Code 4, that should have been a 2.

[Spudnik]

Indeed, there is too much reliance on RCD's.

They are there as ADDITIONAL protection.

 

[PC Electrics]

Indeed, there is too much reliance on RCD's.

They are there as ADDITIONAL protection.

Exactly. And the very presence of the shower defines the location as 'special', requiring additional protection. That additional protection required by 7671 is SEB and RCD. Only if the other circuits of the location (and other conditions) have additional protection by RCD then the additional protectin by SEB may be omitted (in other words, everything within the location must have at least one item of additional protection)

In the OP, neither the location nor the shower specifically have any additional protection at all. So, code 2. if it were code 4 (not unsafe, like no sleeving on switch wires) then what is the point of the additional protection in the first place if not to make the location 'safe'?

 

[mainebankelec]

Also note the governing bodies usally state in first instance of a complaint the issue should first be raised with contractor not with governing bodie. This is to try and resolve any issue without the gorverning bodie having to be involved?

So issue should be raised with the " Goodie" as you say before raising an issue with his governing bodie

 

[D80]

Why is the "baddie" rechecking all of the stuff on the pir? Is the customer paying for 2 pir's within a few months of each other?

 

[Sintra]

I take it that this second spark had actually measured continuity between different points in the location as supplementary bonding doesn't always need to be a visible g/y cable between pipes etc.
What I am getting at is a monoblock tap bonds the hot & cold pipes without the need for bonding clamps.

 

[pushrod]

Have only skimmed through this thread, but does anyone know if supplementary bonding was actually required did the 2nd PIR test between simultaneous accessible exposed and extraneous conductors and prove it was needed?

edit : if i hadn't paused to check the reg no 415.2.2 i would have got in before you Sintra lol

 

[IQ Electrical]

Have only skimmed through this thread, but does anyone know if supplementary bonding was actually required did the 2nd PIR test between simultaneous accessible exposed and extraneous conductors and prove it was needed?

edit : if i hadn't paused to check the reg no 415.2.2 i would have got in before you Sintra lol

This is what the 'competency' term is all about, 20 posts before the criteria for supplementary bonding is mentioned!

From experience, I'd bet that readings will be acceptable and the lack of RCD protection to the shower will be a code 4.

 

[Chr!s]

Id suspect it would also contravene of 134.1.1, which was a requirement of this and previous editions.