Landlords EICR and t&e sub mains without RCD

[Wilko]

That won’t comply. Cables buried in walls need to have 30mA additional protection.

Oops, I forgot this was also a problem to be solved. If they’ve put the unprotected sub main in a wall less than 50mm then my 100mA S type is no good .

 

[Nigel]

Personally I think the cost to install SWA or surface cabling is too high when compared to the safety improvement. If I was the landlord I would not bother installing additional RCD protection for cables in walls in these properties and ensure S Type 100mA RCDs were installed for all sub-distribution circuits on TT supplies.

 

[Charlie_]

Are the consumer units plastic?

 

[vitoboy]

Oops, I forgot this was also a problem to be solved. If they’ve put the unprotected sub main in a wall less than 50mm then my 100mA S type is no good .

Well yes

 

[vitoboy]

Eerr
You can see a socket ....
You can't see a buried cable..
You can screw into the live then lick the screw ... if your that way inclined..
No operation of any protective device..
Is this not the point..?

 

[richy3333]

C3 all the way. No way a C2

 

[vitoboy]

C3 all the way. No way a C2

Why..?

 

[Andy78]

Eerr
You can see a socket ....
You can't see a buried cable..
You can screw into the live then lick the screw ... if your that way inclined..
No operation of any protective device..
Is this not the point..?

It's sort of the point, if your point was that you cannot possibly protect against every random eventuality and so coding should be realistic based on normal use of the installation. But I don't think that was your intended point, just what I inferred from that.

 

[vitoboy]

It's sort of the point, if your point was that you cannot possibly protect against every random eventuality and so coding should be realistic based on normal use of the installation. But I don't think that was your intended point, just what I inferred from that.

Why do we fit RCDs for stuff buried in a wall less than 50mm deep if not to guard against things that aren't "normal use"??

 

[richy3333]

Why..?

Because if I am the inspector I am suitably competent, qualified and experienced enough to judge a T&E ‘sub main’ as was described in the original OP as a C3

 

[Andy78]

Why do we fit RCDs for stuff buried in a wall less than 50mm deep if not to guard against things that aren't "normal use"??

For additional protection. Not basic or fault protection.

 

[Wilko]

To me, the “cables in walls” reg came as a safety improvement, but not having it wouldn’t automatically mean the installation was unsafe.

 

[vitoboy]

Because if I am the inspector I am suitably competent, qualified and experienced enough to judge a T&E ‘sub main’ as was described in the original OP as a C3

Ok I accept that point of view.
This is why Im Posting this .. because I value the feedback here.
At this time I'm not completely sure i agree completely.
The thing that worries me is just that we have the current regs for a reason .. this goes against them.
I need to be happy with what I'm doing .. so I seek consensus...not just cost cutting for landlords.
I thank you for your points.

 

[vitoboy]

For additional protection. Not basic or fault protection.

For me right now .
Both.
But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise .. but I'm not yet.

 

[vitoboy]

For me right now .
Both.
But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise .. but I'm not yet.

With tt anyhow
With tncs or tns yes its additional... but it's still a requirement really unless someone can show me something that says different.