This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR code- Cooker switch with a socket outlet lacking RCD protection.

1980's end of terrace house, MEM Memera consumer unit with a RCBO to provide 30 mA RCD protection to the socket ring circuit, but no other circuits have RCD protection and there is not any outdoor sockets at all.


There is a cooker switch incorporating a 13-amp socket outlet, which is the closest socket to the kitchen window and with 1.5 metres of it, this socket does not have 30 mA RCD protection, what EICR code should be applied and why?


Andy Betteridge
Parents
  • Hm, this is getting difficult because it is being suggested that a change in the regulations in a fairly minor way makes an installation go from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. In the same way we could say that every installation now needs a new CU. If the regulations can wield such power then the people making them need to be accountable for the huge cost, and need to provide evidence of increased safety of a significant nature, such as guaranteeing a reduction of deaths from electric shock or fires by 10% immediately, not just a bit of hand waving and a general statement of "increased safety". It seems we are in a bad place when "back covering" is more important than good regulation. Ok I could change the cooker switch / socket for £50 quid, but that is not the point. I could fit a 30mA RCD to the whole installation but fall foul of those who would say this is unsafe because a trip removes all the lights. I could fit an RCBO to the cooker circuit, but because the oven element is old it trips when the oven is hot. Where does this retrospective chain end, because I think that it does not. I repeat my remarks about speed limits above, is this really where you want to be? I shall stick with C3 and a note of what to do for safety. If it is ignored this is not my problem and it would be very difficult to prove that it was, unless the customer could not read, and then they could not pay me by cheque (nothing else accepted!).
Reply
  • Hm, this is getting difficult because it is being suggested that a change in the regulations in a fairly minor way makes an installation go from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. In the same way we could say that every installation now needs a new CU. If the regulations can wield such power then the people making them need to be accountable for the huge cost, and need to provide evidence of increased safety of a significant nature, such as guaranteeing a reduction of deaths from electric shock or fires by 10% immediately, not just a bit of hand waving and a general statement of "increased safety". It seems we are in a bad place when "back covering" is more important than good regulation. Ok I could change the cooker switch / socket for £50 quid, but that is not the point. I could fit a 30mA RCD to the whole installation but fall foul of those who would say this is unsafe because a trip removes all the lights. I could fit an RCBO to the cooker circuit, but because the oven element is old it trips when the oven is hot. Where does this retrospective chain end, because I think that it does not. I repeat my remarks about speed limits above, is this really where you want to be? I shall stick with C3 and a note of what to do for safety. If it is ignored this is not my problem and it would be very difficult to prove that it was, unless the customer could not read, and then they could not pay me by cheque (nothing else accepted!).
Children
No Data