OP
Deleted member 26818
The problem here, is that the current Regulations state in the introduction:
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
Code C1: Danger present. Risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required.
Code C2: Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required.
Code C3: Improvement recommended.
Either a code C1 or C2 would indicate that an installation is unsafe for continued use.
A code C3 would indicate that an installation is not unsafe for continued use, but improvement would increase safety.
Take for instance a 3 bed semi with front and rear gardens with an electrical installation designed and constructed to the 16th edition.
It has a split board with 3 circuits protected by a single RCD, all the other circuits are unprotected.
The 3 protected circuits are downstairs sockets, kitchen sockets and the cooker.
The unprotected circuits are boiler, shower, downstairs lighting and upstairs lighting.
The 3 protected circuits are fine, they comply with both the 16th and the 17th editions.
The unprotected circuits however only comply with the 16th.
There are two circuits (shower and upstairs lighting)which serve a location containing a bath or shower, both would require RCD protection to comply with the 17th.
All of the unprotected circuits may also not comply with the 17th, if any of the cables are concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm.
The unprotected circuits are 'Potentially dangerous' or unsafe for continued use, which suggests a code C2 should be applied.
However the introduction states that because the installation complied with the Regulations ate the time of construction, they are not necessarily unsafe for continued use, which would indicate we should use a code C3.
Some will say that the phrase 'not necessarily unsafe' does not mean safe.
They are entitled to their opinion, but that is not the opinion of the IET.
The 17th edition was introduced on the 1st of January 2008 and came into effect on the 1st of July 2008.
During those 6 months, they allowed for installations to be designed to the 16th edition.
If the IET believed the 16th edition to be unsafe, they would not have allowed installations to be designed to the 16th for those 6 months.
"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
Code C1: Danger present. Risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required.
Code C2: Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required.
Code C3: Improvement recommended.
Either a code C1 or C2 would indicate that an installation is unsafe for continued use.
A code C3 would indicate that an installation is not unsafe for continued use, but improvement would increase safety.
Take for instance a 3 bed semi with front and rear gardens with an electrical installation designed and constructed to the 16th edition.
It has a split board with 3 circuits protected by a single RCD, all the other circuits are unprotected.
The 3 protected circuits are downstairs sockets, kitchen sockets and the cooker.
The unprotected circuits are boiler, shower, downstairs lighting and upstairs lighting.
The 3 protected circuits are fine, they comply with both the 16th and the 17th editions.
The unprotected circuits however only comply with the 16th.
There are two circuits (shower and upstairs lighting)which serve a location containing a bath or shower, both would require RCD protection to comply with the 17th.
All of the unprotected circuits may also not comply with the 17th, if any of the cables are concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm.
The unprotected circuits are 'Potentially dangerous' or unsafe for continued use, which suggests a code C2 should be applied.
However the introduction states that because the installation complied with the Regulations ate the time of construction, they are not necessarily unsafe for continued use, which would indicate we should use a code C3.
Some will say that the phrase 'not necessarily unsafe' does not mean safe.
They are entitled to their opinion, but that is not the opinion of the IET.
The 17th edition was introduced on the 1st of January 2008 and came into effect on the 1st of July 2008.
During those 6 months, they allowed for installations to be designed to the 16th edition.
If the IET believed the 16th edition to be unsafe, they would not have allowed installations to be designed to the 16th for those 6 months.