testing existing installations to current edition of BS 7671

[Dave the spark]

A question, if you please...

When testing an existing installation BS 7671 states that it should be tested to the current edition of regs, and that doesn't necessarily mean the installation will be dangerous if wired previous to that edition.

My question is, how should you code for no RCD protection for additional protection? Is this, in all cases, a code 2 observation?

I'm still gaining experience in testing and inspection and currently sitting my 2394/95. So, in short, no snide answers

 

[Risteard]

My question is, how should you code for no RCD protection for additional protection? Is this, in all cases, a code 2 observation?

That is a judgement call for the inspector to make. Personally I can see circumstances where it would warrant a C2 observation and also circumstances where it would warrant a C3 observation.

 

[Dave the spark]

That is a judgement call for the inspector to make. Personally I can see circumstances where it would warrant a C2 observation and also circumstances where it would warrant a C3 observation.

That was my thoughts on it tbh. So for instance, where I might C2 a shower without RCD protection I'd probably only C3 a bathroom light fitting/switch. I'm talking purely domestic here btw.

I wouldn't mind your thoughts on coding socket outlets without RCD protection, in my mind I could see reasons for C2, supplying portable outdoor equipment. Do you code the circuit as whole or the sockets individually which would more likely to be used for such?

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Des 56]

[QUOTE="Dave the spark

I wouldn't mind your thoughts on coding socket outlets without RCD protection, in my mind I could see reasons for C2, supplying portable outdoor equipment. Do you code the circuit as whole or the sockets individually which would more likely to be used for such?

Thanks for the reply.[/QUOTE]


I would suggest your thoughts on various coding for your "own" perception of the dangers of each situation is exactly the way to proceed with the gaining of experience of test and inspect
If the decision making is allied with competence that would seem to make the ideal inspector

regards the socket circuit question
I think the circuit has a whole would now have to be coded
Although at the time of original installation,the likely to supply outdoor equipment may suggest an individual outlet needing RCD protection
The improvement you recomend should bring the whole of the circuit to current requirements

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hmm, you want to test to the current edition, then state you can see reasons to use code 2 for something that isn't a requirement in the current edition, and hasn't been a requirement for over 10 years?
Also, unless the installation is either Horticultural or Agricultural, there is not now and never has been a requirement for a socket circuit to be provided with RCD protection.

To my mind, any observations should make reference to a particular Regulation that is not being complied with.

 

[westward10]

That was my thoughts on it tbh. So for instance, where I might C2 a shower without RCD protection I'd probably only C3 a bathroom light fitting/switch. I'm talking purely domestic here btw.

I wouldn't mind your thoughts on coding socket outlets without RCD protection, in my mind I could see reasons for C2, supplying portable outdoor equipment. Do you code the circuit as whole or the sockets individually which would more likely to be used for such?

Thanks for the reply.

The absence of rcd protection needs a minimum C3 entry and as already stated this is down to the inspector. I agree I would C2 the socket being used for equipment out of doors but would C3 the shower.

 

[Octopus]

This is a useful read ...


http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100404922/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4.pdf

 

[Dave the spark]

Hmm, you want to test to the current edition, then state you can see reasons to use code 2 for something that isn't a requirement in the current edition, and hasn't been a requirement for over 10 years?
Also, unless the installation is either Horticultural or Agricultural, there is not now and never has been a requirement for a socket circuit to be provided with RCD protection.

To my mind, any observations should make reference to a particular Regulation that is not being complied with.

Why on the domestic eicr inspection schedule then, does it ask for provision of additional protection by a 30mA RCD for all socket outlets of rating of 20A or less?
I'm genuinely interested and keen to learn but I think your post had an air of pomposity about it. Apologies if I've taken it the wrong way.

This is a useful read ...


http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100404922/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4.pdf

The absence of rcd protection needs a minimum C3 entry and as already stated this is down to the inspector. I agree I would C2 the socket being used for equipment out of doors but would C3 the shower.

I would suggest your thoughts on various coding for your "own" perception of the dangers of each situation is exactly the way to proceed with the gaining of experience of test and inspect
If the decision making is allied with competence that would seem to make the ideal inspector

regards the socket circuit question
I think the circuit has a whole would now have to be coded
Although at the time of original installation,the likely to supply outdoor equipment may suggest an individual outlet needing RCD protection
The improvement you recomend should bring the whole of the circuit to current requirements

Thanks for the replies fellas, I realise coding has a degree of ambiguity and personal preference. I'm just trying to be clear in my head as to a consensus for certain observations.

 

[Octopus]

Thanks for the replies fellas, I realise coding has a degree of ambiguity and personal preference. I'm just trying to be clear in my head as to a consensus for certain observations.

