EICR unsatisfactory due to 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits'

John clark · Jan 21, 2021

Paignton pete said:
Can’t comment on the thermal damage as I cant see it. Photo would help.

IP rated bathroom light.

A common mistake among some sparkies.
if it’s above=2.25M it does not need to have a water resistant fitting. A normal pendant is fine.

i would advise getting a bathroom IP rated light, but would not code it if it’s above that 2.25M.
get your tape measure out.

I thought a batten fitting is acceptable

brianmoooore · Jan 21, 2021

Batten is not contrary to the regs as long as every part of it, including the lamp, is more than 2.25m from the ground, but an enclosed IP rated fitting is preferable on 'suitable for environment' grounds, or whatever the current wording is.

herbiehowler · Jan 21, 2021

Thanks everyone for your comments. The outcome:
I asked the report writer to change 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits' from C2 to C3. Not having heard back, I went down the route of sending the report as it stood, plus photos, to 3 other trusted electricians, and getting quotes for remedial work. One of these suggested using RCBOs instead of replacing the CU. Have gone with him because I'm saving hundreds of pounds. Today the original writer got back to me. Gave me a quote for using RCBOs (much higher than other quote) Then he said he'd change the C2 to C3. Declined because by then I'd had enough hassle, and lost my patience....

brianmoooore · Jan 21, 2021

Grant1987 said:
Depends on the location of the (Pendant) doesn’t it when your standing in the bath with a shower then ceiling height is reduced and especially if the pendant is within arms reach. All bathrooms without suitably IP rated light should be rcd protected in my opinion if they aren’t they C2 if they do have suitable IP rated light without rcd protection then C3. Easy to resolve isn’t it don’t have a pendant/batten holder in bathroom

Curiously, it doesn't the 2.25m measurement is still from the floor, even if the lamp is diretly over the (raised) bath. Ridiculous, but that's what the regs say.

brianmoooore · Jan 21, 2021

To Herbiehowler : I'm still curious to know the exact height of that bathroom ceiling.

herbiehowler · Jan 21, 2021

To Brianmooore: It's actually just a little over 2.25cm...but I'm past caring now, tbh.

Deleted account · Jan 21, 2021

I’m more interested in the electrician changing his mind from a C2to C3.

He shouldn’t change his report at the Request of the customer.

even if I don’t agree with his original coding.

Grant1987 · Jan 22, 2021

brianmoooore said:
Curiously, it doesn't the 2.25m measurement is still from the floor, even if the lamp is diretly over the (raised) bath. Ridiculous, but that's what the regs say.

Yea I agree is ridiculous I just change existing light fitting to suitably ip rated one is easy to do with little extra £££ so don’t see the need to be lazy and not change It.

brianmoooore · Jan 22, 2021

The old reg. said must be not in reach of a person in a bath or shower*. This would exclude a non IP rated light over a raised bath.

* This reminded me of one of the funniest things I've ever witnessed. A electricity board inspector, who had a personal feud with the householder, was inspecting my new installation. I had place an immersion heater switch outside of the airing cupboard in a very large bathroom. Bath position had been revised after I'd done the electrics, and the sight of this overweight character balancing in the bath, desperately trying to prove this switch was within reach, had to be seen to be believed.

Grant1987 · Jan 22, 2021

brianmoooore said:
The old reg. said must be not in reach of a person in a bath or shower*. This would exclude a non IP rated light over a raised bath.

* This reminded me of one of the funniest things I've ever witnessed. A electricity board inspector, who had a personal feud with the householder, was inspecting my new installation. I had place an immersion heater switch outside of the airing cupboard in a very large bathroom. Bath position had been revised after I'd done the electrics, and the sight of this overweight character balancing in the bath, desperately trying to prove this switch was within reach, had to be seen to be believed.

?

brianmoooore · Jan 22, 2021

The property was a 'time warp' large farmhouse, which was sold at auction. The boss man of the local electricity board and my customer were the last two bidders, and my customer outbid him, so when it came to connect up to the mains supply (place had a small generator only), he came out in person to do the checks.
Only thing he found 'wrong' in the end, was that I had used the earthing stud on the side of a large ironclad generator change over switch to join some bonding wires together, instead of a separate service block or MET.

Grant1987 · Jan 22, 2021

brianmoooore said:
The property was a 'time warp' large farmhouse, which was sold at auction. The boss man of the local electricity board and my customer were the last two bidders, and my customer outbid him, so when it came to connect up to the mains supply (place had a small generator only), he came out in person to do the checks.
Only thing he found 'wrong' in the end, was that I had used the earthing stud on the side of a large ironclad generator change over switch to join some bonding wires together, instead of a separate service block or MET.

Nice to hear stories like that Brian, Although you are definitely old school with the wording of “Electricity Board” they havnt changed much these days just less competent ?

brianmoooore · Jan 22, 2021

Things were much simpler in those days.
SWEB installed the supply, SWEB fitted the meter, SWEB did some very basic testing, SWEB energised the supply, SWEB turned up every three months to read the meter, and SWEB sent you your electricity bill.

Grant1987 · Jan 22, 2021

brianmoooore said:
Things were much simpler in those days.
SWEB installed the supply, SWEB fitted the meter, SWEB did some very basic testing, SWEB energised the supply, SWEB turned up every three months to read the meter, and SWEB sent you your electricity bill.

Yea I bet is too many ppl sticking their dirty fingers in the pie these days isn’t it

Manksparkfan · Jul 31, 2021

NICEIC are the ones requiring 30ma rcd protection on all cables above the ceiling/running through the bathroom area.

braddersman · Sep 21, 2021

Hello - sorry to resurrect old thread but it seems to be along the lines of my issue.

I am a landlord with old Volex CU which only has RCD on sockets - EICR inspection has C2's it as no RCD on lighting circuit but reading this thread and spekaing to my usual electrician from London, it would seem it could be a C3 - can anyone advise me please?

Many thanks

Bradley

brianmoooore · Sep 21, 2021

Is the person who did this EICR a member of NAPIT?
NAPIT produce a "codebreakers" booklet, based on nothing other than their own ideas, which suggest C2 instead of C3 for lighting circuits with no RCD.
An EICR is based on the contents of the 18th edition of BS7671, produced by the IET, not the spurious recommendations of trade organisations such as NAPIT or the NICEIC, and the lack of a RCD in a lighting circuit, that was installed correctly at a time when BS7671 didn't require a RCD, is coded as C3, not C2.
This doesn't mean that I consider it acceptable to have any domestic circuit not protected by a RCD, and although I would code it as C3, I would strongly recommend the provision of RCDs in the notes accompanying the EICR.
A similar argument applies to lighting circuits that do not have a cpc.

Deleted account · Sep 21, 2021

braddersman said:
Hello - sorry to resurrect old thread but it seems to be along the lines of my issue.

I am a landlord with old Volex CU which only has RCD on sockets - EICR inspection has C2's it as no RCD on lighting circuit but reading this thread and spekaing to my usual electrician from London, it would seem it could be a C3 - can anyone advise me please?

Many thanks

Bradley

What is the exact wording on the report?

it does make a difference. Also when was the lighting circuit installed. And have any alterations been done to the lighting circuit in the last 3 years.

braddersman · Sep 21, 2021

Thanks gents - I actually have not had the report yet so don't have wording, only verbally but could I get round by having RCBO's fitted to existing CU?

brianmoooore · Sep 21, 2021

This is a possibility IF RCBOs are available to fit your existic CU.
The term 'borrowed neutral' may then come into the discussion, if you're unlucky.

MJPD29 · Sep 21, 2021

braddersman said:
Hello - sorry to resurrect old thread but it seems to be along the lines of my issue.

I am a landlord with old Volex CU which only has RCD on sockets - EICR inspection has C2's it as no RCD on lighting circuit but reading this thread and spekaing to my usual electrician from London, it would seem it could be a C3 - can anyone advise me please?

Many thanks

Bradley

C2 is perfectly justified in this situation. Its down to the person who is signing the certificate whether to c2 or c3 in this situation.

brianmoooore · Sep 21, 2021

No it is not. BS7671 does not require RCD protection in these circumstances, so it cannot be a C2.
IET decides the rules, not NAPPIT etc

timhoward · Sep 21, 2021

Can we see exactly what the C2's are for please? Ideally a photo of the consumer unit too. We can then give much better advice.

If it's simply missing RCD protection for lighting, then BPG4 (best Practise Guide 4) has that as a C3.

[ElectriciansForums.net] EICR unsatisfactory due to 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits'

(It's been interesting to me since joining NAPIT that an awful lot of their members distance themselves from Codebreakers, including some of the leadership (in private).
There's in fact a thread on the Napit forum asking how is it that Napit contribute to BPG4 yet publish a book contradicting it! I've yet to buy enough popcorn to read the thread to the end!)

Deleted account · Sep 21, 2021

Matthewd29 said:
C2 is perfectly justified in this situation. Its down to the person who is signing the certificate whether to c2 or c3 in this situation.

C2 MAY be perfectly justified. But I disagree it IS justified.

we code to the guidelines layer down. Nowhere does it say in any guidelines or regs lighting circuits without RCD protection in domestic are potentially dangerous.

other factors in the lighting circuit may justify having the lighting as C2 but not just being without RCD protection.

it’s down to the individual tester. Yes but within the guidelines.

I hate showers without rcd protection, but I don’t give them a C2. I can’t. Unless another issue arises that justifies it.

braddersman · Sep 21, 2021

He is having none of it and also says I have to have earth going to switch and light, even if using a plastic fitting - Grrrr

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Similar Threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS