That was the edition with the red cover, we have had three more since then green, yellow and blue covers.


The bookshelf is filling up but some people seem to still be working to the 2004 edition with the brown cover from sixteen years ago ?


Andy Betteridge

Chris Pearson:

Forgive me for being harsh, but that's just plain Darwinian.

Not properly though, she had been able to reproduce and pass on the stupid gene before expiring


OMS

Obviously you consider RCD protection (additional protection) to socket circuits the most important possible difficulty with an installation, therefore a C1. That line in the regs. does not quite mean that which you suggest. There is a limit to how much stupidity can be avoided unless you change all supplies to SELV, preferably 12V. Most people today are aware of RCDs (trip switches and many other names may be used by clients) and many people have extension cables with RCDs built into the plug. Imagine for a moment we were making regulations about car sales. I suggest that all cars should be limited to 70MPH and when it rains only 40 MPH, by their built in computer, and just for fun 50 MPH at night.. This might appear "safer" but would be ignored as unworkable. Where you are going is not much "safer" at all, and cars cause many times as many deaths as electricity. A reasonableness test must be applied, and finding every installation in the country does not meet the current book is not reasonable. How many deaths have ever happened from cooker sockets without RCD being used outdoors, and even more important without the user being negligent in some way, eliminating cutting the lawnmower cable or dropping the hedgecutter in the pond and not switching off before rescuing it? It would need serious research but I suggest that the number may well be none. I tested a cordless kettle a couple of weeks ago and found the socket in the base and the kettle failed to connect the Earth to the all metal kettle. I suggest this in reality this is many times more dangerous than the cooker socket. Should cordless kettles be banned? Should they all be class 2 (difficult)? Probably not but risk is part of life. No one has managed to eliminate it yet, unless keeping everyone in bed and then there could be an Earthquake or Virus. Fire in the home is many times more dangerous than electricity, why not condemn all homes which are in any way flammable, including contents. Life would be simply terrible in a cave without a fire.

davezawadi:

 Life would be simply terrible in a cave without a fire.

Greta and her gang think it would be marvelous for the majority - I presume the ruling minority wouldn't be roughing it though


OMS

Guidance note 3 table 3.5 gives brief examples of codes including:


C3 Improvement required. To be attributed where C! and C2 do not apply. Examples include the absences of most warning notices, absence of the required diagrams and charts, no or incorrect marking of conductors at terminations, absence of an RCD specified for additional protection (where the circuit otherwise tests as normal).


So that states that not having a RCD for additional protection is no more important than having all the sticky labels on a consumer unit or a bit of brown sleeving on a switch wire. Not much of an issue then?


Andy Betteridge

neither can it be labelled not for outdoor use in a domestic property

Why not?


OK, it's not an acceptable excuse for omitting 30mA RCD protection to a socket in new work - but I don't think there's any prohibition on providing useful safety information for existing installations. (Compare with the 'do not connect class I items to this circuit' labels for lighting circuits without a c.p.c.)

    - Andy.

I think you may have just discovered that Inspection is slightly more difficult than you thought Andy (Sparkingchip). It is not a case of finding things which don't match the latest book and then saying, one way or the other, that they are not safe and therefore must be changed. The intent of an EICR is to report accurately the state of an installation, anything else is just advice based on the Inspectors knowledge and experience. It is certainly not, as used by many, a way to gain work, effectively by threatening the customer. An unsatisfactory report may well have repercussions in other areas (like being unable to rent a property) which could result in legal difficulties for the inspector. But so could being too slack, and being prosecuted by the HSE. It is a narrow tightrope needing continuous review, but that is why good ones are not cheap.

Presumably requirements for ADS met, so not C2.

 

Really? 411.3.3 is a requirement for ADS, therefore the requirements for ADS in BS 7671:2018+A1:2020 are NOT met?


Rationale: Section 411 Protective Measure: Automatic Disconnection of Supply, and within that Section sits Regulation 411.3.3 Additional requirements for socket-outlets ... requiring, in addition to a suitable disconnection time, additional protection for socket-outlets rated up to 32 A.


However, I would be happy to say that if we wind the clock back to before RCDs were required for socket-outlets that might be used to supply equipment outdoors, the requirements for ADS in the Wiring Regulations (as it was at the time) might have been met.