pir

[alba]

hi guys sorry if this has come up before but i am a bit confused with some advice i got given from nic. when carrying out periodic inspection reports i was not recording a unsatisfactory if the client did not have rcd. I was putting this down as 4 noting that it did not comply with the latest wiring regs. But the nic said i should be failing these and recording them as a 2 unsatifactory. Are the rest of us doing this ?thanks for reading guys.

 

[Sintra]

hi guys sorry if this has come up before but i am a bit confused with some advice i got given from nic. when carrying out periodic inspection reports i was not recording a unsatisfactory if the client did not have rcd. I was putting this down as 4 noting that it did not comply with the latest wiring regs. But the nic said i should be failing these and recording them as a 2 unsatifactory. Are the rest of us doing this ?thanks for reading guys.

Examle for PIR on 16th edition installation.
Sockets that may be used for outdoor use generally ground floor with no RCD then unsatisfactory code 2.
Sockets for indoor general use with no RCD then satisfactory code 4.
Cables concealed in walls etc with no RCD then satisfactory code 4.

Check out best practice guide 4 Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety Council

 

[The Truth]

hi guys sorry if this has come up before but i am a bit confused with some advice i got given from nic. when carrying out periodic inspection reports i was not recording a unsatisfactory if the client did not have rcd. I was putting this down as 4 noting that it did not comply with the latest wiring regs. But the nic said i should be failing these and recording them as a 2 unsatifactory. Are the rest of us doing this ?thanks for reading guys.

interesting.

Nic man is correct

i fail these items as code 2 because the use of the RCD in the new 17th regs is a fundamental SAFETY requirement now.

just like outdoor sockets needed RCD in 16th edition. Now pretty much all circuits need it. Its the same fundamental safety issue. we are not talking a change in cable colours here...or some other minor harmonization issue. its protection against electrocution! people have been injured / killed after drilling through a non RCD protected cable and so yes these deviations should be cat. 2

 

[Tester Steve]

So, if the original installation met the regs at the time it was put in, it must have been safe. So why is it now unsafe?? Look at it this way. There are a lot of vintage cars on the road, they do not meet current regulations, but they are not scrapped, are they? No. So, if the installation does not meet the current regs, then its a code 4.

Steve.

 

[calv68]

if a car passes an mot reguardless of age then its fit for the road. if an electrical installation does not meet current regs then it has to be upgraided to do so thats the way i see it or whats the point of having them.

 

[old dog]

interesting.

Nic man is correct

i fail these items as code 2 because the use of the RCD in the new 17th regs is a fundamental SAFETY requirement now.

just like outdoor sockets needed RCD in 16th edition. Now pretty much all circuits need it. Its the same fundamental safety issue. we are not talking a change in cable colours here...or some other minor harmonization issue. its protection against electrocution! people have been injured / killed after drilling through a non RCD protected cable and so yes these deviations should be cat. 2

code 4 does not comply with bs 7671 2008
if it complies to when it was installed its a code 4
are you saying any install done before 2008 is a code 2 ?

 

[calv68]

when the installation was done it would have been to current regs so no codes nesessary i would code 2 unprotected bathrooms/ and sockets .but thats the problem with 7671 with it been a non statuary document there just too many grey areas for me. thats why you have to be very carefull when doing a pir cos where theres blame theres a claim and your name is on the bottom of it.

 

[Tester Steve]

calv,

When I had my van MOT'd the other day, it passed but I had a couple of advisories. Surely this is what the pir is, an electrical MOT. It would be nice for us that, when the regs change, the phone rings off the hook with people wanting to upgrade But we all know this does not happen!!

Agree with the bathroom etc. I always make a note that although it does not comply, it would be a good idea to upgrade it.

Steve.

 

[Des 56]

The PIR is a report that is used to monitor the installation to confirm that the protective measures used for that original installation have not deteriorated and remain as effective as when they were first installed

It is not a requirement to upgrade every installation that has been installed to a previous edition
Observations and recomendations to bring the installation up to current standards are common sense actions

If there are such things as lack of RCD protection,then the installation which was wired to a previous edition and now no longer meets the current standards,just because the standards have changed,it does not suddenly render that installation as dangerous
Coding that change should take account of whether there is immediate danger or urgent attention that has aisen
To my understanding neither of those 2 statements are relevant for this,so the coding I would give would be 4

The NIC/ESC has come up with advise that any code 2 should warrant an unsatisfactory
I believe they are completely out of touch with practicality and common sense
eg Absense of RCD protection for portable appliance or equipment that may be reasonably be expected to be used outdoors
Now this is definitely not covered by any immediate or urgent danger
Because the fixed wiring did not have this in its original safe installation then that fixed wiring suddenly becomes dangerous?
The RCD requirement is an add on from previous editions and can be overcome by using a plug in RCd
To unsatisfactory the system because of such a change when the basic protection remained satisfactory is wrong,recomending bringing that installation up to standard whilst being satisfactory should be the approach

 

[The Truth]

oh ok so..

BS 7671 says

bathrooms deifinately need 30mA RCD's ...everyone agrees yes yes thats definately a code 2

sockets feeding outdoor equipment definately need 30mA RCD's yes yes everyone agrees code 2.

