Do socket outlets in a Pub need to be RCD/RCBO protected!

[davesparks]

It doesn't matter whether it excuses compliance with current Regulations.
The fact remains that the IET are never going to say that a situation which was deemed safe in previous editions is now unsafe. (The legal ramifications would be enormous.)

BS7671 requires us to make observation on non-compliances which may give rise to danger.
If the Regs. do not consider a non-compliance which complied at the time of construction to be unsafe, how can you then state the situation is potentially dangerous?

Well they have, there are many things which were once required by the regulations which are no longer compliant, fused neutrals being one example.

If the regs do not now consider an item which complied at the time to be unsafe now then it is not unsafe, however if the regulations do now consider it to be unsafe then it should be coded.

Fused neutrals complied with a previous edition.
Unfused supplies complied with a previous edition.
Bare conductors on cleats complied with a previous edition.
Green being used for L3 complied with a previous edition.
Open fronted switchgear complied with a previous edition.
Bare conductors encased in a wooden moulding complied with a previous edition.

The point is that if an item does not comply with current regulations and it is immediately dangerous then it is a C1
If an item does not comply with current regulations and is potentially dangerous it is a C2
If an item does not comply with current regulations and an improvement can be recommended for safety based on current regulations then it is a C3

 

[Risteard]

As for determining a code, that depends on when they were installed

No it doesn't. That would be ridiculous. When they were installed does not materially alter their safety now.

 

[freddo]

Bare conductors on cleats complied with a previous edition...
Bare conductors encased in a wooden moulding complied with a previous edition.

What editions permitted bare conductors on cleats and in wooden containment? Single insulated conductors yes, but bare conductors?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What editions permitted bare conductors on cleats and in wooden containment? Single insulated conductors yes, but bare conductors?

Bare conductors are allowed now, as is wooden containment.
Whether there is a prohibition against using both at the same time, I don't know?

 

[davesparks]

What editions permitted bare conductors on cleats and in wooden containment? Single insulated conductors yes, but bare conductors?

Off the top of my head I think it's in the 9th edition that I've seen it.
Just to clarify I'm talking about bare conductors on cleats which are not placed out of reach or behind barriers etc as is now required.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hmmm.
Says bare conductors on cleats which is still allowed.
Then says bare conductors encased in wooden mouldings.
As far as I am aware, wooden backed accessories and wooden containment are still allowed.
Not sure about the bare conductors encased in wooden mouldings?

 

[freddo]

Cool! Modern wiring is so boring.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Lol, you can purchase modern day wooden fronted accessories:
Classic 2 Gang 13Amp Switched Socket in Solid Oak [CXC06-2-OBK] - £15.99 - http://www.switchtowood.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=93&cPath=4&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4bTFoMKV1QIVpL_tCh1mmgDJEAQYASABEgKdyfD_BwE#googlebase

 

[Toneyz]

If an installation has been installed to a previous addition of BS7671 eg 15th/16th and still complies with that edition should not make the installation warrant a C1 (danger present .risk of injury immediate action required ) or C2 (potentially dangerous) the standard of additional safety of which electrical installations are installed to has changed/improved .Other regulations eg H & S acts may come into play and require RCD protection. I can't see what Part P has to do with a EICR however if I am correct it comes into play if certain work is undertaken when the domestic and business premises share the same meter.

for what reason

 

[davesparks]

Lol, you can purchase modern day wooden fronted accessories:
Classic 2 Gang 13Amp Switched Socket in Solid Oak [CXC06-2-OBK] - £15.99 - http://www.switchtowood.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=93&cPath=4&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4bTFoMKV1QIVpL_tCh1mmgDJEAQYASABEgKdyfD_BwE#googlebase

Great, but I don't quite see how that relates to the current topic?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well you're saying that all these things used to be allowed but are now not allowed, when in fact they are still allowed.
Makes me wonder whether you just ignore the Regulations and make up your own.
Not NICEIC are you?

 

[davesparks]

Well you're saying that all these things used to be allowed but are now not allowed, when in fact they are still allowed.
Makes me wonder whether you just ignore the Regulations and make up your own.
Not NICEIC are you?

