Industrial place with 3 phase board, no RCD protection, does it pass?

[electricshock]

I get confused with this.

am I right in saying, anything that was according to the old regs which is not in the current regs passes the EICR.


Do I have to mention this as a C3 improvement recommended on the EICR. Its for insurance purposes.

the new forms ask for too much!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Another question. Do I have to use another set of forms for each board as if it was another installation or can i use same forms with added test schedule sheets for other boards.

 

[The Ranger]

has to comply to the regulation the install was started on

 

[bugsy]

Nuff said!

 

[i=p/u]

one test result shedule for each lad, one iinspection schedule, number all pages ;_

 

[electricshock]

Ok. Thanks. Thats 1 test scedule for each board.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There is not and never has been a particular requirement in BS7671 for RCD protection to be placed in a DB.
As such the lack of such protection does not warrent a code.
There is a requirement to provide RCD protection for circuits of locations containing baths or showers, which would require the RCD protection to be positioned in a DB, but the comment and any code would refer to the lack of RCD protection for those circuits, not that the DB did not contain an RCD.
Yes it is generally accepted that an unaltered installation that complied with the Regulations at the time of construction or design, would pass, even if it doesn't comply with the current edition.
Obviously there are some instances that would not, such as protective devices in neutral conductors, or where a shower has been installed in a bedroom.
If there have been any additions or alterations, you would have to confirm that at the time, they also complied.
I would use a separate schedule for each board.

 

[electricshock]

Thanks spinlondon. Much appreciated

 

[mogga]

Couldnt have worded it btr Spinny Tomany "PIR guys" put stuff like "No RCD protection " without specifing why ect and they cant see backwards ie 15th 16th regs have changed over the years making things "safer" (IMO relying to much on and emfasis on RCDs being the beall and endall of protection) and to many guys doing PIRs dont think backwards nor do they think about what they are coding or putting in faults iv seen PIRs that list things by the reg but not describing how it fails to comply the client hasnt got a clue what reg " 34,5,69" is others put whats wrong but couldnt look up regs if required n just say "i know its not right " but dont know WHY its not right