So AFDD then for all Landlords???

[Vortigern]

I was just thinking if NAPIT are coding no RCD on lighting, to comply with the new LL law/S.I. as C2 then presumably we would also have to say absence of AFDD is likewise C2? And how about SPD as well. This surely can't be right, making regs retrospective.

 

[Brian Taylor]

Yes i bought it for the same reason, although i found a few of the codings on the extreme side and against the general consensus of the industry which is only going to cause more conflicting issues than its claiming to solve.

It seemed unless the issue is extremely minor(e.g. Missing switch wire sleeving) its mostly a code 2 regardless

A bit of a cop out/--- covering exercise if you ask me!

Me personally, I will be working on the guidance of the electrical safety first guide primarily but like you say its good for reference and covers more examples than most guides.

hi reading this thread with interest...I must agree that a great deal of confusion exists about codeing of faults.I think to a certain degree a fair proportion of testers over do the C1 and C2 codes in fear of some misplaced sense of misconduct if they give a less severe codeing.I must admit I think a lot of rubbish is written and talked about viewing especially by some organisations who should know better and these opinions very often only serve to scare the tester into making decisions which are not warranted.
As I understand it a code 1 is reserved for the most onerous conditions is where live conductor/ part are exposed and liable to be touched e.g. A damaged sockets with live exposed parts of a CU which is damaged such that live parts are easily touched. Code 2 faults are those which are not dangerous as is but may become dangerous in the future e.g. a cracked socket , in this context i have seen some sparks condem a socket simply due to a small defect on a corner..I think we must all agree that this would not warrant any codeing at all. I accept that there is a proportion of the trade that overdo the codeing in order to milk the job. In my opinion there are very few defects that warrant a code 1 and not many more that attract a code 2, the vast number of faults will be code 3 or Further investigation required. This does not of course mean that a never ending list of code 3s will not result in an unsatisfactory report it will, but the overuse of code 1 & 2 should not be used simply as a catch all to produce an unsatisfactory result and hence unwarranted rectification works.

 

[Welchyboy1]

NAPIT aren't suggesting that you code no RCD protection o lighting circuits a C2?

Quote from the Codebreaker book.
"Circuit supplying luminaires in a domestic dwelling,class 1 fittings, No 30mA RCD protection C3.

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]

hi reading this thread with interest...I must agree that a great deal of confusion exists about codeing of faults.I think to a certain degree a fair proportion of testers over do the C1 and C2 codes in fear of some misplaced sense of misconduct if they give a less severe codeing.I must admit I think a lot of rubbish is written and talked about viewing especially by some organisations who should know better and these opinions very often only serve to scare the tester into making decisions which are not warranted.
As I understand it a code 1 is reserved for the most onerous conditions is where live conductor/ part are exposed and liable to be touched e.g. A damaged sockets with live exposed parts of a CU which is damaged such that live parts are easily touched. Code 2 faults are those which are not dangerous as is but may become dangerous in the future e.g. a cracked socket , in this context i have seen some sparks condem a socket simply due to a small defect on a corner..I think we must all agree that this would not warrant any codeing at all. I accept that there is a proportion of the trade that overdo the codeing in order to milk the job. In my opinion there are very few defects that warrant a code 1 and not many more that attract a code 2, the vast number of faults will be code 3 or Further investigation required. This does not of course mean that a never ending list of code 3s will not result in an unsatisfactory report it will, but the overuse of code 1 & 2 should not be used simply as a catch all to produce an unsatisfactory result and hence unwarranted rectification works.

And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

 

[Brian Taylor]

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]


And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

Well ideally yes but I have had cases in the last where a customer has requested that not rectification works were carried out and in addition informed me that to isolate the installation (which would have been the best thing)would have been a restraint of his trade ( he put dog food in bags) obviously dogs are more important that his staff

 

[Brian Taylor]

But they are suggesting C2 for cables buried in walls so unless the lighting circuits are in surface containment or buried steel tube, a previously compliant 16th edition install will be ‘unsatisfactory’
And I just can’t agree with that
[automerge]1595750557[/automerge]


And really strictly speaking you shouldn’t really have many C1 codes on your report as if you see an instance of a C1, a decent inspector would felt he has a duty to at least make it safe surely?

Would agree that a cable buried in a wall is a code 3 at the most

 

[Ian1981]

WRONG...Recommendation only, if the client says no then no

Tell me where it says it’s recommendation Only for an SPD please?
Think you’ll find it doesn’t and what’s with the attitude?