Which things are still allowed which I have suggested are not?
Fused neutrals are no longer allowed.
Green as a live conductor is no longer allowed.
Open fronted switchgear is no longer allowed (unenclosed knife switches etc)

A wooden socket which has been manufactured to modern standards is a very different thing to the old method of installing bare conductors in wooden mouldings.

I admit I didn't specify that my reference to the installation of bare conductors on cleats was regarding the use of this method without it being out of reach or otherwise protected by barriers/obstacles.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well you said bare conductors are not allowed when they are.
Can't say I've ever come across bare conductors enclosed in wooden containment. Not sure whether it would be allowed today or not.

However the biggest problem here, is this weird idea that just because there has been a change in the Regulations, anything that is no longer allowed is suddenly dangerous.
This is despite the Regulations themselves telling us they're not, despite the Regulations telling us they don't need to be upgrade, despite the Regulations telling us that if we designed an installation before the change, we can still construct the installation to the design even though it's no longer allowed.

 

[davesparks]

However the biggest problem here, is this weird idea that just because there has been a change in the Regulations, anything that is no longer allowed is suddenly dangerous..

I have not said that a change in the regulations automatically makes something dangerous, what I have said is that compliance at the time of installation is irrelevant to the code applied. The code is based purely on the edition of the regulations to which the inspection is being carried out.
If it is immediately dangerous as per the current regulations then it is a C1.
If it is potentially dangerous as per the current regulations then it is a C2.
If a recommendation for improvement for safety can be made as per the current regulation should then it is a C3.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing if you apply a code C1 or C2 to a situation that was ok yesterday before the new edition came into force today.

If it was based on the edition in force at the time of inspection, then you would be taking note of the forword saying things that complied at the time of their construction are not necessarily unsafe.

 

[davesparks]

Well you said bare conductors are not allowed when they are.
Can't say I've ever come across bare conductors enclosed in wooden containment. Not sure whether it would be allowed today or not.
.

I said that bare conductors on cleats is no longer allowed, I admit that I wasn't specific enough in this statement and attempted to clarify that I am referring to the installation of bare conductors on porcelain cleats which are within reach of ordinary persons and do not have any barriers or obsracles preventing contact with them.
Yes bare conductors can still be used, but there are restrictions on their use.

I doubt that any of us here have come across bare conductors in wooden mouldings, and no it would not comply today in the form it was used historically. I've no doubt that a modern system could be created which does comply, but that is not the point as it would then have been designed and installed to the current edition of the regulations.

 

[Ian1981]

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing if you apply a code C1 or C2 to a situation that was ok yesterday before the new edition came into force today.

I'm not sure it's that drastic.
For instance when the 17th changes to the 18th I can't see anything now which will change to a C2, off the top of my head anyway.
Support for wiring systems in all areas as escape route by definition is getting scrapped may cause issues but apart fro that.........

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I wouldn't take much notice of the DPC.
In the past they've scrapped everything in the DPC and made other changes which were never consulted on.
I do wonder whether it's a consultation process or a smoke screen so they can put in what they like.

 

[freddo]

I was talking to an old workmate the other day on that subject, I bet the books are already printed and sat in a warehouse somewhere.

 

[davesparks]

Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing if you apply a code C1 or C2 to a situation that was ok yesterday before the new edition came into force today.

I would not be coding it because the regulations changed, I would be coding it because it is either dangerous or potentially dangerous.
I don't believe a single change of edition will ever introduce a regulation which creates a situation where a C1 or C2 could be applied to an item complying with a previous edition.

The closest things I can think of at the moment is the introduction of the requirement for all circuits in a bathroom to have RCD protection and the introduction of the requirement for RCD protection for certain cable sizes buried less than 50mm deep in a wall.
An installation which did not comply with these new regulations would receive a C3 for this, as was specified in the guidance for the person carrying out the EICR.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well people do apply code C2s for lack of RCD protection to sockets where there is no documented Risk Assessment.
There are also people who will apply a code C2 for lack of RCD protection for sockets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

 

[Rpa07]

I was talking to an old workmate the other day on that subject, I bet the books are already printed and sat in a warehouse somewhere.

