C2 code for no RCDs?

[DavidL]

I have recently had an EICR on my tenanted 1st floor purpose-built flat, built in 1995. I have received C2 codes for lack of RCD as follows:
5.14 No RCD for additional protection
6.18(a) No RCD for socket-outlets
6.18(b) No RCD for supplies for mobile equipment for use outdoors (this is a 1st floor flat, when would you plug anything in for use outdoors?)
6.18(c) No RCD for cables concealed in walls at less than 50mm deep (electrician has commented that he can't check so has assumed worse case scenario)
6.18(d) No RCD for cables concealed in walls containing metal parts (again the same comment about worse case scenario)
6.18(e) No RCD for circuits supplying luminaries.

Does this really make the installation potentially dangerous, or are these suggested improvement (C3)?

 

[bill01803]

"I think the one for use outside is justified as a C2 as many would run an extension lead upstairs to hoover their car I would put the rest as a C3.
Is there supplementary bonding in the bathroom?

 

[timhoward]

In very general terms if there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom (should say on report) and no sockets for use outdoors then according to "best practise guide 4" (free online, google it) missing RCD on the items listed will attract C3's not C2's. It might be worth gently discussing BPG4 with your electrician.

That said, it's worth remembering that circuit breakers and older fuses are designed to protect wiring from catching fire, not protect people from electrocution. Having RCD protection is a good idea especially if renting out something.

If you post a picture of the consumer unit there might be a fairly simple way to remedy these things. I'd imagine it won't have many circuits if it's a flat.

 

[DavidL]

"I think the one for use outside is justified as a C2 as many would run an extension lead upstairs to hoover their car I would put the rest as a C3.
Is there supplementary bonding in the bathroom?

There is supplementary bonding in the bathroom.

 

[DavidL]

In very general terms if there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom (should say on report) and no sockets for use outdoors then according to "best practise guide 4" (free online, google it) missing RCD on the items listed will attract C3's not C2's. It might be worth gently discussing BPG4 with your electrician.

That said, it's worth remembering that circuit breakers and older fuses are designed to protect wiring from catching fire, not protect people from electrocution. Having RCD protection is a good idea especially if renting out something.

If you post a picture of the consumer unit there might be a fairly simple way to remedy these things. I'd imagine it won't have many circuits if it's a flat.

 

[DavidL]

View attachment 85231

The 4 circuits on the left are Economy 7 heating circuits.

 

[timhoward]

That's a bit more complex than I was anticipating if I'm honest, and I can't quickly identify the brand from the photo? Are they fuse carriers on the right too?

 

[bill01803]

It is MEM
I would suggest that if you had a RCD socket nearest to the exit that would meet the requirements for outside use, I would then find it hard to give any C2.

 

[MJPD29]

That's a bit more complex than I was anticipating if I'm honest, and I can't quickly identify the brand from the photo? Are they fuse carriers on the right too?

Looks like MEM. If following napit codebreakers, then C2 is perfectly justified for everything that has been written there. It all comes down to who is doing the EICR but the C2s stated are perfectly justified as C2. Maybe I wouldn't have given them a C2, but the tester is well within his rights to do so.

 

[timhoward]

Looks like MEM. If following napit codebreakers, then C2 is perfectly justified for everything that has been written there. It all comes down to who is doing the EICR but the C2s stated are perfectly justified as C2. Maybe I wouldn't have given them a C2, but the tester is well within his rights to do so.

Agree totally - I actually reworded what I typed before I posted to be less absolute about it, and my original opening asked about which scheme the tester was in, then thought I wouldn't go there.

It is MEM
I would suggest that if you had a RCD socket nearest to the exit that would meet the requirements for outside use, I would then find it hard to give any C2.

The thing is unless it is tested again he has a report that has given them C2's that requires remedial work.

My thought was that as he has two supplies and two main switches I'd wondered about swapping the RH main switch with the correct manufacturers 100A 30ma RCD, thus giving all the circuits mentioned RCD protection. I know we'd ideally try and avoid everything on one RCD these days but there are plenty of TT installations out there that cope fine. In this situation it might be the quickest and most cost effective way of addressing the issues?

 

[MJPD29]

Agree totally - I actually reworded what I typed before I posted to be less absolute about it, and my original opening asked about which scheme the tester was in, then thought I wouldn't go there.

The thing is unless it is tested again he has a report that has given them C2's that requires remedial work.

