No RCD domestic lighting

[Fitzy]

Firstly sorry if this has been asked before. Carrying out alot of EICRs because of the new rental laws. Keep coming across boards with just one RCD. Lighting circuits not protected normally I issue a C2 for this and had no problems but one landlord who thinks he knows everything has queried my decision today What would you guys give it C2 or C3

So, you post a question on a forum, asking for other electricians opinions on whether they would give a C2 or C3, then when they say that they’ll give it a C3, you get the hump with them! So you’ll take the opinion of someone over the phone, who is most likely reading from a script and might not have much experience, but not from experienced time served electricians with decades of experience???

 

[dodger421]

It’s given a C3 in Best Practice Guide 4 by Electrical Safety First. A resource which is freely available with a quick Google search and may well be where your customer is getting his information from.

NAPIT (the parent company of Stroma I believe), also give it a C3 for 3 different situations in Codebreakers (everyone’s favourite guide...).

Now that’s not to say there aren’t situations where a C2, or even a C1, would be warranted, but that should be backed up by the inspection observations and the test results. For lighting circuits I would hazard a guess they’d be unlikely to be resolved just by fitting an RCD or RCBO (like your non-IP rated light in a zone example; fitting an RCD/RCBO doesn’t remove the danger or reduce it to an ALARP level, the fitting should be replaced with one suitable for the conditions).

You shouldn’t be surprised to be challenged to justify your reasoning when you state that you’ll always issue a C2 for something that the Regulations, published Best Practice Guides and the judgement of most other electricians with at least the same knowledge, skills and competence as you deem to be a C3.

 

[pc1966]

To me a lack of RCD protection (not fitted or not working) would only be serious issue for special cases:

• C1 probably for a TT system incomer as then you are dependent on it for clearing most faults.
• C2 for outdoor (or bathroom) sockets where accidental cable damage or very wet hands are a risk and (last I looked) we still see a few folk killed every year from such accidents.
• C2 for no RCD and no supplementary bonding for bathroom/kitchen sort of thing. But that would be a non-compliant installation for the last couple of editions of the regulations as well.

Open to discussion and corrections from folk here!

 

[Ian1981]

To me a lack of RCD protection (not fitted or not working) would only be serious issue for special cases:

• C1 probably for a TT system incomer as then you are dependent on it for clearing most faults.
• C2 for outdoor (or bathroom) sockets where accidental cable damage or very wet hands are a risk and (last I looked) we still see a few folk killed every year from such accidents.
• C2 for no RCD and no supplementary bonding for bathroom/kitchen sort of thing. But that would be a non-compliant installation for the last couple of editions of the regulations as well.

Open to discussion and corrections from folk here!

Agree except for the C1
If you have inadequate fault protection then it would be a C2 as it’s only potentially dangerous if there is ever a fault.
C1 would indicate that immediate danger is present and it should be removed if possible and the client informed immediately, such as exposed conductive parts and there is immediate danger of electric shock.

 

[pc1966]

Agree except for the C1
If you have inadequate fault protection then it would be a C2 as it’s only potentially dangerous if there is ever a fault.
C1 would indicate that immediate danger is present and it should be removed if possible and the client informed immediately

Yes, giving it C1 would be a bit controversial and is not whan the best-practice guide says. But to me its a bit like reversed polarity: it is not going to give you a shock or cause any obvious problem until there is a fault, and then you get no protection.

Now it might not be as bad as the fire-starting consequences of a "neutral" to earth fault with reversed L&N in a TN system when you have no meaningful OCPD, but it is still a pretty dire position to be in.

 

[Ian1981]

Yes, giving it C1 would be a bit controversial and is not whan the best-practice guide says. But to me its a bit like reversed polarity: it is not going to give you a shock or cause any obvious problem until there is a fault, and then you get no protection.

Now it might not be as bad as the fire-starting consequences of a "neutral" to earth fault with reversed L&N in a TN system when you have no meaningful OCPD, but it is still a pretty dire position to be in.

I can’t agree there that it’s ever a C1 no.
you would have to then in my mind C1 every circuit that has its Zs exceeded and does not meet the relevant disconnection times.
It would only be immediately dangerous if there’s a fault, so the potential is there for danger so a C2

 

[pc1966]

I can’t agree there that it’s ever a C1 no.
you would have to then in my mind C1 every circuit that has its Zs exceeded and does not meet the relevant disconnection times.
It would only be immediately dangerous if there’s a fault.

Yes, I guess that is the correct position to take.

 

[Baddegg]

@Daveh36 you say that’s what Stroma tild you before you changed? What scheme have you changed to and what is they view/opinion?

 

[magnoliafan89]

This has to be a wind up surely???