Was RCD protection required for cables <50mm in 2007? | Page 2 | on ElectriciansForums

Discuss Was RCD protection required for cables <50mm in 2007? in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

HappyHippyDad

-
Esteemed
Arms
Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
5,295
Reaction score
6,535
Location
Gloucestershire
Hello all..

I have just completed an EICR.
One item that I am unsure about is requirements for RCD protection prior to the 17th.
The consumer unit has RCD protection for sockets but not the lights or cooker. New work was carried out in 2006/7 which included lights/extractor fan in the new bathroom and also cables chased into walls <50mm for the cooker circuit. Should this have been RCD protected under the 16th?

Cheers.
 
I would say that you are assessing for safety of continued operation, the guide to this safety is the current edition of the wiring regulations.
However if you assess something that has red and black cables the mere colour of them (which does not meet current regulations) would not be a significant risk and so would not be coded.
If you consider that a plastic CU would present a risk then that may be coded to a level that you consider appropriate to the situation.
 
I would say that you are assessing for safety of continued operation, the guide to this safety is the current edition of the wiring regulations.
However if you assess something that has red and black cables the mere colour of them (which does not meet current regulations) would not be a significant risk and so would not be coded.
If you consider that a plastic CU would present a risk then that may be coded to a level that you consider appropriate to the situation.
When you think about it, the situation of plastic CU's only came about when fuse carriers were replaced by circuit breakers. No high ranking electrical knob had the slightest idea what was going to happen there, did they?

The situation regarding circuit protection should take into account the state of the existing installation. No sign of any danger and been in place for ages, discounting other factors, where's the problem? Attention advised. C3.
 
Can I make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that as soon as the regs change, then if you carry out an EICR then the codes would be related to the current regulations?

For example, 4.4 on the EICR schedule of inspections relates to fire rating of the CU. Nearly all CU's (because they are plastic) will not meet this regulation so will need to be coded accordingly.

In addition, I guess red/black cable could be classed as not being identified correctly so would need to be coded under 5.1 of the schedule of inspections.

There would be many, many more examples. I'm not sure if this is the point you are trying to get across as you are usually right but in this case it seems you are suggesting older properties which met the regulations at the time will be coded if they do not meet current regulations?

Yes you inspect and code to the current regulations.
As you already know you only make observations about, and code accordingly, safety related items.

Old colour wiring is not immediately dangerous, is not potentially dangerous, does not attract any recommendation for improvement nor require further investigation therefore no observation is made or code applied.

Yes I am saying that any installation which was installed to previous regulations will have observations made and codes applied to any safety related non-compliance.

The regulations are changed to improve safety and some of the reasons for carrying out an eicr is to ensure its continued safety for use, highlight improvements which could be made in light of advances in technology and regulations and to help bring older installations up to current standards.

Yes this can seem a little over the top in domestic installations, but domestic installations are only a small part of the broad scope of bs7671.
 
Can I make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that as soon as the regs change, then if you carry out an EICR then the codes would be related to the current regulations?

For example, 4.4 on the EICR schedule of inspections relates to fire rating of the CU. Nearly all CU's (because they are plastic) will not meet this regulation so will need to be coded accordingly.

In addition, I guess red/black cable could be classed as not being identified correctly so would need to be coded under 5.1 of the schedule of inspections.

There would be many, many more examples. I'm not sure if this is the point you are trying to get across as you are usually right but in this case it seems you are suggesting older properties which met the regulations at the time will be coded if they do not meet current regulations?

Yes you inspect and code to the current regulations.
As you already know you only make observations about, and code accordingly, safety related items.

Old colour wiring is not immediately dangerous, is not potentially dangerous, does not attract any recommendation for improvement nor require further investigation therefore no observation is made or code applied.

Yes I am saying that any installation which was installed to previous regulations will have observations made and codes applied to any safety related non-compliance.

The regulations are changed to improve safety and some of the reasons for carrying out an eicr is to ensure its continued safety for use, highlight improvements which could be made in light of advances in technology and regulations and to help bring older installations up to current standards.

Yes this can seem a little over the top in domestic installations, but domestic installations are only a small part of the broad scope of bs7671.
 
code appropriately to todays regs, C3 for cables <50mm in wall with no RCD, imo potentially a C2 for those bathroom bits depending which zone they fall in if any.

I'm just thumbing through a copy of "EICR codebreakers", hopefully to see that my old brains understanding is mostly in accord. All was going well until page 38, 5.12.3, I had a jolt:

"No RCD protection PVC/PVC cables in walls : C2"

Also page 37 522.6.202-204 - less than 50mm, no RCD, : C2

This goes completely against my understanding that the regs and reporting are not retro-active (aside from a few specific areas such as RCD protection for bathrooms/exterior accessible sockets,) that older installations not meeting current spec is always C3? The only time you'd C2 it would be if the work were recent enough for it to be a requirement?
 
