EICR unsatisfactory due to 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits'

[Deleted account]

Interesting discussion. On the subject of coding:

BS7671 does a reasonable job of telling us how an installation should be. It doesn't, IMO, do a very good job of telling us why an installation should be like that, and what dangers result from a particular non compliance or defect. The chapter on periodic I+T can be read in about one minute. Regarding RCDs for additional protection, it tells us we should code a minimum of C3 (guidance from model form). Other than that, it offers no more guidance on coding, leaving it totally up to the the inspector to decide. This is why I think guides such as BPG4 and codebreakers are necessary.

Codebreakers seems to take a bit of a bashing for coding too harshly, and, while I don't code to the book myself (I prefer BPG4), I do wonder if the criticism is a little unfair sometimes.

For example, I believe codebreakers offers a C2 for lack of RCD protection to cables passing through walls containing metal parts, and for cables buried in walls <50mm. These are both C3s in BPG4. However, there have been deaths that would have been avoided had RCDs been in place for the above circumstances, so I can kind of see why codebreakers is offering a C2.

Also, coding can be confusing. Lack of supplementary bonding in a bathroom, C2. Lack of RCD protection to bathroom circuits, C3. Add RCD protection to the bathroom, and the C2 goes away. So how can lack of RCD protection not be a C2? Difficult logic to get the head around sometimes.

The no supplementary bonding in bathrooms is my get out of jail free card when I’m not happy at the lack of rcd protection on lighting circuits. I very rarely come across a bathroom that has adequate bonding.
this is what I would code as a C2 If it also has no rcd protection.

Not just the lack of RCD on lighting.

I will state “inadequate or no supplementary bonding without RCD protection in bathroom” C2.

 

[telectrix]

no beer provided on completion of a EICR is definitely a C2, even a C1 on a hot day.

 

[Sparky704]

C2 MAY be perfectly justified. But I disagree it IS justified.

we code to the guidelines layer down. Nowhere does it say in any guidelines or regs lighting circuits without RCD protection in domestic are potentially dangerous.

other factors in the lighting circuit may justify having the lighting as C2 but not just being without RCD protection.

it’s down to the individual tester. Yes but within the guidelines.

I hate showers without rcd protection, but I don’t give them a C2. I can’t. Unless another issue arises that justifies it.

You can justify a code 2 for a shower as the manufacturing instructions will insist on RCD protection & BS7671 stipulates that manufacturing instructions have to be adhered too.

 

[telectrix]

BS7671 stipulates that manufacturing instructions have to be adhered too.

not entirely correct. " manufacturers instructions should be taken into account" , no necessarily blindly followed. other wise we'd be following B&Q instructions to connect lights in an unenclosed choc. block, stuffed in the ceiling with 2 layers of insulation tape.

 

[Sparky704]

Is the person who did this EICR a member of NAPIT?
NAPIT produce a "codebreakers" booklet, based on nothing other than their own ideas, which suggest C2 instead of C3 for lighting circuits with no RCD.
An EICR is based on the contents of the 18th edition of BS7671, produced by the IET, not the spurious recommendations of trade organisations such as NAPIT or the NICEIC, and the lack of a RCD in a lighting circuit, that was installed correctly at a time when BS7671 didn't require a RCD, is coded as C3, not C2.
This doesn't mean that I consider it acceptable to have any domestic circuit not protected by a RCD, and although I would code it as C3, I would strongly recommend the provision of RCDs in the notes accompanying the EICR.
A similar argument applies to lighting circuits that do not have a cpc.

C2 MAY be perfectly justified. But I disagree it IS justified.

we code to the guidelines layer down. Nowhere does it say in any guidelines or regs lighting circuits without RCD protection in domestic are potentially dangerous.

other factors in the lighting circuit may justify having the lighting as C2 but not just being without RCD protection.

it’s down to the individual tester. Yes but within the guidelines.

I hate showers without rcd protection, but I don’t give them a C2. I can’t. Unless another issue arises that justifies it.

 

[Sparky704]

BS7671 stipulates that manufacturing instructions have to be adhered too.

not entirely correct. " manufacturers instructions should be taken into account" , no necessarily blindly followed. other wise we'd be following B&Q instructions to connect lights in an unenclosed choc. block, stuffed in the ceiling with 2 layers of insulation tape.

