EICR and RCD's. Is it a C2 or C3?

Victor Poon said:

Thank you all and everyone for their comments.
I won't comment whether I am a 'greedy landlord', I certainly
don't wish to be taken advantage off. Equally I don't think I take advantage of others.
Re-capping:-
1) 2nd Floor flat in a block built NEW in 1997.
2) Five years ago I have a satisfactory EICR.
3) Now I have a C2 (Potentially Dangerous). This rating can be changed as I have a quotation to "fit a new fuseboard to meet current regulation" - as written by the electrician. A new fuseboard solves my problem?

Logic question - Why is it a C2 if RCD's are NOT mandatory given it was satisfactory five years ago? Why wasn't it a C2 five years ago?

Thanks everyone again.

Click to expand...

Please read my last post send that report to Napit and ask for their opinion,, if u can post response on here thanks
How much do u get charged in LONDON THESE DAYS FOR A EICR

There a pic of the Napit code book for the OP

Personally I would fit an RCBO C/U as matter of course....Not expensive and covers all basis...It gives the client full protection...

Hi
I've invested on a EICR Codebreaker Via Napit earlier this year and had the previous version for 17th Edition which is a Good bit of Kit to add to your tool bag, I'm sure NICEIC & other Bodies have their own versions for members or non members
So regarding C2 or C3, 2nd floor flat you probably wont dangling a extension lead out your window to clean your car, but ground floor & 1st floor its likely as i've seen it so many times, so on 1st Floor & ground Floor, I Code C2, BS 7671 522.6.202, sockets which can be used outdoors
Also no cables with no mechanical protection ie. not in steel conduit ot the likes of, in stud walls or cables buried in walls less than 50mm as most solid walls are 100mm so either side will be still venerable for a cable to be penetrated by a nail or rouge Screw by others C2, BS 7671 411.3.3
I don't look for making extra work for a EICR's or extra money for the sake of it etc, but safety of the Property and Safety Life, as you can not put a cost to someone life, so to clients to spend a few hundreds to get up to date as RCD's are life savers regarding age of installation, I always recommend on a inspection to upgrade any issues to bring installation to a good standard RCD's or RCBO's to future proof for now and btw this is just my opinion & 90% of my clients & Landlords & Landladies will also agree.
As I also do work for Local Governments & Authorities they now have started to replace D.B.'s when tenants leave their properties if any additional circuits needed all D.B. to have RCBO's and S.P. as standards to meet 18th Edition
Kind Regards
Tony Jelade Electrical Services

MG201 said:

There a pic of the Napit code book for the OP

View attachment 48491

View attachment 48492

Click to expand...

I got That Bible Lol..

Andy78 said:

It's not compliant with section 314. That's not up for debate at all.

Lighting circuits can have RCD protection added at any point on them to facilitate alterations.

Click to expand...

How funny I've just been having this discussion with my knowledgeable supplier as I have to do and EICR on a 7 way wylex board with no RCD and he said as I can't prove that the cables are deeper than 50mm and the customer does not want to a new board then he suggested an up front RCD.
I've just read section 314 and I interpreted it to mean every circuit must be RCd protected not a batch of circuits I.E like the 5 and 5 way boards.

can you point out please how I'm reading it wrong

Thanks

Selectivity.

upfront rcd trips, everything goes off.

your knowledgable supplier is well out of date.

As is this thread.

Mfctitch said:

How funny I've just been having this discussion with my knowledgeable supplier as I have to do and EICR on a 7 way wylex board with no RCD and he said as I can't prove that the cables are deeper than 50mm and the customer does not want to a new board then he suggested an up front RCD.
I've just read section 314 and I interpreted it to mean every circuit must be RCd protected not a batch of circuits I.E like the 5 and 5 way boards.

can you point out please how I'm reading it wrong

Thanks

Click to expand...

Surely if its an EICR you don't need to provide an rcd unless the client has asked??

Mfctitch said:

How funny I've just been having this discussion with my knowledgeable supplier as I have to do and EICR on a 7 way wylex board with no RCD and he said as I can't prove that the cables are deeper than 50mm and the customer does not want to a new board then he suggested an up front RCD.
I've just read section 314 and I interpreted it to mean every circuit must be RCd protected not a batch of circuits I.E like the 5 and 5 way boards.

can you point out please how I'm reading it wrong

Thanks

Click to expand...

314.2 the failure of one circuit shall not affect others.

See the reg for the exact wording.

littlespark said:

Selectivity.

upfront rcd trips, everything goes off.

your knowledgable supplier is well out of date.

As is this thread.

Click to expand...

Thanks for you reply but can you answer my other question which was if the RCD should not trip other circuits then how come we fit split load boards?
confussed
[automerge]1593442977[/automerge]

magnoliafan89 said:

Surely if its an EICR you don't need to provide an rcd unless the client has asked??

Click to expand...

Very true but we are often accused of stitching the customer up so knowing its an old board with no RCD fitted and if we are saying that its a fail with no RCD, then I'm trying to give him options other than a new board if that's possible.

As this has been brought tot the top of the forum and I haven’t seen it... why has no one picked up the high r2 reading on circuit 2.
That report is awful, the form layout is also awful.

ChrisElectrical88 said:

As this has been brought tot the top of the forum and I haven’t seen it... why has no one picked up the high r2 reading on circuit 2.
That report is awful, the form layout is also awful.

Click to expand...

Sorry my fault i Jumped in on an old thread and started to ask questions about fitting an upfront RCD, whereas it might have been better to start a new thread

Mfctitch said:

Thanks for you reply but can you answer my other question which was if the RCD should not trip other circuits then how come we fit split load boards?
confussed
[automerge]1593442977[/automerge]

Very true but we are often accused of stitching the customer up so knowing its an old board with no RCD fitted and if we are saying that its a fail with no RCD, then I'm trying to give him options other than a new board if that's possible.

Click to expand...

Mark it unsatisfactory. Then personally I would say a new board would be the best course of action if he declines at least you've done what you were paid to do and no one can argue with you on that

I think the problem is that there is mention in the NAPIT Codebreakers that gives it a C2. It also mentions that previous editions of BS7671 don’t necessarily warrant a c2. (Open to interpretation).
i personally think that if there is clear evidence of additional sockets/ switches being installed at a time when RCD protection was required then it warrants a c2 and that "new" fitting would indeed require RCD protection. However, if it is clear old existing circuitry and accessories that complied with an earlier edition of bs7671, then at most, a c3 with a strong recommendation of upgrading to RCD protection which the client can choose to do or not.
The important thing with this is that the installation is safe in terms of no degradation, overheating signs, correct earthing and bonding, high insulation resistance, low zs etc.
As DSES has already said, you dont take one look at old colours and make it unsatisfactory, recommending a rewire because 18th edition says we use new colours!!

Mfctitch said:

if the RCD should not trip other circuits then how come we fit split load boards?

Click to expand...

From the OSG:

The division of an installation into two parts with separate 30 mA RCCBs will ensure
that part of the installation will remain on supply in the event of a fault.