I disagree with the PIR!

[Piratepete]

Just been asked to quote for work in a church required by a PIR undertaken by another NICEIC electrician.

He's given a code 1 (really?) to no RCD protection (doesn't specify for what).

The church has PME earthing and two 3ph boards - one supplies storage heating, the other lighting, a few sockets and some overhead heaters. I have suggested that RCD protection should be put in for sockets which might be used for portable equipment outdoors (code 2 according to the Best Practice Guide No.4 Periodic Inspection Reporting by the ESC).

Presumably, I have to get the churchwarden to question the recommendations and get an amended PIR if they can't be justified?
Pete

 

[Octopus]

No RCD on an existing house/flat/building is a code 4 according to the best practice guide to PIR's and this is a document you could point your customer at and/or print off and give them a copy.

The other sparky is purely touting for business and trying to scare customers.

 

[tanzoid]

I am in the about to do a PIR on my local church (for experience as just got 2391) and looking at the previous PIR, on the observations and recommendations page, line 2 they put "no RCD on any circuits" code 1 and on line 15 "no RCD protection code 4".

There are 3 other lines that just state "Church hall DB" or "DB 3" no fault description (they were re-wireable fuses BS 3036 fuse boards).

The company completing the PIR replaced 4 of the DBs with RCBO's for every circuit (£5000 worth of work).

As I read the rules you don't have to bring up to the 17th. As long it is deemed safe.

Would other inspectors and testers code 1 the DB's and put RCBO's in every circuit.
From talking to the church warden they agreed to the work as the company said there was no other option.

(Note: Some of the lighting wiring is chased in walls with undetermined routes or depths his might of swayed opinion to go with RCD's).

The work was completed to a good standard and now the church is a safer place, it would be good to hear if this is common practice.

 

[i=p/u]

where do you get best practice guide as ik a beginner

 

[Mark.W]

where do you get best practice guide as ik a beginner

http://www.electriciansforums.net/e...cal-forum/13491-esc-best-practice-guides.html

 

[Piratepete]

The company completing the PIR replaced 4 of the DBs with RCBO's for every circuit (£5000 worth of work).

As I read the rules you don't have to bring up to the 17th. As long it is deemed safe.

Would other inspectors and testers code 1 the DB's and put RCBO's in every circuit.
From talking to the church warden they agreed to the work as the company said there was no other option.

You're absolutely right. There is absolutely no need to update installations to the 17th. I would suggest that the actions of this company borders on criminality! I'm beginning to wonder how many PIRs are dishonestly done in order to gain work?
I think I'm going to have a word with the church authorities about this sort of practice!
Pete

 

[High Tower]

correct BS7671 is NOT retrospective and as such no rcd carries a code 4, there is no grounds for it to carry a code 1, when it changes to the condition report and the code 4 dissapears then maybe we will be looking at it becoming a code 2

 

[IQ Electrical]

Code 1 for 'no rcd'?
Utter garbage, just like 95% of the PIR's that I see, it must be an ego/money thing that stops guys from conceding incompetence to inspect and walking away!

Instead, we end up with the usual toilet paper and clients pushed into whatever direction yields the highest spend!

 

[tanzoid]

Thanks for the responses, makes me more confident my in interpretation of the regs, when I start working for someone.

I did think it may of been the Ipf that might of decided the change of 3036's to RCBO's. But it wasn't measured at each DB and the DB'S are not fed directly from the origin. But DB's are 30 Meters away from origin and fed via a busbar box near the origin. Ipf at supply 1.41 KA, so it might of been too much for the domestic 1KA 3036's cant say for sure.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Agree that a lot of PIR's I see (along with EIC's etc) are total rubbish....but I believe most are down to incompetance rather than deliberate touting for work....A PIR is a legally accountable document and those producing nonsense ones will surely get picked up by their scheme providers. I know our NIC inspector spends a lot of time going through our PIR reports on his annual visit.
The 17th editions emphasis on RCD's has I believe resulted in a lot of more recently trained electricians thinking that anything not on an RCD is dangerous.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Thanks for the responses, makes me more confident my in interpretation of the regs, when I start working for someone.

I did think it may of been the Ipf that might of decided the change of 3036's to RCBO's. But it wasn't measured at each DB and the DB'S are not fed directly from the origin. But DB's are 30 Meters away from origin and fed via a busbar box near the origin. Ipf at supply 1.41 KA, so it might of been too much for the domestic 1KA 3036's cant say for sure.

I'd bet that after 30 metres your PFC will be below 1kA and I wonder why PFC wasn't measured at each DB?

 

[tonys]

The NICEIC do a through assessments on approved contractors period.

Anyone can carry out a PIR, so the scheme providers will never see the reports and will only ever know whats going when they either receive complaints or watch these forums.

To my knowledge RCD protection as been a required for the potential use of a socket outlet (domestic type) for outdoor use since the 15th Edition. So in effect if the installation or any alterations appear to fit the criteria of the 15th Edition, then is a breach of the 15th, 16th and 17th and would warrant a code 2 imo.

Code 2 means improvement, and given there must be good reason for the requirement of the RCD in this instance, how can it warrant anything less than a 2 ?

An RCD is there for safety reasons, not like a piece of solid green sleeving what does warrant a code 4.

 

[TPES]

Code 1 for no RCD I disagree with, but sockets likely to provide power outdoors with no RCD I would code 2. Unsatisfactory.

Still needs remedial work

 

[Octopus]

Code 1 for no RCD I disagree with, but sockets likely to provide power outdoors with no RCD I would code 2. Unsatisfactory.

Still needs remedial work

You can recommend remedial work (code 2) but its up to the user to get it done, code 1 is scare mongering!

 

[nickblake]

Thanks for the responses, makes me more confident my in interpretation of the regs, when I start working for someone.

I did think it may of been the Ipf that might of decided the change of 3036's to RCBO's. But it wasn't measured at each DB and the DB'S are not fed directly from the origin. But DB's are 30 Meters away from origin and fed via a busbar box near the origin. Ipf at supply 1.41 KA, so it might of been too much for the domestic 1KA 3036's cant say for sure.

hight psc like you have is probably because you are close to a sub stations and as has been said a few meters away it will reduce ,this will not be a problem for BS3036 fuses as the ka rating for them is 4ka