Do socket outlets in a Pub need to be RCD/RCBO protected!

[MerlinGremlin]

What are peoples thoughts on this, should socket outlets in the general public areas be RCD/RCBO protected? I believe they do and have put them down as a C2 on a recent EICR but recently got a phone call to say it's a C3!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well you're saying that all these things used to be allowed but are now not allowed, when in fact they are still allowed.
Makes me wonder whether you just ignore the Regulations and make up your own.
Not NICEIC are you?

 

[davesparks]

Well you're saying that all these things used to be allowed but are now not allowed, when in fact they are still allowed.
Makes me wonder whether you just ignore the Regulations and make up your own.
Not NICEIC are you?

Which things are still allowed which I have suggested are not?
Fused neutrals are no longer allowed.
Green as a live conductor is no longer allowed.
Open fronted switchgear is no longer allowed (unenclosed knife switches etc)

A wooden socket which has been manufactured to modern standards is a very different thing to the old method of installing bare conductors in wooden mouldings.

I admit I didn't specify that my reference to the installation of bare conductors on cleats was regarding the use of this method without it being out of reach or otherwise protected by barriers/obstacles.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well you said bare conductors are not allowed when they are.
Can't say I've ever come across bare conductors enclosed in wooden containment. Not sure whether it would be allowed today or not.

However the biggest problem here, is this weird idea that just because there has been a change in the Regulations, anything that is no longer allowed is suddenly dangerous.
This is despite the Regulations themselves telling us they're not, despite the Regulations telling us they don't need to be upgrade, despite the Regulations telling us that if we designed an installation before the change, we can still construct the installation to the design even though it's no longer allowed.

 

[davesparks]

However the biggest problem here, is this weird idea that just because there has been a change in the Regulations, anything that is no longer allowed is suddenly dangerous..

I have not said that a change in the regulations automatically makes something dangerous, what I have said is that compliance at the time of installation is irrelevant to the code applied. The code is based purely on the edition of the regulations to which the inspection is being carried out.
If it is immediately dangerous as per the current regulations then it is a C1.
If it is potentially dangerous as per the current regulations then it is a C2.
If a recommendation for improvement for safety can be made as per the current regulation should then it is a C3.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing if you apply a code C1 or C2 to a situation that was ok yesterday before the new edition came into force today.

If it was based on the edition in force at the time of inspection, then you would be taking note of the forword saying things that complied at the time of their construction are not necessarily unsafe.

 

[davesparks]

Well you said bare conductors are not allowed when they are.
Can't say I've ever come across bare conductors enclosed in wooden containment. Not sure whether it would be allowed today or not.
.

I said that bare conductors on cleats is no longer allowed, I admit that I wasn't specific enough in this statement and attempted to clarify that I am referring to the installation of bare conductors on porcelain cleats which are within reach of ordinary persons and do not have any barriers or obsracles preventing contact with them.
Yes bare conductors can still be used, but there are restrictions on their use.

I doubt that any of us here have come across bare conductors in wooden mouldings, and no it would not comply today in the form it was used historically. I've no doubt that a modern system could be created which does comply, but that is not the point as it would then have been designed and installed to the current edition of the regulations.

 

[Ian1981]

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing if you apply a code C1 or C2 to a situation that was ok yesterday before the new edition came into force today.

I'm not sure it's that drastic.
For instance when the 17th changes to the 18th I can't see anything now which will change to a C2, off the top of my head anyway.
Support for wiring systems in all areas as escape route by definition is getting scrapped may cause issues but apart fro that.........

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I wouldn't take much notice of the DPC.
In the past they've scrapped everything in the DPC and made other changes which were never consulted on.
I do wonder whether it's a consultation process or a smoke screen so they can put in what they like.

 

[freddo]

I was talking to an old workmate the other day on that subject, I bet the books are already printed and sat in a warehouse somewhere.

 

[davesparks]

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing if you apply a code C1 or C2 to a situation that was ok yesterday before the new edition came into force today.

I would not be coding it because the regulations changed, I would be coding it because it is either dangerous or potentially dangerous.
I don't believe a single change of edition will ever introduce a regulation which creates a situation where a C1 or C2 could be applied to an item complying with a previous edition.

The closest things I can think of at the moment is the introduction of the requirement for all circuits in a bathroom to have RCD protection and the introduction of the requirement for RCD protection for certain cable sizes buried less than 50mm deep in a wall.
An installation which did not comply with these new regulations would receive a C3 for this, as was specified in the guidance for the person carrying out the EICR.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well people do apply code C2s for lack of RCD protection to sockets where there is no documented Risk Assessment.
There are also people who will apply a code C2 for lack of RCD protection for sockets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

 

[Rpa07]

I was talking to an old workmate the other day on that subject, I bet the books are already printed and sat in a warehouse somewhere.

. . . . . and are still not being proof read to prevent the obvious errors and mistakes!

 

[freddo]

Mistakes allow them to sell the corrections as an amendment!
Easy money!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I reported something that changed between the 16th and 17th editions.
Nothing much, just the introduction of a comma which now means we have to report dangerous conditions which may give rise to danger.
Never been sorted.

 

[Stspark]

I'd agree with your QS and manager.

On an ecir, C3 for non rcd protected sockets. Recommend improvement to the duty holder of the premise. They may already have a safe system to manage any risk if any, it's down to the duty holder to decide.

C2 for non rcd protected sockets mounted externally or directly next to an external door and could likely be used for external equipment.

Cables at less than 50mm are not a concern on an ecir. From gn3, cables concealed within trunking, conduit, under floors, in roof spaces and generally within the fabric of the building or underground are not inspected. (unless specifically agreed). It's not practical to remove all sockets, access roof spaces and disturb building fabric.