EICR unsatisfactory due to 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits'

[telectrix]

the 3A fuse malarky has only forever been a sop to get manufacturers out of court when their cheap tat goes wrong. ot'snevergoing to provide the protection that would stop a problem.

 

[pc1966]

I wonder what they do with extractor fans sold in the EU where I can't think of ever seeing a FCU or its equivalent?

 

[EalingBadger]

I am a landlord and an electrical engineer and the exact same thing happened to me recently as well.

We no longer live near any of our rental properties so I get my EICRs done via the, local to the property, letting agents that we use.

(To my amazement, this particular letting agent has such a regular ongoing requirement for EICRs that the firm employs two full-time electricians of their own directly.)

Anyway, I digress.

I recently had an EICR with a C2 code for this very thing.

Crazy thing was that the new report was from the very same electrician that had produced the previous report five years ago when precisely the same issue was only awarded a C3.

I contemplated arguing with him but he claimed that the regs had changed in the intervening period - and indeed they have (regulation 411.3.4 in case anybody cares).

But, as has already been observed further up this thread, the key thing is that an installation should be judged against whether or not it passes muster under the regs ruling at the time of the install, not the very latest iteration of them.

(Doubtless others will disagree with this, but then that's the great thing about opinions - they're like a*seholes -everybody's got one. )

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that, despite my normal highly developed and stubbornly pedantic tendencies screaming at me to do otherwise and go the full nine yards in debate with him I decided to roll over and let him fit the additional RCD (and new metal CU required to accommodate it to boot along with it) as (1) his price was very reasonable and, (2) it can't really be argued against that it would be safer (no matter how marginal that improvement might be in reality) but, very importantly, (3) in the however exceedingly unlikely event it might be that I might one day find myself up before the beak as a result of some freak tragedy, I did not fancy trying to explain the finer nuances of EICR testing rules to my learned friends in court - even if I was right!

I don't like it when this kind of thing happens but sometimes, from a purely pragmatic business perspective, one has to just swallow it.

(Like paying somebody £75 + VAT to swap out a 13A socket that would just take me five minutes if only I didn't live 200 miles away! )

Hello - sorry to resurrect old thread but it seems to be along the lines of my issue.

I am a landlord with old Volex CU which only has RCD on sockets - EICR inspection has C2's it as no RCD on lighting circuit but reading this thread and spekaing to my usual electrician from London, it would seem it could be a C3 - can anyone advise me please?

Many thanks

Bradley

and

 

[EalingBadger]

BS7671 stipulates that manufacturing instructions have to be adhered too.

not entirely correct. " manufacturers instructions should be taken into account" , no necessarily blindly followed. other wise we'd be following B&Q instructions to connect lights in an unenclosed choc. block, stuffed in the ceiling with 2 layers of insulation tape.

2 layers....?

 

[Lister1987]

From where I'm sitting, the point @Pretty Mouth made was in line with the point you are making, which is this:

The regulations tell us what we need to do but very little on how to do it, so we call upon our own training and experience, and that of others on forums like this and other available information such as best practice guides. Then we are in a position to make informed decisions when it comes to coding.

So why the somewhat harsh tone?

Apologies but didn't write in a harsh tone, joys of the written word.

 

[loz2754]

Apologies but didn't write in a harsh tone, joys of the written word.

Apologies for "hearing" what wasn't intended.

 

[Lister1987]

Apologies for "hearing" what wasn't intended.

No bother, we're all adults it's discussions like this; regulations saying to do something but not explaining why and that subsequent 'work' in the form of CPD and furthering our knowledge of what we're 'told' by the regulations. I've got a few of tht commentary books to thr last few editions of the regs and they do a good job of explaining a few things behind regs.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

But, as has already been observed further up this thread, the key thing is that an installation should be judged against whether or not it passes muster under the regs ruling at the time of the install, not the very latest iteration of them.

(Doubtless others will disagree with this, but then that's the great thing about opinions - they're like a*seholes -everybody's got one. )

This isn't quite the whole picture, and it's not a matter of opinion.

The legislation for landlords requires you to meet the safety standards of the 18th edition.

EICRs are always carried out by comparing the installation to current regs. To test and inspect to earlier editions would be almost impossible: Older copies of the regs are not freely available, and even if they were, we would find it very difficult to date an installation without existing paperwork (this is very rarely available), particularly where there had been alterations and additions over the years. We would also need full knowledge of testing procedures applicable at the time, model forms and so on. And anyway, what would be the point? Standards have moved on.

