BS3871 on EICR classifiaction code?

[NellyManjaro]

I have searched for an answer to this question but to no prevail.

BS3871's.... should these be changed? I have just done an EICR on a board with these and no RCD for lights serving bathroom but it has an RCD protecting all sockets, shower and the cooker circuit... now I have given 2 x C2 codes because 1 the RCD doesn't trip in the allowed time and 2 for no RCD protection or supplementary bonding etc for the lights in bathroom

BUT hypothetically... if it was all protected by a fully working RCD would I be ok in saying BS3871's are ok still? Or does it need to comply with regards to disconnection times? If so where do I find these disconnection times?

Thanks in advance

 

[Pretty Mouth]

The location of the luminaire is not relevant it serves a location containing a bath or a shower, zones in this case are irrelevant.

IMO the location of the luminaire is relevant in some cases, from a coding point of view rather than compliance. If it could only be reached by climbing a ladder, then a C3 for no RCD and no supp bonding. If within reach, then C2 for the same

 

[westward10]

That would be 701.415.2, and 411.3.2.2, 701.411.3.3, 411.3.1.2, if this was a downlighter only accessible with a tool, how would you code that then?

I suppose in truth the sensible thing to do is to protect anything in a shower or bathroom with an RCD which in essence everything in a modern two RCD board is.

It is serving the location so whether a tool is required or not is neither here nor there.

 

[richy3333]

True, but irrelevant. If no RCD was required when it was installed, then it's a C3.
You test to the current regs. Anything that doesn't meet the current regs, but met the regs. in force when it was installed is a C3*. Anything that doesn't meet the current regs, and didn't meet the regs in force when it was installed is a C2.

* I'm referring to 'modern' wiring, not stuff installed pre '50's, so please don't bring up fused neutrals.

Not really. A socket installed to an earlier edition which could reasonably be used to power equipment outside would be a C2 if no RCD protection.

I think you meant 'you inspect to the current regs' testing hasn't changed over the years (part for maybe AFDD's). ???

 

[NellyManjaro]

C2

Absence of supplementary bonding where
required, such as in a location containing a
bath or shower, where any of the following
three conditions are not satisfied:
❍ All final circuits of the location comply with
the requirements of Regulation 411.3.2 for
automatic disconnection, and
❍ All final circuits of the location have
additional protection by means of a 30 mA
RCD, and
❍ All extraneous-conductive-parts of the
location are effectively connected to the
protective equipotential bonding (main
earthing terminal).

So just because it was compliant 50 years ago doesn't mean it isn't a C2 on an 18th edition EICR

 

[newfutile]

The latest best practise guide suggest that :
for class 2 fittings

Absence of supplementary bonding for installed Class II equipment where required (such as in a location containing a bath or shower), in case the equipment is replaced with Class I equipment in the future

this does not require reporting or any code

 

[westward10]

Although Class II fittings reduce the risk it is not permitted to use Class II as a means of protection in an unsupervised installation such as a dwelling.

 

[loz2754]

The latest best practise guide suggest that :
for class 2 fittings

Absence of supplementary bonding for installed Class II equipment where required (such as in a location containing a bath or shower), in case the equipment is replaced with Class I equipment in the future

this does not require reporting or any code

Who said the lights are class 2?
And what about the other exposed/extraneous conductive parts that may be simultaneously accessible?
If there is no RCD and no (or incomplete) supplementary bonding, then it's a C2.

 

[newfutile]

I think what its saying is if all the equipment is class 2 there can be no exposed-conductive-parts , therefore the potential difference can not exist.

 

[westward10]

I think what its saying is if all the equipment is class 2 there can be no exposed-conductive-parts , therefore the potential difference can not exist.

You cannot use Class II as a means of protection in an unsupervised installation such as a dwelling.