C2 on EICR due to RCD Protection

[loz2754]

I'll take 301 ?

The IET did have the following publicised


Source; https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/faqs/qa-from-rcds-selection-types-and-testing-webinar/

Interesting. So it would seem Connections may have got it wrong.
I must admit I had wondered why, if it was a mistaken omission, that it wasn't corrected in the corrigendum.
So in light of this, there would seem to be little point in using such devices, as there would have to be additional protection upstream anyway.
And yet they're still being manufactured and sold.

Me no understand!

 

[GBDamo]

I'll take 301 ?

The IET did have the following publicised


Source; https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/faqs/qa-from-rcds-selection-types-and-testing-webinar/

Well, it would appear 301 is on.

That statement is expectedly wooly however. It explcitly rules out additional protection against fire and also fault protection but not against additional protection against electric shock, if I'm correct in translating "direct contact" to mean electric shock.

I'd take from that they are ok to meet the requirements of additional protection against electric shock.

 

[old man sparky]

This is NOT a C2. The Zs to the socket is what's important, and it probably complies with disconnection times anyway. Original installers Common sense has prevailed here, the clue is in FREEZER socket. Providing adequate earthing is in place a code 3 for an rcd socket install maybe ?? but that's about it. Trouble is, its his call because he has signed the report.