C2 on EICR due to RCD Protection

[gisvpn]

Hi everyone,

I had an EICR certificate done recently and it came back with a C2 for RDC protection on the freezer socket (as below). A picture of the consumer unit is also below. The question I had is what do I need to do to fix it, what is the easiest solution? Does this require the circuit breaker to be switched out with an RDC - can be this done here? Can you use a pluggable RDC unit instead of changing the consumer unit, would that be compliant?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

 

[loz2754]

There are different ways of providing RCD protection for the freezer socket. Perhaps the simplest and cheapest would be to take the cable out of the MCB and wire it into the ground floor sockets MCB as a spur at the origin of the circuit (which is RCD protected).

Another way would be, as you say, to replace the freezer MCB with an RCBO (which combines the functions of the MCB with an RCD), which should be available for this type and make of consumer unit.

The absolute best way for many reasons would be to change the whole consumer unit for one that contains an RCBO for each individual circuit, though this works out quite a lot more dosh.

Whichever of these methods, or any other, is chosen, the work should only be done by an electrician as there are safety implications involved, such as testing the RCDs etc.

Some may argue that the C2 for a fridge socket should only be a C3, improvement recommended.

 

[telectrix]

C2 is ridiculous.

 

[bill01803]

It is only a C3
Edit
unless it is right by a door and could be used for outside use

 

[Julie.]

Replace the socket outlet with a fcu with direct connection to the freezer.

Not quite in the spirit of the requirements, but that would comply.

 

[littlespark]

Perhaps the simplest and cheapest would be to take the cable out of the MCB and wire it into the ground floor sockets MCB as a spur at the origin of the circuit (which is RCD protected).

Not forgetting to move the neutral into the separate neutral bar, also connected to rcd.

And the earth wire too. Make sure they’re all in matching terminal numbers.


Why would note 2 only attract a C3 when note 4 is C2? The problem is still no RCD when there should be one. C3 for both.

 

[gisvpn]

thanks for everyones posts, appreciate it

 

[brianmoooore]

Late to the party, but DEFINITELY a C3.
If you want to change it, it should be a simple job to move the RCD to 8 and 9, and slip the freezer MCB in at 10.
I wouldn't recommend a freezer on its own RCD (or use a RCBO) because the first you'll know that it's tripped is when you discover that everything is thawed. Share with the telly, and you'll know in time.
Does your cooker isolator in the kitchen have 13A socket built into it?

 

[LewisM]

Personally I think it's a C3 however you could change the freezer socket to a RCD socket might need a spacer or two as RCD sockets are quite deep

 

[Grey Master]

C3 all day long. If not then C2 for plastic board, C2 for all the other circuits not "RDC" protected.....
Installations under previous versions of the regs bla bla bla

 

[Lister1987]

Personally I think it's a C3 however you could change the freezer socket to a RCD socket might need a spacer or two as RCD sockets are quite deep

Wouldnt comply surely? SRCDs to BS7288 don't comply with additional protection requirements due to internal clearances.

 

[GBDamo]

Wouldnt comply surely? SRCDs to BS7288 don't comply with additional protection requirements due to internal clearances.

I think the general consensus, the last 300 times we did this, was that the omission of BS7288 was an omission to be amended at the next amendment.

But I'm all for 301 if anyone fancies it?

 

[loz2754]

Wouldnt comply surely? SRCDs to BS7288 don't comply with additional protection requirements due to internal clearances.

Really? What is your source for this?
What about this clip from Connections magazine from Autumn 2019?

 

[brianmoooore]

Really? What is your source for this?
What about this clip from Connections magazine from Autumn 2019?

That confirms what the previous poster said. It does not comply with the current regs.,
But it was a mistake, that will be corrected in time, but do it anyway and record it as non compliance.

 

[Lister1987]

I think the general consensus, the last 300 times we did this, was that the omission of BS7288 was an omission to be amended at the next amendment.

But I'm all for 301 if anyone fancies it?

I'll take 301 ?

The IET did have the following publicised

Are S-RCDs and FCU-RCDs (to BS 7288) recognised for additional protection in BS 7671?
RCDs to BS 7288 are not recognised for use as an RCD by BS 7671:2018. See Regulation Group 531.3.4.

Clause 1 of BS 7288:2016 states “SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD.”

Further, Clause 0 of BS 7288:2018 states the devices are only suitable for additional protection against direct contact, and therefore cannot provide fault protection (e.g. where disconnection times cannot be met in a circuit), nor would they be recognised for additional protection against fire due to short circuits in appliances or flexible cables connected to the socket-outlet or connection unit.

However, there is nothing to stop accessories containing SRCDs to BS 7288 being fitted in electrical installations complying with BS 7671, as they comply with the relevant standards, although as stated the RCDs within them cannot be recognised for the functions of fault protection or additional protection for the purses of BS 7671.

Source; https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/faqs/qa-from-rcds-selection-types-and-testing-webinar/

 

[loz2754]

I'll take 301 ?

The IET did have the following publicised


Source; https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/faqs/qa-from-rcds-selection-types-and-testing-webinar/

Interesting. So it would seem Connections may have got it wrong.
I must admit I had wondered why, if it was a mistaken omission, that it wasn't corrected in the corrigendum.
So in light of this, there would seem to be little point in using such devices, as there would have to be additional protection upstream anyway.
And yet they're still being manufactured and sold.

Me no understand!

 

[GBDamo]

I'll take 301 ?

The IET did have the following publicised


Source; https://electrical.------.org/bs-7671/faqs/qa-from-rcds-selection-types-and-testing-webinar/

Well, it would appear 301 is on.

That statement is expectedly wooly however. It explcitly rules out additional protection against fire and also fault protection but not against additional protection against electric shock, if I'm correct in translating "direct contact" to mean electric shock.

I'd take from that they are ok to meet the requirements of additional protection against electric shock.

 

[old man sparky]

This is NOT a C2. The Zs to the socket is what's important, and it probably complies with disconnection times anyway. Original installers Common sense has prevailed here, the clue is in FREEZER socket. Providing adequate earthing is in place a code 3 for an rcd socket install maybe ?? but that's about it. Trouble is, its his call because he has signed the report.