Lighting circuits not protected by RCD

[chloebear]

Just carried out an inspection on a domestic property - there is RCD protection on the sockets, water heater & Garage supply but no RCD protection on the lighting circuits & cooker. Just wondering what code to attribute to this - thinking code 4??

 

[telectrix]

correct, if it was fitted prior to 17th

 

[chloebear]

Thanks for tthe confirmation - must stop meeting like this

 

[IQ Electrical]

correct, if it was fitted prior to 17th

I hate to be pedantic here but we test all installations against the current edition of BS7671 regardless of the installation date.

 

[ezzzekiel]

i hate to be pedantic here but we test all installations against the current edition of bs7671 regardless of the installation date.

agree with above

 

[Sparky Ninja]

The age of it's installation is irrelevant as code 4's apply to the latest edition of BS7671.

What is required to decide if these are code 4's is more evidence as to why the code is necessary.

 

[telectrix]

I hate to be pedantic here but we test all installations against the current edition of BS7671 regardless of the installation date.

my comment was to say code 4 the lack of RCD on lighting as non=compliant with current regs. assuming installation was done to 16th.

 

[chloebear]

Not pedantic - all installations are, or I hope are, tested to the latest edition of the reg's: the original question was relating to gaining an opinion as to if a code 4 was acceptable owing to the fact that the installation was pre 17th edition - if all non conformaties to the 17th were listed as code 1 or 2 and that goes for every further edition to the reg's then it just becomes a free for all for changing every CU in sight regardless of the functionality etc, which in my very humble opinion is not the way to go.

 

[malcolmsanford]

The age of it's installation is irrelevant as code 4's apply to the latest edition of BS7671.

What is required to decide if these are code 4's is more evidence as to why the code is necessary.

With a bit of luck the new admendment will do away with that code 4 and we will only have the 3 codes. Though I agree with that I'm not overly happy about the proposed new "Electrical Installation Condition Report". The IET have proposed a lot more paperwork with the inspection schedules and a "Main Intake and Associated circuits" schedule as well. seems that it would encourage the less scrupulous to fabricate rather than do a thorough test

 

[Denatone]

If it's cables are run through walls without adequate mechanical protection i.e. to switches surely it's code 2 if there's no RCD and the conditions of reg 522.6.6/OSG 7.3.2 aren't met

 

[Des 56]

If it's cables are run through walls without adequate mechanical protection i.e. to switches surely it's code 2 if there's no RCD and the conditions of reg 522.6.6/OSG 7.3.2 aren't met

The esc recomendation for the above is code 4
The original question I would say code 4 as well

Maybe the lighting is surface clipped or trunked and we are all wrong

 

[Sparky Ninja]

The esc recomendation for the above is code 4
The original question I would say code 4 as well

Maybe the lighting is surface clipped or trunked and we are all wrong

Exactly.

Which is why we need to know the exact reasons that create the requirement of a code 4.
A simple 'not RCD protected' isn't very defined.

 

[AllertonEPS]

The trouble with Code 4 is that things are considered dangerous now could all be assigned the Code 4.
- RCDs weren't originally in the Regs
- CPC on lighting circuits weren't originally in the Regs
and so the list goes on ... Where do you draw the line ... ?

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Only things that are non compliant to BS7671 are assigned to code 4, irrelevant of if they are safe or not.

The new 3 code condition report system is designed to stop electricians giving clients a list of problems without the work getting rectified.