PIR codes

[morph]

agree with Wire puller , except the bathroom light bit, i would code 2 if supplymentary bonding not in place as well , unless before 17th, so if installed at 17th or later and it was all bonded then code 4, but if not all bonded then code 2.

gotta love the regs

The regs are not rectrospective,if an install complied with the regs when it was installed,but does not meet the current requirements of bs 7671,in most cases the code would be 4.
A lighting circuit in a commercial property surface wired and on a TN system would not require RCD protection.
A lighting circuit in a domestic property surface wired would not require RCD protection.If that circuit included a bath/shower room,that would be a code 4.
A lighting circuit with buried cables wired prior to the 17th edition (2008)did not require RCD protection,it was safe then and it's safe now...therefore code 4.
RCD protection cannot be a substitute for lack of adequate earthing....if a lighting system with class 1 fittings does not incorporate an earth that would be a code 2 or even a code 1 if there was evidence of a low IR or failing insulation....Lack of RCD to such a circuit ( even if it is required) is a different issue altogether.

 

[baldsparkies]

Sorry to butt in lads, but this is on the thread as a code 4. If true, it would cover a problem I have been mentioning regarding a pre 2008 install of NS/ Heaters with a 30ma rcd as the mainswitch.

16 Absence of RCD protection for cables installed at a depth of less than 50 mm from a surface of a wall or partition where the cables do not incorporate an earthed metallic covering, are not enclosed in earthed metalwork, or are not mechanically protected against penetration by nails and the like.

If this is so, then the absence of the RCD would only rate a code 4 in these circumstance. (That would also be my thoughts) would you lads agree ??

 

[Guest123]

On a PIR, yes.

 

[baldsparkies]

Thanks Lenny,
An installation from 8 years ago has recieved a so called upgrade using a consumer unit with a single 30ma rcd. it feeds 6 N/S Heaters and an immersion heater.
These have been put into several flats that are tennanted by old age pensioners. Ever since the rcd install the pensioners are being left without overnight charge as several of the rcd's have intermitently tripped when the E7 has been energised at night. There are no faults with any of the system to cause this, so It looks like the rcd's just don't like being energised under load. Several sparkies have visited but the problem remains. My own feelings are to hell with the rcd's, fit a mainswitch and give these poor pensioners heat before they end up with hypothermia. I am a supporter of rcd's, but they can sometimes do more harm than good and this is a case in proof as far as I am concerned. (Rant over)

 

[IQ Electrical]

The better way would be RCBO's and you'd find an end to the tripping problems too as any imbalance on load would not be summed at the main switch rcd.

 

[AllertonEPS]

Have you checked the Immersion Heater coil - That would be the most likely cause of the RCD tripping - Check the MOhm to Earth ...

 

[baldsparkies]

Immersion my first port of call but nope its good, and remember this is more than one property with the same problem. rcbo's spot on except for ££££££££s. I may fit a timed delayed as an option, seeing as tripping only occurs on the initial energising of the E7. But why have an rcd in the first place me thinks ???

 

[darking]

Well several things, I prefer best practice guide 4 on reccomendation codes, secondly you do not "Fail" an installation doing a PIR it is either satisfactory/unsatisfactory, and I would agree labelling is a 2 ie needing improvement.

Periodics are not for the new electrician, even if you did your 2391 course as part of your training, you need in depth knowledge of the type of installation you are testing.

You also requires a good understanding of the regs and their relationship to installation requirements, so that you are not guessing or misunderstanding those two columns of tick boxes in the schedule of inspection and dozen or so columns in your schedule of test results.

Finally, good as these forums are, you need a process of verification in place so that any grey areas or inaccuracies can be rectified. If you are self employed, send a copy now and then of any certificate to your accrediting body

 

[Rochelle]

there is no way i would fail an installation because of this, i would put that down as a code 4.

 

[arcbrightmike]

Does anyone out there code 1 cables installed a depth less than 50mm? I have been coding them as 1 for a few 1st floor flats that i have carried out PIRs on that are going to be rented out and one is a change of occupancy. I feel this is quite a high risk because when new tenants move in, they may be hanging pictures, attaching things in the kitchen. When coding things a 2 for some reason my client thinks that it isnt very important


Here are some examples of why I think it is important


I remember being told a story about someone had drilled a magnetic knife holder to the tiled wall above the work surface in the kitchen, and the user kept getting tingles when torching it but thought nothing of it. One day they were doing some washing up with one hand in the sink which was earthed, went to take a knife off of the holder and received a fatal shock from it. Now if it had RCD protection it would have saved them or even alerted the person attaching the holder to the wall by tripping out.


Another example is of the family of immigrants living in rented accommodation. The last winter was a cold one, so cold that this man had to try and heat his bathroom by running an extension from another room to the bathroom plugged in a heater and put it on a shelf above the bath so that his wife and child could have a bath. The heater fell in and killed them both. If there was RCD protection I'm sure there would have been more of a chance that they would have lived.


The world is full of people who know nothing about electrical safety, there is always going to be one person who does these dangerous things. An RCD is the first defence in the way of safety.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Code 1?

Immediate danger, live exposed parts, no main earth etc etc.

There is so much guidance available on codings, like the ESC guide compiled by a who's who of the electrical industry, it will be worth you reading it.

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/industry/best_practice/BPG4_08.pdf

 

[mogga]

if 50mm depth is a code 1 where would it all stop?? someone MIGHT spur off a ring main with bell wire so a 32A mcb would be over rated so lets code 1 incase they do that??
if your doing PIRs there are some situations everyone has comeacross where you scratch your head but majority are in GN3 OSG and other publications like the ESC one IQ has linked to

 

[arcbrightmike]

Yes I see were you are coming from. I will have a good read, and revise the PIRs. So if there was nothing wrong with the property other than that, would a code 4 that make it satisfactory? In one of them there is a halogeon spotlight fitting in the bathroom, half of it hanging over the bath. Code 2? No means of isolation for cooker other than the MCB at the consumer unit Code 2? Kitchen Light fitting un earthed Code 1?

 

[IQ Electrical]

Current guidelines say 'unsatisfactory' assessment for a report with code 1 or code 2 defects.

I have to say that I'm amazed that you're asking this especially as you say that you're carrying out PIR's and I'm also amazed that you've never stumbled upon the guidance?

 

[arcbrightmike]

I have, I have downloaded all of the best practice guides its just I didnt think to consult them when carrying out these. I was just thinking about it too much. Thanks for your help and putting me back on the right track.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I have, I have downloaded all of the best practice guides its just I didnt think to consult them when carrying out these. I was just thinking about it too much. Thanks for your help and putting me back on the right track.

No problem, they're good guides and always give you something to point to if you ever need a bit of back-up.

 

[brucelee]

Current guidelines say 'unsatisfactory' assessment for a report with code 1 or code 2 defects.

I have to say that I'm amazed that you're asking this especially as you say that you're carrying out PIR's and I'm also amazed that you've never stumbled upon the guidance?

Hi IQ
great advice as usual

so if code 1 immediatley isolate and requires urgent attention with a unsatisfactory on the report would you include a danger notification with the pir
code 2 requires improvement but does not need isolating
when recommending interval for next pir if the pir you carried out was having the obsevations and recommendations corrected then is it down to the inspector to decide next interval would you give a shorter interval for the next inspection and test to see if the necessarry works had been completed
then if its been carried out give a new pir with a increased interval or is ai all down to the inspectors
discretion

 

[IQ Electrical]

The interval between inspections is always subject to rectification of all code 1 and code 2 defects and it also depends on the age, type of use, quality of maintenance of the installation etc.

When you think about it, as the inspector, you are saying 'this installation is satisfactory for continued service' and by specifying the next inspection date, you are sticking your neck out somewhat!

It would have to be an immaculate, fairly new domestic installation for me to go anywhere near the recommended interval of 10 years!

It's a similar deal on commercial for a full 5-year interval.

 

[brucelee]

cheersmate but if you are just carrying out the pir, you may not get the remedial works so you would leave them a pir with a code 2 and limit the interval to 3 months and recommend they get it rectified as soon as possible

 

[IQ Electrical]

cheersmate but if you are just carrying out the pir, you may not get the remedial works so you would leave them a pir with a code 2 and limit the interval to 3 months and recommend they get it rectified as soon as possible

The recommended interval until the next inspection should be made conditional upon all the Code 1 and Code 2 departures being rectified without undue delay.

