Domestic PIR No RCD - can I / can't I?

[mattcos1972]

Evening all!
Quick domestic PIR question.
I have been asked to PIR on a home for a friend of mine. The installation is perfectly sound throughout the home. Lighting is split into 2 circuits, there are a total of 5 ring finals for the sockets as extensions / loft conversions have been added over the years. All spurs are fused, including boiler etc.
All dead tests, Ze, PFC & Zs are well within their parameters. IR is off the scale and every ring test is spot on. Smoke alarms are interlinked, mains powered and battery backed up, even the doorbell is fused off a lighting ring. Basically it's spot on....only problem is there are no RCDs.....Can I pass it on a PIR? The installation went in in 2002. I've not been sparksing for that long so I don't know what the regs were at the time?

Thanks in advance for any help, opinions, advice etc........

Oh and yes, I am 2391 before you ask!!

 

[baldelectrician]

I may agree or not

my opinion
If it complies to the 16th then it's OK, providing:
There is supplimentary bonding in the bathroom with a coninuity od < 0.05 ohms across it all
and
there is an RCD on the sockets (or a RCD socket marked 'for equipment outdoors'


If there is NO RCD and NO supplimentary bonding then i would fail

It has to comply with the old regs- not just the bits you pick and choose

 

[baldelectrician]

See BPG page 13

 

[Paul.M]

The op question is what code for this on a PIR. He says everything is good but no rcd. It's a simple code 4, doesn't comply with current regs but still safe and satisfactory for the date it was installed. Most I would do is advise installing rcbo's to existing board or change of socket to an rcd sockets used for outdoors equipment like you've said.

 

[baldelectrician]

I would code 2 - it would be a fail (BPG page 13)

Unless there was supplimentary bonding in the bathroom

The 16th required supp bonding. SB has to have a continuity of <0.05 ohms or > 200 M ohms IR

 

[baldelectrician]

Code 2:

Abscence of supplimentary bonding where required, such as in a bathroom or shower room, where ALL of the following conditions are NOT satisfied

• All final circuits of the location comply with the requirements of 411.3.2 for automatic disconnection, and
• All final circuits of the location have additional protection by means of a 30mA RCD, and
• All extraneous-conductive parts of the location are effectively connected to the main protective equipotential bonding (main earthing terminal)

Note where the prescence of supplimentary bonding cannot be confirmed by inspection, it may be verified by a continuity test (<0.05 ohm)

The above is from the BPG

 

[Paul.M]

All dead tests, Ze, PFC & Zs are well within their parameters. IR is off the scale and every ring test is spot on. Smoke alarms are interlinked, mains powered and battery backed up, even the doorbell is fused off a lighting ring. Basically it's spot on....only problem is there are no RCDs.....Can I pass it on a PIR? The installation went in in 2002. I've not been sparksing for that long so I don't know what the regs were at the time?


The above is the op. Nowhere does he say anything about bad bonding, he's asking about the lack of rcd in an installation from 2002 (16th regs).

Bpg page 15 right hand side, third comment about rcd. I'll go with that one and give it a code 4 and suggest to customer to install rcds if they want. It's not a requirement for the date of that installation.

 

[tonys]

I may agree or not

my opinion
If it complies to the 16th then it's OK, providing:
There is supplimentary bonding in the bathroom with a coninuity od < 0.05 ohms across it all
and
there is an RCD on the sockets (or a RCD socket marked 'for equipment outdoors'


If there is NO RCD and NO supplimentary bonding then i would fail

It has to comply with the old regs- not just the bits you pick and choose

Since the 15th Edition (from 1984 to my knowledge) RCD protection was a requirement for any socket outlet with potential use for out door equipment.

So there's a good possibility it never met the 16th and having RCD protection for the use of outdoor equipment of paramount imo. So I would code 2.

 

[redface]

So you would make every house with no rcd unsatisfactory
When you do a pir you are testing if it is safe dose it dosconnect in time and do they have a rcd socket for out sIde.
Or will they sign to say they don't use electrical things outside

 

[malcolmsanford]

I think like every PIR as you are the tester you will need to decide what is safe and what is not. If I Found a ground floor socket outlet circuit that did not have RCD protection and there was a likelyhood that mobile equipment for outside use was being plugged into this then I would code it a 2 as per the ESC guidlines.

If I saw though on this circuit an RCD socket outlet near the back door or the window I would expect any outside equipment to be plugged into this and code it a 4, it really is down to the inspector to make these calls.The ESC guidance notes the OSG are all great guides, but in the end just guides, the final call is the testers.

 

[baldelectrician]

So you would make every house with no rcd unsatisfactory
When you do a pir you are testing if it is safe dose it dosconnect in time and do they have a rcd socket for out sIde.
Or will they sign to say they don't use electrical things outside

I would code 4 if it complied with 16th or 15th Edition

Code 2 if if didn't comply with 15th or 16th

 

[nickblake]

There is one simple answer to this code 4 it and put a reccomendation for RCD protection it was wired in 2002 so it should have had RCD's bonding etc installed as it would have been to 16th edition , i do agree with duram though , but heres one for thought Tony cable from the NIC stated install a main switch RCD if they dont want to pay for a CDU upgrade , in my eyes its not suprising we get confused

 

[IQ Electrical]

I totally agree with Tony Cable, the risk of non-rcd protected sockets supplying portable equipment outdoors far outweighs the ridiculous 'old woman falling down the stairs in nuisance tripping incident' rubbish!

 

[redface]

I think like every PIR as you are the tester you will need to decide what is safe and what is not. If I Found a ground floor socket outlet circuit that did not have RCD protection and there was a likelyhood that mobile equipment for outside use was being plugged into this then I would code it a 2 as per the ESC guidlines.

If I saw though on this circuit an RCD socket outlet near the back door or the window I would expect any outside equipment to be plugged into this and code it a 4, it really is down to the inspector to make these calls.The ESC guidance notes the OSG are all great guides, but in the end just guides, the final call is the testers.

Perfect answer

 

[baldelectrician]

Remember when we PIR we are interpreting the current regs against actual installation I am looking at

Although it's a matter of opinion on how you pass / fail a PIR, there seems to be a difference on opinion as and when things fail

You can't look at the regs and pick and choose the bits you want.

As far as the 17th Edition goes, I think RCD'ing lights is a step too far. The days of plugging and iron into a lighting point are long gone

These days people like to sue electricains (not had any yet!), but the regs, the OSG and the ESC guides are there for guidance- if you use the guide and somoene tries to pull you up they are on to plums

It's a bit like king canute and the tide- you need to go with the flow- not agree with it wholehartedly, but go with it

 

[nickblake]

I totally agree with Tony Cable, the risk of non-rcd protected sockets supplying portable equipment outdoors far outweighs the ridiculous 'old woman falling down the stairs in nuisance tripping incident' rubbish!

I agree with you mate and im sure it was me with the old woman incident which came from a NIC guy called bill when he told us we couldnt install a main switch RCD , then on the next breath he told us if we find a bad installation install a main switch RCD lol

 

[IQ Electrical]

Remember when we PIR we are interpreting the current regs against actual installation I am looking at

Although it's a matter of opinion on how you pass / fail a PIR, there seems to be a difference on opinion as and when things fail

You can't look at the regs and pick and choose the bits you want.

As far as the 17th Edition goes, I think RCD'ing lights is a step too far. The days of plugging and iron into a lighting point are long gone

These days people like to sue electricains (not had any yet!), but the regs, the OSG and the ESC guides are there for guidance- if you use the guide and somoene tries to pull you up they are on to plums

It's a bit like king canute and the tide- you need to go with the flow- not agree with it wholehartedly, but go with it

Don't forget, you aren't 'RCDing lights' per se, you're protecting cables buried in walls at depths of less than 50mm etc etc whether that's a lighting circuit or an immersion is not the actual reason.

 

[Rich.]

I am testing a split load board can I record 1 rcd result for the rcd side

 

[IQ Electrical]

Yes, you test it once without load and enter the trip time against each circuit that it covers.