That's why the best practice guide comes in handy as you can point customers at it......

 

[Dave the spark]

That's why the best practice guide comes in handy as you can point customers at it......

I'll have a read at that tonight while I'm studying for my 2395 written. I've passed 4/5 exams so far for the 2394/95 so this is my last one and I'm hoping for a first time clean sweep

 

[Wilko]

Good luck Dave !

 

[Dave the spark]

Good luck Dave !

Cheers Wilko, I'll update this thread after Wednesday. Although it'll probs be another 7-8 weeks before I get a result

 

[DPG]

Hmm, you want to test to the current edition, then state you can see reasons to use code 2 for something that isn't a requirement in the current edition, and hasn't been a requirement for over 10 years?
Also, unless the installation is either Horticultural or Agricultural, there is not now and never has been a requirement for a socket circuit to be provided with RCD protection.

To my mind, any observations should make reference to a particular Regulation that is not being complied with.

I'm confused by your post here I must admit.
Daz

 

[westward10]

I'm confused by your post here I must admit.
Daz

You aren't alone there.

 

[Dave the spark]

I'm confused by your post here I must admit.
Daz

You aren't alone there.

Thank God. Thought it was just me!

 

[The Ghost]

Hi, yes well this is, as described by STROMA tech support, "a very grey area" He said at the ELEX show he spoke with NIC, NAPIT and others and no one agreed at all on classification of codes. We had to make the same judgement on EICR for commercial buildings and discussed it on this forum. I nearly got a new ****hole ripped in the process. I am pretty thick skinned so didn't worry about it too much. There are pretty well no RCDs throughout four large buildings which finally we classified as C3 throughout. But there were good reasons for this. I have (I think) attached an analysis of Best Practice guide IV the green bits are about RCDs. Just parsed all the mentions into a spreadsheet then to PDF.

 

[Risteard]

Hi, yes well this is, as described by STROMA tech support, "a very grey area" He said at the ELEX show he spoke with NIC, NAPIT and others and no one agreed at all on classification of codes. We had to make the same judgement on EICR for commercial buildings and discussed it on this forum. I nearly got a new ****hole ripped in the process. I am pretty thick skinned so didn't worry about it too much. There are pretty well no RCDs throughout four large buildings which finally we classified as C3 throughout. But there were good reasons for this. I have (I think) attached an analysis of Best Practice guide IV the green bits are about RCDs. Just parsed all the mentions into a spreadsheet then to PDF.

One thing to remember about the Best Practice Guides (aside from the fact that it's merely the opinion of the Electrical Safety Council (campaigning under the name Electrical Safety First) and as such only a guide) is that they only deal with domestic installations.

 

[The Ghost]

only deal with domestic

A very interesting point indeed!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Why on the domestic eicr inspection schedule then, does it ask for provision of additional protection by a 30mA RCD for all socket outlets of rating of 20A or less?
I'm genuinely interested and keen to learn but I think your post had an air of pomposity about it. Apologies if I've taken it the wrong way.
Thanks for the replies fellas, I realise coding has a degree of ambiguity and personal preference. I'm just trying to be clear in my head as to a consensus for certain observations.

As far as I am aware, it does not specify 'all sockets outlets' in the inspection schedule.
My understanding, is that it asks for:
Provision of additional protection by RCD not exceeding 30mA:
Socket-outlets rated at 20A or less, unless exempt (411.3.3).
The reason it asks for this to be checked, is because the current edition of the Regulations requires all LV socket-outlets rated at 20A or less to be provided with 30mA RCD protection, except those labelled or otherwise identified as being for specific items of equipment.

Perhaps there is a pomposity about the post?
This could be because to my mind, any report should be accurate and specify exactly what (if anything) is wrong.
For instance in the scenario you proposed in your OP, my observation would be something like:
Lack of RCD protection for socket-outlets as per BS7671 Reg. 411.3.3. Code C3 or C2.
I would not make an observation regarding the lack of RCD protection for socket-outlets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors, as there is no longer such a requirement.
I would also not make an observation regarding the lack of RCD protection for socket circuits, unless I was inspecting an Agricultral/Horticultral installation.
I would most certainly not make the observation that I have seen made by some: "No RCD in Fuse Box. Code C2."
The reason I have put code C2 or C3, is because my choice of code would depend on whether the installation complied with the requirements at the time of design/construction.
If it did not comply, code C2.
If it did comply, code C3.

 

[Risteard]

The reason I have put code C2 or C3, is because my choice of code would depend on whether the installation complied with the requirements at the time of design/construction.
If it did not comply, code C2.
If it did comply, code C3.

I'm sorry but that is a nonsense. How can you suggest that one identical non-compliance is more/less dangerous than the other simply because of when it was done?