EICR QUESTION?

[ebee]

Murdochcat said:
As it’s over 20 years since RCD protection entered the regs, I think a C2 in this case is justified.

NOTHING to do with how long ago it was/was not allowed. That is irrelevant. It is effectively how actually serious is the issue?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Where to start?

years ago we were given the scenario of a dog knocking over a standard lamp which smashes onto a radiator, in the room where this has occurred there is no real problem, as occupants can see what has happened, however in other rooms unless bonded the radiators could become live.

That is not the purpose of bonding but it would only do that IF they were not earthed but bonded unnecessarily.

Parts only require bonding because they are earthed so the bonding makes no difference in such a situation (standard lamp falling).

It is the ability of the pipe work to transmit to fault into other rooms which was considered as a major problem,

No it isn't.

The problem would be if they were all bonded unnecessarily but not earthed when the fault (standard lamp falling) would not cause automatic disconnection of supply.

and we did go rather OTT at one point wanting metal window frames to be bonded.

That was because of ignorance and misreading the regulations regarding bonding which were then the same as they are now.

 

[ericmark]

Murdochcat said:
As it’s over 20 years since RCD protection entered the regs, I think a C2 in this case is justified.

NOTHING to do with how long ago it was/was not allowed. That is irrelevant. It is effectively how actually serious is the issue?

I totally agree today all should be RCD protected, but as to C3 or C2 that is another question. May be better with another thread, I remember going into the control room of a lifting bridge and there were still open knife switches, which were allowed when the bridge was built, but are extremely dangerous. Today it would be a code C1, so there is a case for saying even if allowed when built and nothing has changed lack of RCD should not be permitted.

However September last year solar panels fitted to my house, with an UPS included, and as a result the central heating is no longer RCD protected and I have a compliance certificate for that job. Not plug and socket, it's a FCU but still today circuits without RCD protection it seems comply. This summer I will look to change this.

Seem to remember BS 7671:2001 required RCD protection for sockets likely to be used outside, but it was not until BS 7671:2008 that all sockets needed RCD protection so not quite 20 years.

However if one does work, and on omits to inform the person in charge of the building of any danger, could simply be an oil spill. Then if there is an accident one could be taken to court by the HSE. Any health and safety issue must be in writing, phone call is not enough, it could be email, SMS, or note, but has to be in writing. However not seen any time scale as to how fast it must be done. But would expect the courts would consider it should be same day.

Personally if I found C1 or C2 items I would want to inform before I had got around to writing out the full report.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Seem to remember BS 7671:2001 required RCD protection for sockets likely to be used outside, but it was not until BS 7671:2008 that all sockets needed RCD protection so not quite 20 years.

Good point. Just rule changes; nothing happened to the physics.

So after 2001 outdoor sockets without RCD 'protection' (RCDs are for protection of people; not sockets) became 'potentially dangerous' then after 2008 all sockets without RCD 'protection' became 'potentially dangerous.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I totally agree today all should be RCD protected, but as to C3 or C2 that is another question. May be better with another thread, I remember going into the control room of a lifting bridge and there were still open knife switches, which were allowed when the bridge was built, but are extremely dangerous. Today it would be a code C1, so there is a case for saying even if allowed when built and nothing has changed lack of RCD should not be permitted.

I've seen lots of them, during my working life - the danger was obvious, so you just took extra care around them. Last time, was inside a large city centre sub-station in Scarborough, around 10 years ago, investigating a loss of a phase.

Once, cars had no safety crumple zones, or seat belts - we took more care to avoid accidents. The safer you make an environment, the more dangerous and the more risks the fools become.

 

[ericmark]

Good point. Just rule changes; nothing happened to the physics.

So after 2001 outdoor sockets without RCD 'protection' (RCDs are for protection of people; not sockets) became 'potentially dangerous' then after 2008 all sockets without RCD 'protection' became 'potentially dangerous.

But when we read BS 7671 from the start we arrive at

BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations was issued on 1st January 2008 and is intended to come into effect on 1st July 2008. Installations designed after 30st June 2008 are to comply with BS 7671:2008.

so we can stop reading there for items designed before the date, and refer to previous edition.

Point is even if the law says BS 7671:2018 the book then refers us back to the edition in force when the installation was designed.

The problem is where there has been a change to the design, for example light fittings designed to have tungsten lamps being now fitted with LED lamps. I read a copy of the instructions for a Bosch boiler which stipulated the use of type A RCD's. Now I don't know about you, but I don't have copies of all shower, boiler, cooker instructions books, so could not know if the manufacturer has stipulated the use of a RCD.

 

[ebee]

BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations was issued on 1st January 2008 and is intended to come into effect on 1st July 2008. Installations designed after 30st June 2008 are to comply with BS 7671:2008.

Yes but that does not infer that we disregard installs that complied with past editions when we IECR/PIR . We compare it to regulations current on the day of testing not some edition in antiquity, safe or unsafe is a judgement call on safety as it is understood today.
Two houses next door to each other and occupied by a family with 2.4 children , being exactly the same today but one was designed yesterday and the other designed 20 years ago would get the same coding for any defects. One can not be anymore satisfactory or safe because it was designed when such defects were permitted at the time.

 

[ericmark]

Two houses next door to each other and occupied by a family with 2.4 children , being exactly the same today but one was designed yesterday and the other designed 20 years ago would get the same coding for any defects. One can not be anymore satisfactory or safe because it was designed when such defects were permitted at the time.

Agreed this is why code 4 was dropped. Codes starting with C show the new coding system is in use, and it really has nothing to do with BS 7671 it is all to do with danger or potential danger. Although of course we use BS 7671 to help us decide what is dangerous.

 

[ebee]

Yes. I think why the old coding was dropped is because many had a mindset that the old codes 1 were viewed as immediate attention whereas 2 sooner or later which resulted in just the code 1s being important and the code 2s being left forever in practice, which was totally the wrong attitude. I know that me and a pal it used to drive us bonkers having arguments with housing associations and landlords and “we can’t afford to rectify the code 2s yet!” Stance