Domestic. Has anyone seen this before?

[amckay]

The shower being fed from the dp switch?

Its the first time I have come across this and not sure what to make of it. Have any of you lot seen this before?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

So, every non RCD'd circuit in a domestic installation in a code 2, then, is it?

Dont think Amckay is implying that,although I do think there is a tendency amongst the more recently qualified to panic at anything not on an RCD.

 

[ipf]

Dont think Amckay is implying that,although I do think there is a tendency amongst the more recently qualified to panic at anything not on an RCD.

Not having a go, ....just an example of what could be presumed and no doubt is, on occasions.

 

[Geoffsd]

To be pedantic, there is no requirement to 'RCD protect' a shower.

It is the circuit which would nowadays require the RCD protection as, indeed, would any other circuits in a bathroom.

This may have the same outcome but would anyone similarly code the light fitting?

 

[Simonslimline]

Yes agree code 3 for no single point of isolation but code 2 for no RCD on shower thinks

Why? Code 3 surely.

 

[Flanders]

Why? Code 3 surely.

I used to go with the code 3 observation for no RCD for a showers but was pulled up by my scam that it should be a code 2 . If there was supplementary bonding I would Code 3 it though , and as stated its the circuits not the appliance that as to be protected any way , I think its a tuff one to call and would no argue with the code 3 if on a report done by others,but would go for a code 2 in most situations if I was doing the test unless you can convince me otherwise.

 

[Simonslimline]

I used to go with the code 3 observation for no RCD for a showers but was pulled up by my scam that it should be a code 2 . If there was supplementary bonding I would Code 3 it though , and as stated its the circuits not the appliance that as to be protected any way , I think its a tuff one to call and would no argue with the code 3 if on a report done by others,but would go for a code 2 in most situations if I was doing the test unless you can convince me otherwise.

Surely if it complies with the regulations it was installed to then it can't warrant a C2 and be potentially dangerous!

What reason did you're scam give for it being a C2 out of interest?

 

[Flanders]

They said that if there was earth leakage and no supplementary bonding and you are soaking wet in the shower then the risk of electric shock is higher and use of an RCD would give you the additional protection.
I feel that just because it a new regulation and was not in the 16th it not necessary just a deviation from the regulations and code 3 it ,it down to each installation for example maybe a care home full of venerable people or a rented accommodation where the tenant will use any excuse to say the electrics are unsafe An RCD would be a good idea, were do we draw the line as regs get updated, I know we test the installation to the regs at the time it was installed but surely the regs are updated to improve the safety of the installation and just giving all new reg deviations a code 3 does not seem right.

 

[Geoffsd]

They said that if there was earth leakage and no supplementary bonding and you are soaking wet in the shower then the risk of electric shock is higher and use of an RCD would give you the additional protection.

Well, yes but that's a different matter, isn't it?
Without RCD protection at the time there should have been supplementary bonding so a code 2 would be for the lack of bonding, not lack of RCD.

I feel that just because it a new regulation and was not in the 16th it not necessary just a deviation from the regulations and code 3 it ,it down to each installation for example maybe a care home full of venerable people or a rented accommodation where the tenant will use any excuse to say the electrics are unsafe An RCD would be a good idea, were do we draw the line as regs get updated,

The regs. are rarely retrospective so 'improvement recommended'.

I know we test the installation to the regs at the time

We test to the current regs. and bear in mind the regs at the time of installation.
If it was considered 'safe' at the time it cannot be potentially dangerous now - so improvement recommended.

it was installed but surely the regs are updated to improve the safety of the installation and just giving all new reg deviations a code 3 does not seem right.

Even safer now does not mean it was dangerous.

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?

 

[Pete999]

Well, yes but that's a different matter, isn't it?
Without RCD protection at the time there should have been supplementary bonding so a code 2 would be for the lack of bonding, not lack of RCD.


The regs. are rarely retrospective so 'improvement recommended'.


We test to the current regs. and bear in mind the regs at the time of installation.
If it was considered 'safe' at the time it cannot be potentially dangerous now - so improvement recommended.


Even safer now does not mean it was dangerous.

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?

A profound statement

 

[Deleted member 9648]

All of which proves if you get two reports on the same installation by two different electricians one might be a satisfactory.....and one an unsatisfactory.
Dont inspire confidence does it?

 

[davesparks]

All of which proves if you get two reports on the same installation by two different electricians one might be a satisfactory.....and one an unsatisfactory.
Dont inspire confidence does it?

Then one or the other of them has done it wrong. The guidelines are pretty straightforward and simple to follow.

I really do wonder how many people have actually read the guidelines for carrying out an EICR which are part of the model form in bs 7671.

 

[shanky887614]

technically most circuits installed after part **** can be classed as c3 because of 50mm rule.

very few circuits are more than 50mm in the wall or mechanically protected

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It would be the concealed conductors not the circuits.

 

[richy3333]

The ESC BP guide No 3 says:

Absence of supplementary bonding where required, such as in a location containing abath or shower, where any of the following three conditions are not satisfied:

All final circuits of the location comply withthe requirements of Regulation 411.3.2 forautomatic disconnection, and
All final circuits of the location haveadditional protection by means of a 30 mARCD, and
All extraneous-conductive-parts of thelocation are effectively connected to theprotective equipotential bonding (mainearthing terminal).

 

[Flanders]

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?

Yes It hurts when you go through the windscreen

Just out of interest then if you carried out an EICR to a site that was installed to the 17th addition and there was now RCD protection for circuits in a bathroom /shower room would it be a code 2 or 3