included Ze and PSC due to not being allowed to isolate the supply (shared supply with shop which was open at the time) and i wasn't able to test the submain to the flat as the shop keeper left very early and closed up without my knowledge. The tests on the submain at the flat CU came back good so i'm not overly worried and have plenty of remedial work to carry out so would you endeavour to get all the other testing (as far as practically possible) done on the return visit.

 

[telectrix]

1st 2 items, code 4 unless you think there are any dangers.

last part. get readings if you can with the agreement of the shop owner. if not possible, have to put a N/V in the appropriate boxes.

 

[Electricalserv]

Both code 4's don't comply with 17th

 

[Dunc]

Cool, as you've probably guessed i was leaning more towards code 4s but it's always nice to have a second opinion. At the end of the day it's only a report and a fair bit is down to personal opinion in some ways. Still frustrated about not being able to carry out all the tests!

 

[steamboatwilly]

Yup 4, 4....but surely the last query is also a 4 as the flat (domestic) and shop (commercial) should really have separate supply's?

 

[telectrix]

Yup 4, 4....but surely the last query is also a 4 as the flat (domestic) and shop (commercial) should really have separate supply's?

not necessarily. sounds like flat has it's own meter but fed from same supply. quite common, esp. if the shop owner is also the landlord.

 

[steamboatwilly]

not necessarily. sounds like flat has it's own meter but fed from same supply. quite common, esp. if the shop owner is also the landlord.

Yup, agreed, it's a sub-main. But my point is "...due to not being allowed to isolate the supply..." isn't really ideal is it and as such Code 4 (or Requires Improvement) is arguable? Question, not statement

 

[Electricalserv]

Why would not being allowed to isolate be Code 4? Maybe Code 3 Yes.

 

[steamboatwilly]

Why would not being allowed to isolate be Code 4? Maybe Code 3 Yes.

Sure...... Just considering that being able to maintain an installation properly is a requirement. Agree it may fit better as a 3.

 

[telectrix]

if your Zdb and Zs readings are good ( i.e. the ocp devices will trip in the specified times, then a N/V for the Ze and pfsc would be acceptable, although no ideal as the flat earthing could conceivably be through gas/water services.

 

[Guest123]

Obtaining these figures by enquiry is also permitted.

The DNO will more than likely quote max figures I.e 0.35, 0.8 etc but it is permitted.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Dunc,

I will throw my twopenneth at this, as usual. It depends on the reason for the PIR in my opinion.

If your are assessing to current regs, then codes as you see fit. If you are assessing it for any other reason, then it must be assessed to the regs on force at the time of the install, so no codes if it was to the 16th or previous.

Cheers...........Howard.

 

[Electricalserv]

A PIR is to see if the installation is in good condition and also if its up to the relevant regs though SB. Thats why code 4 exists

 

[telectrix]

agree. code 4 " not compliant with current regs."

 

[TPES]

Would you agree or disagree with this recommendation...

Commercial premises

No RCD to Ground floor sockets likely to supply power to portable equipment outdoors... Code 2

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Would you agree or disagree with this recommendation...

Commercial premises

No RCD to Ground floor sockets likely to supply power to portable equipment outdoors... Code 2

Agreed.....as long as there was a real possibility that they would be used to supply equipment outdoors.

 

[mogga]

You mention not being able to isolate the sub main for the flat ????? CODE 2 requires improvement as submain should have isolation

 

[telectrix]

good point.

 

[TPES]

Agreed.....as long as there was a real possibility that they would be used to supply equipment outdoors.

I thought so, I know some have a dim view on noting "No RCD on sockets" on a PIR and say there's no requirement for it or at most code it 4, But there's always a good chance a jet wash could be used outside a commercial business to clean company cars etc...

 

[Dunc]

You mention not being able to isolate the sub main for the flat ????? CODE 2 requires improvement as submain should have isolation

Sub main has a switch fuse, however at the time of testing access to this equipment was impossible as it is located in a shop and the shop was shut.