PIR "no RCD on shower circuit"

[Jazza]

ahh, i see. you guys know your stuff...

 

[DurhamSparky]

probably give it a 1 as never undertaken work done to previous versions at his 1 week training centre!


if im right Gas Elec are a franchise similar to Mr Electric and thus OVERHEADS = THIRST FOR CASH!!

no RCD = EASY MONEY!!

 

[Jazza]

it wasnt like a proper PIR form he had, it looked like one generated by them. gas elec i think they are called. it just had written down under observations that the shower circuit needed an RCD urgently

 

[Jazza]

can anyone direct me to the specific reg that says prior to 2008 installations do not have to meet current standards

 

[Paul.M]

By what you've said jazza it is within the regs but if the home owner is concerned about it just install a stand alone rcd unit next to the c/u as said above. Reading in-between the lines and coming up with my own thoughts, this is a company trying to threaten them into opening their wallets. I'd be rich if I had the same scumy levels that they have.

 

[DurhamSparky]

it will be in GN3 which my copy is not to hand!!

also have a read of http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/electrical-industry/BPG4_08.pdf

page 8 of that PDF

Code 4

 

[telectrix]

can anyone direct me to the specific reg that says prior to 2008 installations do not have to meet current standards

there was no BS7671(2008) when it was installed.so how could it comply with a non existent regulation?

 

[Jazza]

lol..... fair dos, i will inform them and let them know.

 

[Paul.M]

Just had a look at the 16th OSG. Shower in zone 1 must be ipx4. Any other appliance (other than heaters, showers, pumps) must be on a rcd. Seen as its old colours that's before 2008 I think that's all you need.

 

[TPES]

If installed correctly, using the correct cable CSA rating, correctly rated protective device, and the cable is installed correctly then this would only warrant a code 4 on a legitimate PIR, meaning it does not meet current regs on having no RCD protection. There is no immediate danger here.

If he's noted the shower should have RCD protection then why has he not noted it for the lighting in the bathroom?

Because it's not required to get a satisfactory on a PIR, that's why..

How do these firms get away with this scare tactic?? I'll bet we'll be seeing them on rouge traders soon..

 

[nickblake]

Gas Elec eh mm is it one of their land lords certs as they call them ,there was a guy round here doing inspection for gas elec ,no 2391 no 17 edition but he's doing inspections , as the guys have said if its up to 16th edition with a sup bond to the light as well and sup bonding in place then there not a problem with it and the coding should be code 4 does not comply with BS7671 2008 (satisfactory)as we now do periodics to the current regs

 

[Jazza]

thanks for your help guys, i will be informing my mate asap....

 

[Risteard]

Personally I believe 2 (Requires improvement) is more appropriate than 4.

Just because the 16th Edition did not state that all circuits in a location containing a bath or shower required 30mA RCD protection does not mean that you cannot in your judgement suggest that improvement is advisable.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Although it is the opinion of the inspector as to what code is warrented by any situation.
I believe that he would have a hard time justifying any code in this instance, considering as the guidance given by the ESC and the Part P schemes is that this doesn't warrent a code.

 

[SimpleSimon]

Personally I believe 2 (Requires improvement) is more appropriate than 4.

Just because the 16th Edition did not state that all circuits in a location containing a bath or shower required 30mA RCD protection does not mean that you cannot in your judgement suggest that improvement is advisable.

But if supp bonding is adequate and present why would it require improvement?