Code 4, that should have been a 2.

[pushrod]

Have only skimmed through this thread, but does anyone know if supplementary bonding was actually required did the 2nd PIR test between simultaneous accessible exposed and extraneous conductors and prove it was needed?

edit : if i hadn't paused to check the reg no 415.2.2 i would have got in before you Sintra lol

 

[IQ Electrical]

Have only skimmed through this thread, but does anyone know if supplementary bonding was actually required did the 2nd PIR test between simultaneous accessible exposed and extraneous conductors and prove it was needed?

edit : if i hadn't paused to check the reg no 415.2.2 i would have got in before you Sintra lol

This is what the 'competency' term is all about, 20 posts before the criteria for supplementary bonding is mentioned!

From experience, I'd bet that readings will be acceptable and the lack of RCD protection to the shower will be a code 4.

 

[Chr!s]

Id suspect it would also contravene of 134.1.1, which was a requirement of this and previous editions.