Lack of RCD protection on Sockets a C2?

[markc123]

All the sockets in my house can potentially be used for equipment outside.... I have a long extension lead...

Well im afraid your installation has failed its EICR.

 

[Spoon]

My board is a 16th Ed board so according to some people here then yes it is a fail cause its not up to 17th Ed.

 

[alanl]

If it is to the 16th edition, then any socket outlets that may be used for outside equipment SHOULD be RCD protected.
If they werent installed like that at the time, then the Installer didnt comply with the 16th Edition Regs, which was quite common IME.

 

[7029 dave]

Okay, so if that was the case why were bs 3036 db's readily available on the shelf ?

 

[Spoon]

I was being sarcastic alanl. It just annoys me that some people who check out CU's don't take into account when the CU was installed. Then they just come across as money grabbing rip-off merchants when they recommend that the CU is changed when there are cheaper options.

 

[alanl]

[why were 3036 boards still being sold/fitted?]

Because the installers couldnt be bothered to learn how to fit these 'new fangled' boards, or the wholesalers were doing the fuseboxes at £20 whereas the RCD boards were £75.
Any number of reasons. Probably the same in 2008 when dual RCD boards were needed to be fitted to the majority of upgrades/new builds, but there were still many single RCD boards being fitted.

Lack of Regulation / checking / dilligence by the designer/Installer.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

As 'Alan' states should only be a C2 if there is a possibility of feeding outdoor equipment. For most houses this would be correct unless its a London flat above ground level where my view would be C3!

Window cleaners stereo?

 

[Badged01]

To continue the debate ......... when doing an EICR it has to be done against current regs, of which the 17th regs state sockets liable to provide outside equipment must be RCD protected. The regs then further advise that in completing an EICR you report that discrepancy as either C1 "Danger Present", C2 "Potentially Dangerous" or C3 "further investigation required/improvement recommended".

Nowhere in the regs does it give examples of typical codes, so you as the responsible engineer use your engineering judgement to decide without consulting any of the electrical industry governing bodies. No RCD protection was acceptable when you were an apprentice fitting re-wireable fuse boards and you still consider it safe. Thats your call but the IET dont as they've update the Regs to say that sockets should have RCD protection. If they thought it was still safe not to have RCD protection then they wouldn’t have made it a requirement?

OK, you made your engineering call that the socket isn’t able to provide outside power or needs RCD protection if it can be used outside. In "your" opinion you mark it on the EICR as a C3. To you its not considered “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” but just needs an improvement at a later date to meet current regs which make it safer for the user -- by that admission you are sort of implying you dont think its safe??

Now little Jimmy is playing on a bouncy castle in the garden fed from that very socket you have called a C3 on your EICR and receives an electric shock, probably causing death. HSE will now have an interest in speaking to you along with a gentleman from "where there's a blame there's a claim" solicitors Ltd. who have been in contact with little Jimmy Dad.

You end up in court and they call any of the electrical industry bodies (IET, ESC, NICEIC, ELECSA etc ...) as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Between them they give their engineering opinion stating that it should have been a C2 and an "unsatisfactory" for continued use, with an RCD being fitted before it became "satisfactory" for further use. As per their regulations and guidance, hence saving little Jimmys life. They also bring out a multitude of publications, which are freely available to every electrician who is completing an EICR should he need guidance. These give their recommended codes for various faults, of which the socket one was a C2.

The judge calls case to answer and you step into the 'dock' to counter their ‘expert’ engineering opinion as to why you found it perfectly safe for the socket to feed outside equipment without RCD protection and why you didn’t need to follow any guidance from within the electrical industry ........

p.s. The above is all speculative but I speak from experience of having seen HSE bring a charge and then seeing a colleague in the 'dock' getting a savaging over his interpretation of regulations (not electrical) when industry body experts gave their different engineering judgements/interpretations which hadn’t been followed. The result was the company was found guilty and suffered a healthy fine. (Fortunately there were no fatalities)
Motto of the story ..... Rules are for the adherence of fools or the guidance of wise men who know how to apply them … and there is plenty of guidance out there that can assist you if you don’t know how to apply them!

- - - Updated - - -

Window cleaners stereo?

Fair point ....

 

[telectrix]

To continue the debate ......... when doing an EICR it has to be done against current regs, of which the 17th regs state sockets liable to provide outside equipment must be RCD protected. The regs then further advise that in completing an EICR you report that discrepancy as either C1 "Danger Present", C2 "Potentially Dangerous" or C3 "further investigation required/improvement recommended".

Nowhere in the regs does it give examples of typical codes, so you as the responsible engineer use your engineering judgement to decide without consulting any of the electrical industry governing bodies. No RCD protection was acceptable when you were an apprentice fitting re-wireable fuse boards and you still consider it safe. Thats your call but the IET dont as they've update the Regs to say that sockets should have RCD protection. If they thought it was still safe not to have RCD protection then they wouldn’t have made it a requirement?

OK, you made your engineering call that the socket isn’t able to provide outside power or needs RCD protection if it can be used outside. In "your" opinion you mark it on the EICR as a C3. To you its not considered “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” but just needs an improvement at a later date to meet current regs which make it safer for the user -- by that admission you are sort of implying you dont think its safe??

Now little Jimmy is playing on a bouncy castle in the garden fed from that very socket you have called a C3 on your EICR and receives an electric shock, probably causing death. HSE will now have an interest in speaking to you along with a gentleman from "where there's a blame there's a claim" solicitors Ltd. who have been in contact with little Jimmy Dad.