You can put that on your report or in a covering letter to the person ordering the work.

Stickers should still be applied to DB's with the your chosen 'next inspection due' date.

 

[brucelee]

yes this is what i was referring to Iq

conditional upon them being rectified so if not rectified then the report and interval not valid if not rectified
cheers Iq you have a wealth of knowledge you just jogged my memory last june exam was a while ago lol
just got used to these regs and somebody is changing them lol

 

[IQ Electrical]

It's never ending!

 

[brucelee]

cheers mate I know where to come for inspection and testing problems

 

[baldelectrician]

I use easycert and overprint my unsatisfactory certs with the word 'unsatisfactory'

It's not the first time someone has tried to tippex out the 'un' from unsatisfactory and hand it in

This way they can't do it easily. It also galvanises the mind of the landlord when you hand the tenant a copy (after giving the landlord time to respond)

 

[demkap]

hi guys was wondering what code you would give a consumer unit with no rcd protection??? code 1 0r 4???
demetri

 

[Sintra]

It really depends on what version of 7671 it was installed to.

 

[demkap]

explain more so if they had 60898 fuses?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There is no requirement for Consumer Units to be protected by an RCD, so no code at all.
You should note and code each instance where RCD protection is required, but is not present
For instance:
for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower,
for socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons,
for socket-outlets used for mobile equipment outdoors,
and for cables concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm.
Most would warrent a code 4 or 2, depending upon how dangerous you consider the lack of RCD protection to be, and to which edition the installation, and any additions or alterations were conducted to.

 

[Sintra]

explain more so if they had 60898 fuses?

60898 is the BS number for MCB's not fuses.

 

[IQ Electrical]

hi guys was wondering what code you would give a consumer unit with no rcd protection??? code 1 0r 4???
demetri

Hi Demetri,

Have you carried out many periodic inspections?

Your questions worry me slightly, talking of 'consumer units without RCD protection' , '60898 fuses' and then deliberating between a code 1 and a code 4 to allocate to a defect?

Maybe your questions are academic and you're doing the 2391-10?

 

[tc50]

Many thanks for your codes list ,very helpful.is there a book i can buy to assist further on this matter.cheers tc

 

[nickblake]

TC50 guidance note 3 also have a look at the little book by the ESC Best practice guides : Electrical Safety Council the one you want is the best practice guide 4 which gives you the new coding for PIR's

 

[darking]

One small point to add, its not satisfactory to have one or two RCD's to BS 61008 protecting more than one circuit. each circuit, as described in previous post by spinlondon, should be protected by an RCBO to BS 61009

 

[nickblake]

One small point to add, its not satisfactory to have one or two RCD's to BS 61008 protecting more than one circuit. each circuit, as described in previous post by spinlondon, should be protected by an RCBO to BS 61009

So what BS number are the RCD's in a dual RCD consumer unit think you'll find they are BSEN61008 , an RCBO is a combination of MCB and RCD where the 61008 is just an RCD so as long as the out going circuits are protected by an MCB then you can have as many circuits as required , if you install an RCBO in a consumer unit with a 61008 both at 30ma then you will end up with no discrimination for the RCD/RCBO's

 

[D80]

One small point to add, its not satisfactory to have one or two RCD's to BS 61008 protecting more than one circuit. each circuit, as described in previous post by spinlondon, should be protected by an RCBO to BS 61009

Why not?

 

[darking]

The failure of one circuit, say a cooker with an earth fault, will trip the RCD, causing the loss of any other circuit also protected by that RCD This is in conflict with 314.1 and 314.2. i hope that will explain "Why not?"

 

[trev]

So split load boards with two RCDs are non-compliant since the RCDs cover more than one circuit?

 

[nickblake]

Noo you are mis under standing that reg when you design an installation you design it to reduce any incovieniance if an RCD trips for instance you would install the upstairs lighting on the same RCD protected circuits and the down staires sockets ,for circuits that are likly to trip an RCD ie garage shed hot tub you would install on independant circuits protected by RCBO's or and MCB depending on what the circuits is suppling , thats why we have 17 edition consumer units some hi integrety where you can use RCBO,s and RCD protected MCB's idealy you would install all circuits on RCBO's i grant you that but you can protect more than 1 circuit with a 61008

 

[trev]

Sorry mate I wasn't sure what you were driving at.

 

[darking]

Nickblake there is no such thing as a 17th edition consumer unit, its how you configure the board that will determine whether or not your installation complies. i will agree with you that not every circuit needs RCD protection.

If you look at the list supplied earlier you will see where RCBO's are indicated. any other circuit must be individually assessed. the garage shed that you mentioned, being outside the equipotential zone is a case in point and needs RCD protection

For cascaded RCD's the upstream RCD could be a time delayed or Type S with an ordinary RCD after that. in the case of your shed the TDR could supply the cable to the shed (to protect the cable) and an RCBO to protect the tub circuit etc. this will provide discrimination between the two RCD devices and give the best protection.

 

[tc50]

tc50 guidance note 3 also have a look at the little book by the esc best practice guides : Electrical safety council the one you want is the best practice guide 4 which gives you the new coding for pir's

many thanks dude i,ll get it as i,m just starting on testing.

 

[nickblake]

Nickblake there is no such thing as a 17th edition consumer unit, its how you configure the board that will determine whether or not your installation complies. i will agree with you that not every circuit needs RCD protection.

If you look at the list supplied earlier you will see where RCBO's are indicated. any other circuit must be individually assessed. the garage shed that you mentioned, being outside the equipotential zone is a case in point and needs RCD protection

For cascaded RCD's the upstream RCD could be a time delayed or Type S with an ordinary RCD after that. in the case of your shed the TDR could supply the cable to the shed (to protect the cable) and an RCBO to protect the tub circuit etc. this will provide discrimination between the two RCD devices and give the best protection.

Very aware of what you have said here, and its terminology for a 17th edition board as every manufacturer advertises boards 17th edition compliant hence the reason we use 17th edition board its the same with testers they all say 17th edition comliant before that it was 16th edition the meters didnt change the poit i was making is as you said the 61008 cant be used for more than one circuit and thats wrong it can

 

[darking]

The fault in one circuit will cause the RCD to trip and cause the failure of any other circuit connected to it.

Read 314.2 then go argue with the IEE, you CAN connect anything any way you want to, you just won't comply!

 

[nickblake]

seperate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation that need to be controlled seperatlyin such a way that those circuits are not effected by failure of others , and due account shall be taken of the consiquences of any single device , does not nesseserily mean all the circuits , for instance if you have a freezer plugged into the kitchen ring then there is a possability that the freezer will defrost in this case you will then install an unprotected circuit for the freezer , another instance is smoke detection and one reason they should be on there own circuit ,another is a shed garage hot tub i name a few , if you want to comply with regulation 314.2 100 % then every single point in a house would have to be protected by its own protective device even with RCBO protection say a kitchen ring for instance you could end up with the same scenario its all about designe

 

[darking]

Hi Nick, much as I am enjoying this discussion i think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

See " i agree with you that not every circuit needs RCD protection. If you look at the list supplied earlier you will see where RCBO's are indicated. any other circuit must be individually assessed."

Regards

Darking

 

[g-davies]

Thanks for this little pdf,I studied the 1 st ammendment upgrade but still puzzled over my first EICR .

 

[Cazmac1]

Any one got a good up to date list of fault/ defects and codes?

 

[IQ Electrical]

This is about the best you'll find:
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

 

[Cazmac1]

Thanks I have a little read tomorrow.

I have a question for you guys.
I'm doing a PIR on a job at the moment and would say that it falls under the 16th edition and have found that in the kitchen the bonding on the metal sinks and cross bonds to the the metal food prep tables has either been removed come loose or broke off. This is due to the fact that when they pull the tables out for cleaning they are breaking and moving the bonds. There is no RCD protection in the kitchen so what code would I place on this? Code 1 or 2

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'd be amazed if any of those sinks or tables meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part, there is no requirement for supplementary bonding in a kitchen either.

If you're doing this PIR then you need to be familiar with these requirements.