BS 7671 also says the same life saving 30mA RCD should now be protecting all sockets and in some cases concealed cables


but hang on!!... oh no no no.. thats ridiculos.. thats a differnt sort of 'potentially dangerous'. hmmm surely we cant recommend that this should be improved?? no no its only a code 4 !!

fickle or what?!

this is not just minor change in the book like cable colours. these are fundamental safety changes to protect people in the home that the rest of europe has had in place for a decade. No one is saying that installation pre 2008 are unsafe. they are however potentially dangerous especially if some one drills through a cable or a kiddy messes around with a socket or appliance and gets electrocuted.

i class that as code 2 - requires improvement.why wouldn't an inspector wish to improve on that?

 

[old dog]

read gn3 its a code 4

 

[sparks1234]

Can we clarify if all we are talking about here is domestic only and not commercial / industrial

 

[The Truth]

look up definition of 'guidance note'

i garantee that in ten years time when all this RCD excitement is finished and its common knowledge to expect a circuit to be safely protected by a 30mA RCD.. all PIR's will have code 2's releting to this issue. You can keep putting in lazy code 4's for the next 50 years is you want to..where do you draw the line? when will it dawn on you that actually maybe it should have an RCD like every other circuit in the country? For safety reasons!!

Can we clarify if all we are talking about here is domestic only and not commercial / industrial

obviously

 

[andekoch]

Initially I was puttign code 4 on the no RCD installations but an now putting code 2 on the basis that this says it is not meeting current safety standards, which are higher than the standards that were required a few years ago. I explain to the customer the reasoning behind whay I say this as well and they generally accept it as sensible even if they choose to do nothing about it.

 

[sparks1234]

look up definition of 'guidance note'

i garantee that in ten years time when all this RCD excitement is finished and its common knowledge to expect a circuit to be safely protected by a 30mA RCD.. all PIR's will have code 2's releting to this issue. You can keep putting in lazy code 4's for the next 50 years is you want to..where do you draw the line? when will it dawn on you that actually maybe it should have an RCD like every other circuit in the country? For safety reasons!!




obviously

Just wanted to clarify it was domestic and not commercail as it makes a difference as to whether RCD protection would be required or not.

 

[The Truth]

Initially I was puttign code 4 on the no RCD installations but an now putting code 2 on the basis that this says it is not meeting current safety standards, which are higher than the standards that were required a few years ago. I explain to the customer the reasoning behind whay I say this as well and they generally accept it as sensible even if they choose to do nothing about it.

good answer. the old school can debate this all day but as you say its a sensible recomendation of improvement ( code 2 ) and in this particular case of the 30mA RCD there is nothing wrong with pushing it. if the regs had specified a 100mA RCD for purely cable protection purposes and not life protection for example then there would be no arguement it would be a code 4.

 

[Des 56]

good answer. the old school can debate this all day but as you say its a sensible recomendation of improvement ( code 2 ) and in this particular case of the 30mA RCD there is nothing wrong with pushing it. if the regs had specified a 100mA RCD for purely cable protection purposes and not life protection for example then there would be no arguement it would be a code 4.

Try not to put too much reliance on accessories that have a very high percenage of known "failure to function" statistics
RCDs have an 8% failure rate
For secondary protection they are useful items
For primary protection the earthing ,bonding and adequacy of the protective device to disconnect in the recomended time is by far the safest and most reliable safety feature of an installation

The problem with the reliance on RCD s to cover your arse with regard all situations,is that the primary protection is fast becoming something that is thrown to one side
Lets just remember that the RCD mania,is to protect the system from the inadequcy of the DIYer to provide that primary protection by poor and ignorant installation methods
The RCd does not become a superior tool in installation just because it is the poor mans fail safe for unsafe installations
It is a welcome addition,but should not be regarded as the solution to everything because it provides a low level fit all item that may be to the detriment of safer installations

 

[The Truth]

Try not to put too much reliance on accessories that have a very high percenage of known "failure to function" statistics
RCDs have an 8% failure rate
For secondary protection they are useful items
For primary protection the earthing ,bonding and adequacy of the protective device to disconnect in the recomended time is by far the safest and most reliable safety feature of an installation

The problem with the reliance on RCD s to cover your arse with regard all situations,is that the primary protection is fast becoming something that is thrown to one side
Lets just remember that the RCD mania,is to protect the system from the inadequcy of the DIYer to provide that primary protection by poor and ignorant installation methods
The RCd does not become a superior tool in installation just because it is the poor mans fail safe for unsafe installations
It is a welcome addition,but should not be regarded as the solution to everything because it provides a low level fit all item that may be to the detriment of safer installations

I don't think anyone actually has the attitude to RCD's you just describe. Every qualified person here knows there stuff and to get their quals they fully understand electrical installations and protection thereof. This knee jerk reaction to RCD's is typical of changes to the 'tried and tested' methods of this country, jsut look at when cable colours changed! now who cares?! we are professionals and we work with what we are given.

Failure rate or not. RCD's ARE a superior tool in fact the only tool that can save you from electrocution. If the primary protection you describe was up to the job...there would be no need for them.

You mention 'RCD mania,is to protect the system from the inadequcy of the DIYer' not so. 30mA RCD's in homes are to protect the PEOPLE IN THE HOME not the system. Hence 30mA and not 100mA

'low level fit all item that may be to the detriment of safer installations' your going to have to explain to everyone how an RCD may be detremental to an installation?! thats absrb.

No professional here or anywhere is going to be throwing in RCD's into an installation willy nilly with the ametuer qualities you describe. And even if they did??? the installation would still be safer than it was previously because it has one! even if it fails.....the install is just as good as it was before it was fitted!!