 

[mattg4321]

"except for single dwelling units where the total value of the installation and equipment therein doesn’t justify such protection"

It depends how you read this.

1. If you read it as a blunt statement of fact - it can be read to mean single dwelling units don't need an SPD fitted as the total value of installation and equipment doesn't justify it.

This interpretation is backed up by the fact a risk assessment isn't even required to omit an SPD.


2. If you read it as a question. If this is the case it's poorly/wrongly worded. Perhaps it should read

"except for single dwelling units, but only where the total value of the installation and equipment therein doesn’t justify such protection"



My take on it is number 1. SPD not required. Either way there are no guidelines as to what justifies fitting one. Sure you can ask the customer, but they are normally clueless about SPD and usually want to save the money in my experience (the old "I've never had a problem before"). I very rarely end up fitting SPD's in domestic currently in light of the above.

It should be just made mandatory now in my opinion. They're not that expensive so lets just save all the confusion.

 

[mattg4321]

If anyone is going to dislike my above post, you should probably provide an explanation. Willing to listen to an alternative viewpoint. I believe I’ve just summarised the situation with facts.

 

[Vortigern]

I think we should also ban people cooking as by far and away it is the main source of fires and fatalities i the UK re electrical fires. Just can't trust 'em Nanny, pass a law banning cooking and all cooking appliances. In fact don't even let people have electric it is far too dangerous.

 

[AJshep]

IMO the statement about SPDs in the regs could be clearer.

"except for single dwelling units where the total value of the installation and equipment therein doesn’t justify such protection"

How do you justify that?
A small SPD CU can be purchased for around £50, a more expensive Wylex main Isolator with SPD can be purchased from TLC for £140 labour costs for a mornings work is approx £150, So if you work on the generous sum of £300- £ 400 installed and fitted then anyone with a smart phone, washing machine, fridges, freezers, TV, PC, Boiler should have SPDs installed.

 

[radiohead]

I think the argument here is really only about how it's worded.
The fact is that Bs7671 allows the decision over whether to install an SPD in a dwelling to be made by the installer.
Therefore an SPD in a dwelling cannot possibly be deemed to be required.
Whether the term 'recommended' is appropriate is debatable, but I read it that Bs7671 says they should be installed unless they cannot be justified on cost grounds, which can be interpreted as 'recommended'!
I await my dislike with keen anticipation.

 

[Ian1981]

Bs7671 uses the terms ‘consideration’ , ‘recommended’ and ‘shall’ throughout the regulations for determining if things are required, recommended is used as in for an AFDD in chapter 42, I cannot see where it says recommended or considered ,either of these terms for installing SPD’s for domestic dwellings it simply says not required where the cost therin etc etc.
so how Does that interpretate As recommended?
You install them if required or you don’t.
You are the designer of the installation, it’s surely your call to make?

It’s also worth baring in mind that they are required in a domestic installation if one the 4 indents in regulation 443.3 is relevant ie indent number 1 if say medical equipment is being used by the homeowner.

 

[mattg4321]

What about in an unoccupied property though?

It might be occupied later by an old lady with no electronic equipment. On the other hand it might be occupied by an IT/AV enthusiast with expensive equipment.

This particular regulation is a joke. If I don’t fit an SPD, nobody can tell me i ‘should have fitted an SPD’ because it’s so open to interpretation. Asking the customer is a bit of a joke too. Cop out on behalf of IET/scams who are suggesting this as they cocked up the wording.

Like I said before it should be changed. Make it mandatory for all new consumer units. Or make it clearly optional the same as AFDD’s are or ‘all RCBO’ boards

 

[Ian1981]

We as a company do not give the customer an option, we simply fit it.
It’s hardly a massive price increase.

 

[mattg4321]

Nothing wrong with that.

Doesn’t mean there is a requirement to fit them though. You don’t need to ask the customer. You don’t need to do a risk assessment.

Similar situation to RCBO vs dual RCD.

Interesting that the wholesalers I use say that they still sell far more non SPD boards than ones with SPD fitted.

 

[richy3333]

We as a company do not give the customer an option, we simply fit it.
It’s hardly a massive price increase.

We're the same. Never had a customer quibble or argue about it. We explain what they are for and they're always happy to have it fitted. With the budget brands like Fusebox and SPD used to be something like £30.00 trade.