My thought was that as he has two supplies and two main switches I'd wondered about swapping the RH main switch with the correct manufacturers 100A 30ma RCD, thus giving all the circuits mentioned RCD protection. I know we'd ideally try and avoid everything on one RCD these days but there are plenty of TT installations out there that cope fine. In this situation it might be the quickest and most cost effective way of addressing the issues?

Apologies I didn't mean the whole reply to you, only the MEM part was directed to you. The rest I had meant for the OP.

 

[DavidL]

That's a bit more complex than I was anticipating if I'm honest, and I can't quickly identify the brand from the photo? Are they fuse carriers on the right too?

MCBs on right

 

[telectrix]

I have recently had an EICR on my tenanted 1st floor purpose-built flat, built in 1995. I have received C2 codes for lack of RCD as follows:
5.14 No RCD for additional protection .
6.18(a) No RCD for socket-outlets.C3
6.18(b) No RCD for supplies for mobile equipment for use outdoors (this is a 1st floor flat, when would you plug anything in for use outdoors?) C2 OR C3
6.18(c) No RCD for cables concealed in walls at less than 50mm deep (electrician has commented that he can't check so has assumed worse case scenario) C3
6.18(d) No RCD for cables concealed in walls containing metal parts (again the same comment about worse case scenario). C3 BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE METAL STUDDING IN THE WALLS
6.18(e) No RCD for circuits supplying luminaries. C3

Does this really make the installation potentially dangerous, or are these suggested improvement (C3)?

 

[timhoward]

These things are tricky. And most on here reading it would agree with the codings that @telectrix put up.
But what are the pragmatic options for the OP?
1 - ask tester to reconsider, politely point out BPG4 disagrees (though as pointed out NAPIT Codebreakers agrees with some of them). No obligation for tester to change anything and in reality no promising escalation path. Nothing to lose though.
2 - Get it re-tested, and take pot-luck again. Most people I know wouldn't code it that way. But this could cost £200+
3 - Roll over, and RCD protection the cheapest way - get another sparks to fit a £30 Eaton/MEM 30ma RCD main switch from Screwfix. bish-bash-bosh job done.
4 - Change the board - £400+

 

[DavidL]

These things are tricky. And most on here reading it would agree with the codings that @telectrix put up.
But what are the pragmatic options for the OP?
1 - ask tester to reconsider, politely point out BPG4 disagrees (though as pointed out NAPIT Codebreakers agrees with some of them). No obligation for tester to change anything and in reality no promising escalation path. Nothing to lose though.
2 - Get it re-tested, and take pot-luck again. Most people I know wouldn't code it that way. But this could cost £200+
3 - Roll over, and RCD protection the cheapest way - get another sparks to fit a £30 Eaton/MEM 30ma RCD main switch from Screwfix. bish-bash-bosh job done.
4 - Change the board - £400+

I have no problem with RCD protection. My issue is the need to correct C2s within 28 days and the high quote to change the whole board "urgently".
I'll take your advice about fitting an RCD main switch.

 

[westward10]

That board is obsolete so any new Memera/Eaton will not fit. The second hand market is the only place to obtain a Memera 2000 main rcd switch.

 

[Dartlec]

I have no problem with RCD protection. My issue is the need to correct C2s within 28 days and the high quote to change the whole board "urgently".
I'll take your advice about fitting an RCD main switch.

One of the biggest issues with the way the new law was introduced was the limit of 28 days on rectifying C2s. At a time when all electricians were going to be busy, let alone during a lock down, it always meant there would be limited chance to shop around or get many alternatives, so leaving some landlords pressured to have expensive or overpriced work that may or may not be necessary.

Some C2s should be corrected fairly urgently (bonding for example), but there are others where the installation is not unsafe (lack of RCDs for example), just that it isn't as safe as it could be and perhaps should be.

So it could have been made the discretion of the inspector to say that this should be changed within 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, etc. for each issue. Sure some rogue ones would put everything to a week to ensure they got the work, but they'd also risk getting a reputation and not getting any repeat work once the initial boom has died down.

I wonder whether NAPIT inspectors will start to be avoided by the canny landlords who realise that they are generally stricter than alternatives

There should have also been much better education in advance though - aimed at landlords particularly - and open about the fact that consumer units older than say 20 years old may need to be changed, with the requisite costs, to comply.