Last edited:
I'm just thumbing through a copy of "EICR codebreakers", hopefully to see that my old brains understanding is mostly in accord. All was going well until page 38, 5.12.3, I had a jolt:

"No RCD protection PVC/PVC cables in walls : C2"

Also page 37 522.6.202-204 - less than 50mm, no RCD, : C2

This goes completely against my understanding that the regs and reporting are not retro-active (aside from a few specific areas such as RCD protection for bathrooms/exterior accessible sockets,) that older installations not meeting current spec is always C3? The only time you'd C2 it would be if the work were recent enough for it to be a requirement?
Codebreakers is rubbish, ignore it.
You as the inspector need to judge the potential danger. A switch drop directly above a point hardly warrents a code 2, but I would consider 25mm tails buried, unprotected and unexpected to be potentially dangerous and may apply a code 2. In nearly all cases lack of RCD protection to a buried cable installed in a safe zone is only going to get a code 3. Always bear in mind when coding that it is very hard to justify to a client that their installation freshly wired and compliant just a few years ago is now potentially dangerous.
Whether the work is recent has no bearing on the safety and code applied.
 
Codebreakers is rubbish, ignore it.
You as the inspector need to judge the potential danger. A switch drop directly above a point hardly warrents a code 2, but I would consider 25mm tails buried, unprotected and unexpected to be potentially dangerous and may apply a code 2. In nearly all cases lack of RCD protection to a buried cable installed in a safe zone is only going to get a code 3. Always bear in mind when coding that it is very hard to justify to a client that their installation freshly wired and compliant just a few years ago is now potentially dangerous.
Whether the work is recent has no bearing on the safety and code applied.
yes, you are correct, thinking about it I'd never C2 it unless out of zone, although on a newer install that requires it theres more scope at least.

TBF theres a few things I take umbridge with in the codebreakers - no downlight fire hood C2? exposed insulation at downlight connectors C2? maybe I'll chuck it back at the wholesalers! Thought I was doing the right thing as I've had a right somewhat of an nic inspector the last few years who seems to go out of his way to snag my certs.
 
yes, you are correct, thinking about it I'd never C2 it unless out of zone, although on a newer install that requires it theres more scope at least.

TBF theres a few things I take umbridge with in the codebreakers - no downlight fire hood C2? exposed insulation at downlight connectors C2? maybe I'll chuck it back at the wholesalers! Thought I was doing the right thing as I've had a right somewhat of an nic inspector the last few years who seems to go out of his way to snag my certs.
I think your NICEIC guy may just want to discuss your coding in order to make sure you can reasonably justify whatever the code is with technical reasoning.
 
exposed insulation at downlight connectors C2?
What issue do you have with this? The sheath is there to provide mechanical protection to the cable, and therefore to protect the insulation against mechanical insult. If the sheath has been removed at that point outside of an enclosure then essentially there is no mechanical protection at that point. To me that would justify a C2 observation.
 
This goes completely against my understanding that the regs and reporting are not retro-active (aside from a few specific areas such as RCD protection for bathrooms/exterior accessible sockets,) that older installations not meeting current spec is always C3? The only time you'd C2 it would be if the work were recent enough for it to be a requirement?

As I said earlier in this thread you carry out an EICR acvo4idng to the current regulations, you do not make exceptions based on the date of installation or the regulations in effect at the time of installation.

You cannot just give a C3 to anything that complied at the time of installation, you'd be giving fused neutrals and green coloured live conductors a C3 if that was the case!

The regulations state that compliance with a previous version of the regulations does not necessarily mean something is unsafe.
The key point is that it says 'not necessarily', this means that it may be unsafe Or it may not be unsafe, further consideration is required to reach a decision.
 
I think the bathroom lights should have been rcd protected under 16th edition
No requirement under the 16th Edition. Just socket-outlets which might reasonably be used to supply portable equipment outdoors, although many did it for all socket-outlets and electric showers too. (Likely to have stipulated RCD protection in the electric shower manufacturer's instructions.)

Typically a split load DB was used with non-RCD protected ways and RCD protected ways. RCBOs certainly weren't really a thing (and were hugely expensive).

EDIT: That's embarassing - I see I already answered this post a number of years ago!
 
What issue do you have with this? The sheath is there to provide mechanical protection to the cable, and therefore to protect the insulation against mechanical insult. If the sheath has been removed at that point outside of an enclosure then essentially there is no mechanical protection at that point. To me that would justify a C2 observation.
Best practice guide 4 suggests a C3 for this, assuming the unsheathed cores are not accessible to touch, or likely to come into contact wit metalwork
 
Best practice guide 4 suggests a C3 for this, assuming the unsheathed cores are not accessible to touch, or likely to come into contact wit metalwork
Agreed, a typical downlight will have connections not exposed to touch. C3.
Many GU10 downlights have basic insulation only on the lampholder wires, exposed to touch when changing the lamp
 

Reply to Was RCD protection required for cables <50mm in 2007? in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

News and Offers from Sponsors

  • Article
Join us at electronica 2024 in Munich! Since 1964, electronica has been the premier event for technology enthusiasts and industry professionals...
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
380
  • Sticky
  • Article
Good to know thanks, one can never have enough places to source parts from!
Replies
4
Views
956
  • Article
OFFICIAL SPONSORS These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then...
Replies
0
Views
1K

Similar threads

  • Question
That was my saying not long ago about TNS to PME system. I would be nice you can ring up the DNO, will the systems being up graded, there is a...
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Question
This charger doesn't support rear entry from the looks, only bottom entry, hence that. Unless they make a white sheathed SWA, I would still need...
Replies
8
Views
1K

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

YOUR Unread Posts

This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top