Main protective bonding conductor help

[Adz]

Hi,

Recently i carried out a periodic inspection report. It was on a house that had a separate boiler house. The boiler house had a light, a few spurs for the boiler and heating pump. It was an oil fired boiler and i placed a defect on the report as the incoming metal oil supply pipe had no main protective bonding conductor to it. Am I right to defect this? One of my bosses said it wasnt necessary to defect it as "it was a separate building" however i still disagree. What do you think ?

 

[uksel]

seperate building = seperate supply = seperate test

if the oil supply pipe goes into the house it should have a bonding conductor run from within 600mm of entering the house and running directly back to the CU or MET

from the point of entry into the house is your concern, this is the equipotential zone in theory. but in your circumstance i would say that if the sockets are supplied from the house therefore they are a part of your inspection ande the CPC extends the equipotential zone and the tank should be bonded as it has the potential to become live under fault conditions.

the code 4 is a personal decision, you being the competent person are the duty holder throught the test/inspection

is there an earth spike on the tank or any of the supporting framework? if not i honestly think you'd be justified to add it as a code 1, bonding conductors are a neccessity, end of!