EICR question, OLD AC RCD- code 3 or no code?

[nicebutdim]

There is nothing to say a C3 shouldn't warrant and unsatisfactory Report.

But that would be at the inspector's discretion?

Now that you raise this point, I can't help wondering if it is possible to issue a satisfactory report containing a C2?

 

[Markyd]

So a Landlord could have had a brand new CU fitted in August 2022 to bring him up to regs and 6 months later which would be March 2023 has a change of tenant and has a Condition report done only to be told his 6 month old RCD is a C3...........NO
Now if he has extra sockets or a new circuit fitted then that's a different matter and code

 

[nicebutdim]

So a Landlord could have had a brand new CU fitted in August 2022 to bring him up to regs and 6 months later which would be March 2023 has a change of tenant and has a Condition report done only to be told his 6 month old RCD is a C3...........NO
Now if he has extra sockets or a new circuit fitted then that's a different matter and code

Improvement recommended, due to regulatory changes. No work needs to be carried out and nothing is potentially dangerous.

Provided the inspector provides an explanation, I can't see a problem.

I'd expect more annoyance if additional work was required for the installation of a new circuit, if CU was changed last August, but coding wouldn't be a factor there.

I'd also add that, while we can not be held responsible for changes to regulations, it would have been remiss of any installer to be fitting type AC RCD protection in August 2022.

 

[loz2754]

So a Landlord could have had a brand new CU fitted in August 2022 to bring him up to regs and 6 months later which would be March 2023 has a change of tenant and has a Condition report done only to be told his 6 month old RCD is a C3...........NO
Now if he has extra sockets or a new circuit fitted then that's a different matter and code

As I have stated already, coding it as a C3 gives the client the option of improving the safety of the installation. Many landlords would want this to be made clear so that they can take responsible action.
And if they decide not to act at this time, C3 can still result in a satisfactory EICR. There has to be a point where we start to look forward in terms of keeping up to date with safety improvements, and not give in to inertia just because it might cost money.

 

[Markyd]

Improvement recommended, due to regulatory changes. No work needs to be carried out and nothing is potentially dangerous.

Provided the inspector provides an explanation, I can't see a problem.

I'd expect more annoyance if additional work was required for the installation of a new circuit, if CU was changed last August, but coding wouldn't be a factor there.

I'd also add that, while we can not be held responsible for changes to regulations, it would have been remiss of any installer to be fitting type AC RCD protection in August 2022.

Yes i agree it would be remiss....but i see this a lot because the wholesalers were knocking them out cheap to get rid of stock

 

[Dustydazzler]

C3 reminds me of the old C4

 

[nicebutdim]

Yes i agree it would be remiss....but i see this a lot because the wholesalers were knocking them out cheap to get rid of stock

And as dual boards get blown out, they'll also become quite popular. £30 + a handfull of MCBs will tempt a lot of people.

 

[nicebutdim]

C3 reminds me of the old C4

C4 used to be very common on this side of the Irish Sea, but probably a discussion for some chemistry forum.

 

[Julie.]

Improvement recommended, due to regulatory changes. No work needs to be carried out and nothing is potentially dangerous.
...

Absolutely - in just the same way when we find an installation that has the old black and red colours - due to regulatory changes we also must highlight this as a C3 - Improvement Recommended.

After all if the regulations do change making previously acceptable aspects no longer compliant, then it has to be across the board, if we must highlight one particular thing as C3 because it's non-complient we must apply this globally applying C3s on everything that is no longer completely compliant with the latest version of the regs.

Of course the customer doesn't have to address the 10-20 C3s or whatever results from the automatic C3 for anything not completely in line with the most recent regs.

OR

Should we apply engineering judgements based on the current version of the regs?

So red & black wiring, although not in line with current regs, wouldn't actually be an issue whatsoever, - changing to the new colours wouldn't really improve anything from a safety, usability, or end user point of view - so why Recommend an improvement when there actually isn't any real improvement.

Similarly, if the RCD type isn't an issue in this application again if changing it wouldn't really improve anything from a safety, usability, or end user point of view - why Recommend an improvement when there actually isn't any real improvement.

On the other hand if the RCD is on circuits that would benefit from changing the type this would be an improvement, anything from a safety, usability, or end user point of view, so deserves a C3.

On the other, other hand (?) If the RCD is actually being blocked by dc, (or clearly almost certainly will be blocked - say on a circuit where the customer uses a silly "granny charger") - then it becomes a C2


This is my problem btw with many questions about "I have x, what code?" - the answer is C1, C2, C3 or nothing for the same "issue" even on the same site depending upon the circumstances.

An easy example is "premature wiring collapse" - a drooping cable across an entrance is C1, a cable affixed, but which would drop across an exit in the event of a fire, would be C2, a cable affixed, but which would drop along a wall - out of the way in the event of a fire, would be C3, or a cable affixed, but which would drop down just a few inches - well out of harms way in the event of a fire, wouldn't attract anything.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

There is nothing to say a C3 shouldn't warrant and unsatisfactory Report.

Whist technically correct, there are many things, in the model forms and other guidance, that suggest that this is not intended, and I have found nothing that backs it up.