Discuss Code 4, that should have been a 2. in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

B

baldsparkies

A lad, well not really he's 32, has made an error on a pir report thats got him bricking it.

He tested an existing install that had no rcd protection to the shower.
Where did he go wrong ?? well he gave it a code 4.
Trouble is there was no supplementary bonding either, sooo code 2.

His problem is he recorded a satisfactory on his report, obviously wrong, and due to the intervention for an unrelated incident by another contractor some months later, the error has been picked up.

I did say pir's are a minefield and you should always go down the cover your bottom road. point in proof I would say.

I did say at the end of the day its his assesment and opinion thats the bottom line. He will need to try to justify his code 4 which may not be easy. I saw the reports from both partys, and readings and observations were very much the same. The code 4 to 2 on the shower being the only issue.

I did notice the Zs was 0.38 ohms and protective device 32a 60898 type b. So effectively disconnection times would most certainly be acheived in the event of an earth fault.

I said, its not a good position to be in, but I have seen far far worse periodics than this in my time.
Just goes to show, you have to know your way around PIR's but didn't feel he should lose to much sleep on it, just learn by his mistake and don't let anyone pressure you into giving a satisfactory cus its your sig on the ticket.
What do you guys reckon.
 
Considering how the regs on bonding a bathroom have changed so many times over the last few editions of the regs I would bet that a code 4 for this scenario could be argued to be correct. You may have to go pre 15th Edition mind! ;)
 
Has anyone taken him to task yet, or are you 'heading this off at the pass'?

What approach, if any, has the original client made to this chap. Are you trying to help him formulate a reply before or after being approached?
If there's been some 'task taking', is it nasty or pleasant?
 
He shows genuine concern and has questioned his own ability. Remember that as far as the customer is concerned one report is showing satisfactory ie his. the other unsatisfactory. And all because of this one observation. To the layman its chalk and cheese. I did say that you would be very lucky if two periodics came up identical, I have often seen differences of opinions on codings. The sad fact is, that rcd's are only supplementary shock protection and they can fail. My own thoughts are if you have a good earth fault path, and clearly he does, as both pir's confirm this. then you could argue should a fault to the shower occur, the disconnection times would prevent a shock hazard. Thats not to say his decision was right, but its not has serious an issue as he is being led to believe. As said I have seen far far worse than this. But then, we all have.
Head off at the pass, or justification for his choice of coding. He's got it wrong but how wrong, and or how hard should he or anyone else come down on him. Maybe I'm being over sympathetic just know he's a good sparks and lets face it, we can all get it wrong sometimes.
Maybe I should introduce him to the forum, the advice and knowledge base is superb.

Has anyone taken him to task yet, or are you 'heading this off at the pass'?

What approach, if any, has the original client made to this chap. Are you trying to help him formulate a reply before or after being approached?
If there's been some 'task taking', is it nasty or pleasant?
 
Don't know what the worry is.
According to the ESC guide, it warrents no code at all!
So who's right the guy doing the PIR, the guy calling it into question or the ESC?
 
Are we talking 'grapevine' stuff here or has direct conversation with the client taken place? I'm trying to think about how to help him approach this situation, but need to know whats happened so far to formulate my thoughts.
 
No that's for lack of supplementary bonding.
There is nothing in the guide refering to lack of RCD protection for circuits of special locations.
 
Are we talking 'grapevine' stuff here or has direct conversation with the client taken place? I'm trying to think about how to help him approach this situation, but need to know whats happened so far to formulate my thoughts.

The client has been promted by the other guy to report him to his governing body because he said an instalation was satisfactory when it was unsatisfactory and therefore unsafe. My personel thoughts are, if I discovered the error I would have mentioned the difference of opinion but dont agree with slagging of another sparkie unless there is a genuine reason for concern, as said all other results and opinions are virtualy the same on both pir's. To answer your question PC, I am trying to justify his decision as best I can, and lighten up on what appears to be a heavy handed aproach to a difference of opinion. Akward I know but dont want the situation escalating on him if possible. trust me he is a good lad, doesn't deserve all this cus he is taking it to heart and has just lost his Mum. Not an excuse i know but I do feel for him.
 
According to the ESC:
Code 2 for the lack of supplementary bonding, if required.
Code 4 for lack of supplementary bonding to class II fittings and accessories.
No code for lack of RCD protection for circuits of special locations.
The ESC guides are refered to by as far as I'm aware, all the scheme providors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, our 'goodie' has had no approach from the client. The client prefered to go straight for the jugular no doubt egged on by the 'baddie'?

I was going to suggest that our goodie should approach the client and offer to redo his report and offer some "goodwill" in the form of ading RCBOs to shower and lights 'at cost' (ie labour free). Accepting his mistake quickly and being upfront with an apology and rectification would go a long way.
I firmly believe that it isn't making any mistakes that matters, but how you handle them when they do occur. Most complaints can be disarmed this way.

However, I would say that he now must let his schemes complaints procedure take its course. They should be left to deal with the client, since the client has seen fit to deal with them rather than doing what he should have done (which would have been to contact your mate first). Rather like letting the insurance companies deal with a car crash.

When he is contacted by his scheme, he should make out this is the first he's heard of this and then fess up his mistake. Point out he would have been happy to 'help' the client out had he been approached, but was not given the opportunity. he should read and digest the BPG and state he's been using this guidance for some time (but obviously since this PIR).
 
Having looked at the ESC perspective, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel for him.
I have always coded a shower without rcd protection a code 2 if no supplementary bonding is present and code 4 if it is.
Thats not to say i agree with this, I don't. It's just that i do agree with covering my bottie.
My honest opinion is for many years a good earth and earth return path have been the primary means of safely disconnecting a supply in the event of a fault current developing. That in my opinion is a far more important consideration than an rcd that could fail to operate anywhere, anytime. To much emphasis is being placed on rcd's since the 17th came in. If I was a braver man I would code 4 myself. But I'm after an easy cover myself life so sadly I code 2. My choice, but not my true thoughts.
 
i may be wrong here, but i would have given it a 4 as well.
 
Indeed, there is too much reliance on RCD's.

They are there as ADDITIONAL protection.

Exactly. And the very presence of the shower defines the location as 'special', requiring additional protection. That additional protection required by 7671 is SEB and RCD. Only if the other circuits of the location (and other conditions) have additional protection by RCD then the additional protectin by SEB may be omitted (in other words, everything within the location must have at least one item of additional protection)

In the OP, neither the location nor the shower specifically have any additional protection at all. So, code 2. if it were code 4 (not unsafe, like no sleeving on switch wires) then what is the point of the additional protection in the first place if not to make the location 'safe'?
 
Also note the governing bodies usally state in first instance of a complaint the issue should first be raised with contractor not with governing bodie. This is to try and resolve any issue without the gorverning bodie having to be involved?

So issue should be raised with the " Goodie" as you say before raising an issue with his governing bodie
 
Why is the "baddie" rechecking all of the stuff on the pir? Is the customer paying for 2 pir's within a few months of each other?
 
I take it that this second spark had actually measured continuity between different points in the location as supplementary bonding doesn't always need to be a visible g/y cable between pipes etc.
What I am getting at is a monoblock tap bonds the hot & cold pipes without the need for bonding clamps.
 

Reply to Code 4, that should have been a 2. in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock