EICR code car park lighting

[Welchyboy1]

External lighting accessible to the public with no RCD protection

Its a car park for block of flats, lots of 3 foot bollards dotted about

Torn between a C3 or C2

 

[brianmoooore]

If no RCD was required when it was installed, then C3, with a strong recommendation in writing to upgrade.

 

[westward10]

The fact it is accessible to the public is irrelevant. If the existing protective device satisfies ADS there is no requirement for RCD protection. No Code required.

 

[loz2754]

714.411.3.4 Additional protection
Lighting that is accessible to the public shall have additional protection by an RCD having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1
Examples include:
1. Gardens, spaces open to the public
2. Telephone kiosks
3. Bus shelters
4. Advertising panels and town plans
This list is not exhaustive.
The following are excluded:
5. Street lighting and traffic signage
6. Illumination of monuments
7. Platform lighting at rail/bus stations.

In view of the above quoted regulation, it could be argued that RCD protection is needed for certain types of car park lighting, especially bollards, which are easily damaged by cars and vandalism. However, in terms of coding for an EICR, a judgement would have to be made by the inspector, based on the assessment of the risks to the public. I can't help but relate this to the infamous pub incident a couple of years ago, where RCD protection could well have saved a child's life.

 

[Welchyboy1]

It was a new amendment when the child got electrocuted in the pub beer garden a little while back I think

The fact it is accessible to the public is irrelevant. If the existing protective device satisfies ADS there is no requirement for RCD protection. No Code required.

 

[Welchyboy1]

714.411.3.4 Additional protection
Lighting that is accessible to the public shall have additional protection by an RCD having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1
Examples include:
1. Gardens, spaces open to the public
2. Telephone kiosks
3. Bus shelters
4. Advertising panels and town plans
This list is not exhaustive.
The following are excluded:
5. Street lighting and traffic signage
6. Illumination of monuments
7. Platform lighting at rail/bus stations.

In view of the above quoted regulation, it could be argued that RCD protection is needed for certain types of car park lighting, especially bollards, which are easily damaged by cars and vandalism. However, in terms of coding for an EICR, a judgement would have to be made by the inspector, based on the assessment of the risks to the public. I can't help but relate this to the infamous pub incident a couple of years ago, where RCD protection could well have saved a child's life.

Yes the bollards are regularly knocked over by vehicles

sometimes the cabling is exposed until I get the call to get there and repair them

 

[westward10]

If no RCD was required when it was installed, then C3, with a strong recommendation in writing to upgrade.

It was a new amendment when the child got electrocuted in the pub beer garden a little while back I think

An amendment in BS 7671?

 

[littlespark]

There was a lamppost totalled at the local Macdonalds car park. Sat with just the stump, a few traffic cones in the 4 spaces around it and some barrier tape for 6 months until they fixed it over Xmas.

Someone’s flattened it again…. Timber!
Coned off 6 spaces now.


Nothing to add to the thread… just a silly story

 

[newfutile]

This was added in amendment 2 2022 , i would code this as a C2 , we code to the latest regulations. From a practical point of view I try to asses the danger ,which in this case could be quite high , as stated cars run them over they are also subject to weather, water ingress ,freezing ,heating , i would not like to touch one in the rain especially if the cpc was corroded and the insulation deteriorated.

 

[Welchyboy1]

This was added in amendment 2 2022 , i would code this as a C2 , we code to the latest regulations. From a practical point of view I try to asses the danger ,which in this case could be quite high , as stated cars run them over they are also subject to weather, water ingress ,freezing ,heating , i would not like to touch one in the rain especially if the cpc was corroded and the insulation deteriorated.

Yes I agree

The bollards are also around footpaths and in the grassy areas of the flats where the kids play around in the summer

If one is knocked over it’s not hard to imagine an inquisitive child messing about with it

 

[westward10]

My apologies you are absolutely correct.

 

[brianmoooore]

This was added in amendment 2 2022 , i would code this as a C2 , we code to the latest regulations. From a practical point of view I try to asses the danger ,which in this case could be quite high

Yes, we code to the latest regs, and one of those regs is that if the installation was compliant when fitted, but not now, although still in good condition, then the code is C3.
Yes, the potential danger is very high, which is why I would endorse the C3 with a strong written recommendation that it is upgraded, transferring responsibility to the owner of the equipment.

 

[davesparks]

one of those regs is that if the installation was compliant when fitted, but not now, although still in good condition, then the code is C3.

No it isn't, there is no such regulation.

There is a note which says that something installed to previous regs may not necessarily be unsafe. The key point is 'not necessarily' which means that it may or may not be unsafe.