what code

[Risteard]

Well i disagree you are testing for continued safe use of the installation, so you would code lighting circuits with no rcd installed to 16th ed a c2.???

I never said that I considered that to be particularly dangerous. I just stated that it is not relevant whether something was ever compliant or not - what is relevant is whether it is satisfactory to remain in service. That isn't the same thing.

 

[yellowvanman]

Prior to the 17th Ed, installing showers without RCD protection didn't violate any regs.

Best Practise Guide states that:

Absence of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower where satisfactory supplementary bonding is present - C3.

C2 if unsatisfactory/no supplementary bonding

 

[bigspark17]

I never said that I considered that to be particularly dangerous. I just stated that it is not relevant whether something was ever compliant or not - what is relevant is whether it is satisfactory to remain in service. That isn't the same thing.

You are saying that you would c2 it.. If it was safe when it was installed and installation shows no signs of damage or poor readings and supp bond is still in place you canot c2 it.. I would c3 it purely to show to client that a recommendation for improvement is there but current install isnt deemed undafe!

 

[Flanders]

As the regs go i Agree with yellow van man , but i always would prefer to have rcd protection on a shower and would recomend to the customer to have one fitted or in this case upgrade the cu so that sockets are rcd prorected , as i say recommended only and give a satisfactory report if everying thing else complies

 

[Risteard]

You are saying that you would c2 it..

No I most certainly did not. Where did I state that I would code non-RCD protected lighting circuits C2?

If it was safe when it was installed and installation shows no signs of damage or poor readings and supp bond is still in place you canot c2 it..

The point is that compliant with the Wiring Regulations when it was installed and safe when it was installed are different things. Something may have been permitted but may not be safe.

So whether it was allowed at the time is completely irrelevant.

Nowhere did I suggest that this means that everything which is non-compliant is inherently dangerous. That is why the Inspector must exercise judgement.

I do not consider a non-RCD protected electric shower to be satisfactory.

 

[bigspark17]

Quote-I do not consider a non-RCD protected electric shower to be satisfactory.

so even if you get satisfactory test results you would still c2 it.? Im affraid your not giving accurate eicr report then!

 

[Risteard]

Quote-I do not consider a non-RCD protected electric shower to be satisfactory.

so even if you get satisfactory test results you would still c2 it.? Im affraid your not giving accurate eicr report then!

I am giving an accurate report because I do not consider it to be safe.

What do you mean "satisfactory test results"? What test results make a non-RCD protected electric shower satisfactory?

I am exercising judgement and stating that in my opinion it is unsatisfactory.

 

[bigspark17]

IR, r1+r2, zs, bonding continuity. Imo you cannot give a c2 on your judgement without a direct contradiction to reg no. That means inacurate report.

 

[HandySparks]

I really don't see the relevance as to whether or not it was ever compliant.

Totally agree.

For example, an installation with no RCD protection to an upstairs socket circuit should receive the same coding on an EICR (C3 in my opinion), whether it was installed this year or 20 years ago.
The fact that the recent one didn't conform to the regs when installed doesn't make it any more unsafe than the 20 year old one.

This is an EICR we're discussing, not an EIC.

 

[Risteard]

IR, r1+r2, zs, bonding continuity. Imo you cannot give a c2 on your judgement without a direct contradiction to reg no. That means inacurate report.

It does contravene a Regulation though.

 

[Risteard]

Totally agree.

For example, an installation with no RCD protection to an upstairs socket circuit should receive the same coding on an EICR (C3 in my opinion), whether it was installed this year or 20 years ago.
The fact that the recent one didn't conform to the regs when installed doesn't make it any more unsafe than the 20 year old one.

This is an EICR we're discussing, not an EIC.

Absolutely! I don't understand why some people appear to have difficulty understanding this.

 

[bigspark17]

You cannot fail a eicr on a c3. Giving a c2 is a fail to installation, you cannot give c2 code on personal preference if circuit test result all check out.

 

[richy3333]

Absolutely! I don't understand why some people appear to have difficulty understanding this.

I agree with you. I too don't understand why some people fail grasp the situation.

 

[Risteard]

You cannot fail a eicr on a c3. Giving a c2 is a fail to installation, you cannot give c2 code on personal preference if circuit test result all check out.

Inspection and testing is not just reliant on test results! In fact inspection is the more important aspect of it.

Incidentally, how would it pass the RCD tests if there is no RCD?

 

[bigspark17]

Inspection and testing is not just reliant on test results! In fact inspection is the more important aspect of it.

Incidentally, how would it pass the RCD tests if there is no RCD?

ok, how would you test rcd on lighting circuits on 16th edition db with cables less 50mm.?