- Reaction score
- 2,441
Yes, still doubting my own judgement when it comes to supp bonding and EICRs, so would welcome any thoughts on the latest one.
Newish flat (2000s) with MK split board, so no RCD on lighting.
Bathroom contains:
Vent cap only (some clever full flat extraction system that isn't currently working, but that's another issue...)
Plastic shaver socket, with plastic back box, so no parts that could reasonably be expected to become live
SELV downlights, with fixed brackets above on inspection, so no earthing of front plate
Metal Towel radiator, but plumbing in plastic microbore pipework so nothing to bond.
So in summary, no extraneous-conductive parts that could be tested for effective bonding back to the MET.
From an inspection of the shaver socket, no supplementary bonding conductor is in place, but as stated it contains no extraneous-conductive parts.
the ESF best practise guide states not to code absence of supplementary bonding for installed Class 2 equipment, but that isn't quite the circumstance here, though there are similarities in the fittings not requiring an earth on the load side for protection.
I'm currently on a C3 for this, but any opinions welcomed. If there were extraneous-conductive parts I'd be a C2.
Since I'm going back and this is a regular landlord I may suggest fitting an RCBO on the lighting circuit in question anyway, just to be sure, since it covers a main bathroom and an en suite.
Newish flat (2000s) with MK split board, so no RCD on lighting.
Bathroom contains:
Vent cap only (some clever full flat extraction system that isn't currently working, but that's another issue...)
Plastic shaver socket, with plastic back box, so no parts that could reasonably be expected to become live
SELV downlights, with fixed brackets above on inspection, so no earthing of front plate
Metal Towel radiator, but plumbing in plastic microbore pipework so nothing to bond.
So in summary, no extraneous-conductive parts that could be tested for effective bonding back to the MET.
From an inspection of the shaver socket, no supplementary bonding conductor is in place, but as stated it contains no extraneous-conductive parts.
the ESF best practise guide states not to code absence of supplementary bonding for installed Class 2 equipment, but that isn't quite the circumstance here, though there are similarities in the fittings not requiring an earth on the load side for protection.
I'm currently on a C3 for this, but any opinions welcomed. If there were extraneous-conductive parts I'd be a C2.
Since I'm going back and this is a regular landlord I may suggest fitting an RCBO on the lighting circuit in question anyway, just to be sure, since it covers a main bathroom and an en suite.