. . . . . and are still not being proof read to prevent the obvious errors and mistakes!

 

[freddo]

Mistakes allow them to sell the corrections as an amendment!
Easy money!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I reported something that changed between the 16th and 17th editions.
Nothing much, just the introduction of a comma which now means we have to report dangerous conditions which may give rise to danger.
Never been sorted.

 

[Stspark]

I'd agree with your QS and manager.

On an ecir, C3 for non rcd protected sockets. Recommend improvement to the duty holder of the premise. They may already have a safe system to manage any risk if any, it's down to the duty holder to decide.

C2 for non rcd protected sockets mounted externally or directly next to an external door and could likely be used for external equipment.

Cables at less than 50mm are not a concern on an ecir. From gn3, cables concealed within trunking, conduit, under floors, in roof spaces and generally within the fabric of the building or underground are not inspected. (unless specifically agreed). It's not practical to remove all sockets, access roof spaces and disturb building fabric.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

Is this pub a one off or are your company involved with chain because your QS maybe maintaining continuity through the Reporting system.

We look after a number of pubs, restaurants

 

[littlespark]

Back to the pub... I have come across the OP question before. I had worked in a pub between jobs, and they had a company in doing the EICR for insurance. Their tester C2'd all the socket circuits saying that they needed to be RCD protected as they could be used for outside equipment...unless they were labelled for a specific equipment. ie... label a socket for bandit only, or jukebox only etc.
My boss used to get annoyed with customers plugging in their own phone chargers. Sometimes he would trip the breaker on purpose and blame them

 

[Toneyz]

Back to the pub... I have come across the OP question before. I had worked in a pub between jobs, and they had a company in doing the EICR for insurance. Their tester C2'd all the socket circuits saying that they needed to be RCD protected as they could be used for outside equipment...unless they were labelled for a specific equipment. ie... label a socket for bandit only, or jukebox only etc.
My boss used to get annoyed with customers plugging in their own phone chargers. Sometimes he would trip the breaker on purpose and blame them

Customers shouldn't be doing that.

 

[littlespark]

Customers shouldn't be doing that.

Of course they shouldn't.... but this lot wouldn't listen.

Pub pet hates:
Beer mats under the pool table when there's nothing wrong with it.
Customers telling the well trained staff how to pour a pint/what's wrong with the gas/how much change to give....

I could go on forever

 

[sparksburnout]

What are peoples thoughts on this, should socket outlets in the general public areas be RCD/RCBO protected? I believe they do and have put them down as a C2 on a recent EICR but recently got a phone call to say it's a C3!

I think that, given the nature of the environment, and the nature of a lot of the people in that environment, common sense would suggest, certainly as far as the landlord is concerned, that you are correct. Why on earth would you not fit them?

 

[Toneyz]

Normally I would say if inspected to BS7671 C3 however I see page 11 regarding installations to earlier editions "this does not mean that they will fail to achieve conformity with the relevant parts of the EWR 1989.Also regs 114 & 115.Having thought about it I am I & T to BS7671 so C3,C2 if it was a outside socket. The pub should have a risk assessment in place to the activities taking place on its premises.

 

[Risteard]

Normally I would say if inspected to BS7671 C3 however I see page 11 regarding installations to earlier editions "this does not mean that they will fail to achieve conformity with the relevant parts of the EWR 1989.Also regs 114 & 115.Having thought about it I am I & T to BS7671 so C3,C2 if it was a outside socket. The pub should have a risk assessment in place to the activities taking place on its premises.

A statement suggests that an installation installed to an earlier Edition may not necessarily be unsafe. That certainly isn't the same thing as stating that it definitely is safe, however.

It is clear that since RCD protection is now required it must be attributed a coded observation. It is up to the Inspector to assess how serious the ommission of RCD protection is. So certainly it could be justified to suggest that C3 is insufficient in the particular circumstances, and that, therefore, a C2 would be more appropriate.