BS 7671 (IET Wiring Regulations) Regulation 510.3 places specific responsibility on the installer, requiring that assembly manufacturer’s instructions are taken into account.( meaning adhered to)

 

[Sparky704]

BS 7671 (IET Wiring Regulations) Regulation 510.3 places specific responsibility on the installer, requiring that assembly manufacturer’s instructions are taken into account.( meaning adhered to)

Basically if you installed a shower & somebody got electrocuted , they may try to sue the manufacturer. An investigation would take place & the manufacturer would void their guarantees as the installer did not follow the install guidance.Then the installer would be in court with the BS regulation I have referenced being used to incriminate them. RCD for a shower is a must. I’ve attended a live hose in the past

 

[brianmoooore]

I've installed a few electric showers without any form of RCD protection. Mainly because, at the time, few would have known what a RCD (or RCCB) was, let alone find somewhere l could buy one from.

 

[telectrix]

BS 7671 (IET Wiring Regulations) Regulation 510.3 places specific responsibility on the installer, requiring that assembly manufacturer’s instructions are taken into account.( meaning adhered to)

taken into account does not mean adhered to. what if the instructions are incorrect, like fitting a 3A fuse to a bathroom fan to protect the fan assembly itself? we protect the cable/s accordingly. if the fan itself needs protection then it should be incorporated within the fan.

 

[Sparky704]

C2 MAY be perfectly justified. But I disagree it IS justified.

we code to the guidelines layer down. Nowhere does it say in any guidelines or regs lighting circuits without RCD protection in domestic are potentially dangerous.

other factors in the lighting circuit may justify having the lighting as C2 but not just being without RCD protection.

it’s down to the individual tester. Yes but within the guidelines.

I hate showers without rcd protection, but I don’t give them a C2. I can’t. Unless another issue arises that justifies it.

I've installed a few electric showers without any form of RCD protection. Mainly because, at the time, few would have known what a RCD (or RCCB) was, let alone find somewhere l could buy one from.

The regulations changed when the 17 edition was enforced

 

[Sparky704]

taken into account does not mean adhered to. what if the instructions are incorrect, like fitting a 3A fuse to a bathroom fan to protect the fan assembly itself? we protect the cable/s accordingly. if the fan itself needs protection then it should be incorporated within the fan.

If the instructions are incorrect the liability is with the manufacturer

 

[Sparky704]

If the instructions are incorrect the liability is with the manufacturer

You are responsible up to the point of utilisation, the 3 amp fuse is the point of utilisation.As I said before if you install the fan & manufacturer instructions state a 3 amp & you leave the 13 amp in the fan it seizes & catches fire due to an overrated fuse, you are liable under the health & safety act where it states “ you are responsible for what you do”

 

[telectrix]

You are responsible up to the point of utilisation, the 3 amp fuse is the point of utilisation.As I said before if you install the fan & manufacturer instructions state a 3 amp & you leave the 13 amp in the fan it seizes & catches fire due to an overrated fuse, you are liable under the health & safety act where it states “ you are responsible for what you do”

my point entirely. if a fan seizes, it should incorporate protective device/s to counter this. we should not have to provide protection for their poor quality design. it's like having to fit an automatic gas cut off valve should a chip pan catch fire.

 

[Deleted account]

You can justify a code 2 for a shower as the manufacturing instructions will insist on RCD protection & BS7671 stipulates that manufacturing instructions have to be adhered too.

I generally don’t look at manufacturers instructions when doing EICRs.

 

[Lister1987]

Interesting discussion. On the subject of coding:

BS7671 does a reasonable job of telling us how an installation should be. It doesn't, IMO, do a very good job of telling us why an installation should be like that, and what dangers result from a particular non compliance or defect.

Forgive me Pretty Mouth but if we as Electricians can't summise dangers of non-compliances (or why regulations are the way they are, why they came to be) then I can't help but think we need to put down thr tools, hit the books and learn and understand.

A mechanic for example, will generally know and understand why and what defects are highlighted in an MOT, or the MOT Requirements.

It does give excellent points for discussion and peer development however