The level of danger from a particular non compliance remains the same, regardless of when it was installed. This doesn't automatically mean that the non compliance will lead to an unsatisfactory report, but it might.

 

[littlespark]

You test to 18th. If it doesn’t come up to current regs, then minimum C3. You only need to know current regs (and most of us will have the experience of one or two editions previous)

If you find a C1 or C2 then it wouldn’t pass any edition of the regulations.

 

[pc1966]

If you find a C1 or C2 then it wouldn’t pass any edition of the regulations.

C1 would never pass any edition of the regs (at least post WW-1 era!).

However you can go back a couple of editions and find some exceptions, such as sockets likely used for outdoor use without RCD as being normal, but now a C2.

If you are comparing installations of different editions that are still in good condition and meet the original regulations, the usual point of contention is the lack of RCD in older installation and just how much risk is that really presenting. The guidance in BPG#4 is reasonable as usually C3, but C2 for bathroom without supplementary bonding, or sockets that likely would be used for outdoors use, even if they are inside (say in hallway or near back door where extension lead might be used).

But that is guidance, it always falls back on the inspector to decide the risk as it is more complicated in practice depending on quite what is found, the general quality/status of the installation as a whole, and the sort of use it might have.

 

[pc1966]

I just looked over BPG#4 and see it actually says:

• Absence of RCD protection for portable or mobile equipment that may reasonably be expected to be used outdoors

I have always interpreted that as applying to sockets that are likely to power outdoor equipment, as well as any permantly outdoor stuff that could be reached by hand easily.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I just looked over BPG#4 and see it actually says:

• Absence of RCD protection for portable or mobile equipment that may reasonably be expected to be used outdoors

I have always interpreted that as applying to sockets that are likely to power outdoor equipment, as well as any permantly outdoor stuff that could be reached by hand easily.

I think the C2 for sockets likely to power outdoor equipment is implied by the 1st C3 example:

C3: Absence of RCD protection for a socket-outlet that is unlikely to supply portable or mobile equipment for use outdoors, does not serve a location containing a bath or shower, and the use of which is otherwise not considered by the inspector to result in potential danger.

 

[Lister1987]

I think the C2 for sockets likely to power outdoor equipment is implied by the 1st C3 example:

C3: Absence of RCD protection for a socket-outlet that is unlikely to supply portable or mobile equipment for use outdoors, does not serve a location containing a bath or shower, and the use of which is otherwise not considered by the inspector to result in potential danger.

Outdoors contains a shower or 2, thanks to our lovely weather ?

 

[John Stewart]

Hello everyone
I have a 1996 2 bedroom house which I'm about to let out as I lost my job due to COVID and need to relocate.
The NICEIC electrician I used for my EICR has given me a code C2 for 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits including bathroom lighting'. To put this right, he's proposing a new Consumer Unit, for about £450.
Would like some advice - should I query this given that the house was built in 1996, and came up to standard at the time?
Thanks

Hi herbiehowler
You are right, BS7671 is not automatically retrospective UNLESS ITS A SAFETY ISSUE.
the periodic inspection and report generated by it has to be based on engineering judgement at the time of the inspection. there are a number of different options to find solutions to the issues found, the report is not intended to tell you what needs doing, only to highlight the issues found, solutions and costs are proposed by the electrician offering to do the work.
there are many different things going on here, its not just a simple code 2 for a light fitting that doesn't comply with the current addition of BS7671
all electrical equipment in high risk areas like bathrooms have needed RCD protection for some time now, you are or I should say were about to let the house so you have responsibilities to ensure its safe under the landlord and tenant act, the fitting is not IP rated for it's location
I am well aware of the measurements of the zones in a bathroom but I hope common sense will prevail, all of the bathroom room is a high moisture zone so irrespective of the measurements, if its not appropriately IP rated for its environment, its not acceptable.

I hope you were able to bring the installation up to a safe standard, best regards

 

[Sparky704]

There is an oversight here.I think under the 16th edition regulations the entire bathroom had to have equal potential for fault protection. This would be achieved by cross bonding all extraneous conductive parts( bath, sink pipes, towel rail ect & interconnecting them with the CPC of any final circuit within using either a 4mm or 6mm earth cable.There was also a requirement to use an RCD for additional protection. Under these circumstances in my view a C2 is justified.

 

[littlespark]

18 month old thread. I would think it’s sorted by now.

 

[Sparky704]

18 month old thread. I would think it’s sorted by now.

It’s never too late to learn