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

This statement can't be used to argue that an installation to 1st Edition of the Regs is considered safe today.


The issue is not one of compliance with the current Regulations, but the interpretation of whether this particular situation is now considered "unsafe" or "improvement recommended".


So, I can see the argument that, without a fault, there's no immediate safety issue. But the same would be true of a final circuit in an installation employing ADS, without a protective conductor.

Would we classify a socket-outlet circuit without a protective conductor as C1, C2 or C3?


We are talking about an installation that is perhaps over 40 years old. I know how much RCDs were then. I know how much they are now.

The issue for additional protection, is that it offers some respite where basic protection is missing ... say a damaged appliance lead. The lawnmower is often cited, but of course a flexible cable chewed by a pet or the vacuum cleaner may well be in the same position.


In an installation to 17th Ed (12 years old), additional protection would be in place to guard against that. In many installations in the preceding 16 years, additional protection may have been included (well, it was called supplementary).


On that basic level, how is lack of additional protection on a socket-outlet circuit any different to a broken or missing cpc, or lack of a means of earthing, and hence failure of ADS? In fact, in the latter two circumstances, additional protection may well offer some protection, however limited ... so is additional protection these days more important for dwellings ???



I think at the end of the day, it's all about "tolerable risk" (or in other words "what can we get away with?") ... and it's a very uncomfortable discussion.

 

This statement can't be used to argue that an installation to 1st Edition of the Regs is considered safe today.


The issue is not one of compliance with the current Regulations, but the interpretation of whether this particular situation is now considered "unsafe" or "improvement recommended".


So, I can see the argument that, without a fault, there's no immediate safety issue. But the same would be true of a final circuit in an installation employing ADS, without a protective conductor.

Would we classify a socket-outlet circuit without a protective conductor as C1, C2 or C3?


We are talking about an installation that is perhaps over 40 years old. I know how much RCDs were then. I know how much they are now.

The issue for additional protection, is that it offers some respite where basic protection is missing ... say a damaged appliance lead. The lawnmower is often cited, but of course a flexible cable chewed by a pet or the vacuum cleaner may well be in the same position.


In an installation to 17th Ed (12 years old), additional protection would be in place to guard against that. In many installations in the preceding 16 years, additional protection may have been included (well, it was called supplementary).


On that basic level, how is lack of additional protection on a socket-outlet circuit any different to a broken or missing cpc, or lack of a means of earthing, and hence failure of ADS? In fact, in the latter two circumstances, additional protection may well offer some protection, however limited ... so is additional protection these days more important for dwellings ???



I think at the end of the day, it's all about "tolerable risk" (or in other words "what can we get away with?") ... and it's a very uncomfortable discussion.