You end up in court and they call any of the electrical industry bodies (IET, ESC, NICEIC, ELECSA etc ...) as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Between them they give their engineering opinion stating that it should have been a C2 and an "unsatisfactory" for continued use, with an RCD being fitted before it became "satisfactory" for further use. As per their regulations and guidance, hence saving little Jimmys life. They also bring out a multitude of publications, which are freely available to every electrician who is completing an EICR should he need guidance. These give their recommended codes for various faults, of which the socket one was a C2.

The judge calls case to answer and you step into the 'dock' to counter their ‘expert’ engineering opinion as to why you found it perfectly safe for the socket to feed outside equipment without RCD protection and why you didn’t need to follow any guidance from within the electrical industry ........

p.s. The above is all speculative but I speak from experience of having seen HSE bring a charge and then seeing a colleague in the 'dock' getting a savaging over his interpretation of regulations (not electrical) when industry body experts gave their different engineering judgements/interpretations which hadn’t been followed. The result was the company was found guilty and suffered a healthy fine. (Fortunately there were no fatalities)
Motto of the story ..... Rules are for the adherence of fools or the guidance of wise men who know how to apply them … and there is plenty of guidance out there that can assist you if you don’t know how to apply them!

- - - Updated - - -



Fair point ....

i'll sum that long - winded but useful post into 3 letters ..... CYA.

 

[Badged01]

i'll sum that long - winded but useful post into 3 letters ..... CYA.

Sorry, thats the problem when you have a wife who writes books, you slowly get drawn into verbose writting when a few succinct words would do the trick ......
[h=3]Dont risk ending up in court ..... cover your ar*e[/h]

 

[telectrix]

a "thanks " would not be verbiose. lol. :15:

 

[Des 56]

120.1
This standard contains the rules for the design and erection of electrical installations so as to provide for safety and proper functioning for the intended use
(my bold +_ underline)

Above is reg that sets out the object of the regulations
It references new installations and additions and alterations to existing

The rest of the book is how the standard is achieved by the various rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Its all a judgement call,the expert standing against you in the witness box cannot reference anything in the current regs and state that it applies to the older versions,because the current regs only apply to the design and erection of new installations

An existing installation wired to a previous edition needs judgement on the seriousness of the non conformities
If it complies with an earlier edition and now falls short,how short?
Where is the line drawn?
How old has the referenced edition to be before it can be discarded ?

It even states in black and white in the current regs that older editions may not comply with current, but it does not necessarily mean they are unsafe

The guy in the dock needs to show that he is well versed in todays requirements,he is competent to report his findings
The guy should also always report only on what his experience permits.if he has no knowledge or experience of earlier editions then he reports only to the current edition

Therefore if someone wants an older install assessed for continued use, the person who will be doing the assessment needs to be chosen carefully

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think we have the right to critisice any code for non conformities in the older installation,if it was tested by someone not familiar with older versions

What might be a code 3 to me, or someone just as ancient, may well be a code 2 and unsatisfactory to a newer inspector

The experts in the courts cannot refer to non applicable regs when trying to hang the inspector for older versions
Its for the inspector only,to show is judgement is based on his own personal experience

 

[Des 56]

Oh and I gave a thanks to tell beforehand just in case he manages to cut my rambling down to just a few letters

My own suggestion would be
WALOB

(work that out and your a good un) clue the last letter,testicles

 

[markc123]

What a load of bullocks! Do I get a sweetie?

 

[markc123]

Nice but long winded post badged, with the way you view things badged why not just stick a note along with the eicr to state that know sockets can be used for outdoor equipment without a plug in rcd jobby! Surely better than failing the install.

 

[Badged01]

Nice but long winded post badged, with the way you view things badged why not just stick a note along with the eicr to state that know sockets can be used for outdoor equipment without a plug in rcd jobby! Surely better than failing the install.

Thats the bad habits of the wife coming thro!

Ultimately its all down to your interpretation of the regs and how you see fit to to apply them, I think the debate has draw out long enough for both sides of the argument to have had an airing.

Will leave it for individual inspectors to sum up the pros and cons and make their own informed choice as to how they want to complete their EICRs, I know which way I will be doing it!

As they say, I’ll agree to disagree and leave it there ….

 

[Des 56]

Just for clarity,my post with the concise WALOB was in reference to my own ramblings

 

[Almac21]

IET wiring regulations and gn3 very grey sometimes. In a dwelling, sockets that may be used outdoors should really have extra protection, ie. rcd protection at 30 mA or less. How many times do you go to a job and while you’re working there, they’re power washing or trimming the hedge/lawn? I’ve been to jobs where they’ve cut through the extension while I’ve been there! Working off scaffolding, plugging in through a window. Straight away they want an rcd. How would it stand in court if you’ve tested a property, and you record a c3 on no rcd protection on sockets, and someone gets injured/killed? We need to be upgrading installations, it maybe just adding a stand alone rcd for 1-2 circuits, and for that cost and the added safety it brings, why not? Landlords are usually after the cheapest option, and there should be no pressure from them to give it a c3. C2 always if possibility of being used outdoors. We’re electricians arguing about a stupid code, consumers normally aren’t electricians and don’t know any better.

 

[littlespark]

I think the regs have changed somewhat since this thread started.

Thanks for the input though.

7 and a half years is good, I think the record for resurrection is over 8

 

[Dartlec]

I think the regs have changed somewhat since this thread started.

Thanks for the input though.

7 and a half years is good, I think the record for resurrection is over 8

We'll all be answering the same questions in 5 years time when all the rental ones that only got C3 this time round are a C2 - it might be AFDDs then that are on the borderline C3/2 of course....