Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 34 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4798 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

18th question.

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Hi all, any comments welcome on this one.
Is it still acceptable to have a socket outlet for a specific use not rcd protected under the 18th?
I fitted a single 13a socket outlet recently in a loft space for one of my regular customers, it is to supply a security camera system and the suppliers asked for a socket to be provided. It is supplied from the first floor lighting circuit which doesn't have rcd protection. (16th. ed. board) There is not the slightest chance of the socket being used to supply anything else and I would like to issue a mwc stating that the socket is only to be used for this specific purpose. If it's a major issue I could get back to the customer and arrange to fit an rcbo but I don't really think that is necessary? Thinking now about going back to change socket for an rcd protected one?
Parents
  • 0

    The regulations are now going for a more risk assessment based answer to most things with this not being exempt from the trail of thought.  If you carried out a risk assessment that clearly defined the reasoning behind not installing a Residual Current Device would it then go towards ultimately protecting the installer from potential accusations?


    Just Thoughts??



    I'm tempted to follow the same curve. We don't know what the perceived risk is, apart from advice given to us from BS7671 to reduce the maladroit stupidity of certain tabloid readers.

    Consider a household under seige from beligerant neighbour/s. To progress further with poosible court action proof would be needed. A CCTV system installed and supplied from a non-faltering supply would be appropriate. Whether or not a rumble in the jungle might be able to knock out an installed RCD on a class II end of line circuit would need to be open to a test, you certainly wouldn't want to take a fully earthed system out in the open where it could be used to invalidate the system..

    Just another thought  ?

    Legh
Reply
  • 0

    The regulations are now going for a more risk assessment based answer to most things with this not being exempt from the trail of thought.  If you carried out a risk assessment that clearly defined the reasoning behind not installing a Residual Current Device would it then go towards ultimately protecting the installer from potential accusations?


    Just Thoughts??



    I'm tempted to follow the same curve. We don't know what the perceived risk is, apart from advice given to us from BS7671 to reduce the maladroit stupidity of certain tabloid readers.

    Consider a household under seige from beligerant neighbour/s. To progress further with poosible court action proof would be needed. A CCTV system installed and supplied from a non-faltering supply would be appropriate. Whether or not a rumble in the jungle might be able to knock out an installed RCD on a class II end of line circuit would need to be open to a test, you certainly wouldn't want to take a fully earthed system out in the open where it could be used to invalidate the system..

    Just another thought  ?

    Legh
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines