Videos of EICRs on Youtube

All things being equal, if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD, or where a socket is located;  is it [inspection outcome] unsafe/unsatisfactory (one would think not) because current (at the time) Regs  demand it. Will/should it be unsafe/unsatisfactory to not have a SPD or AFDD or a metal enclosure, or is that a different aspect to ‘personal’ safety.  Improvements for safety etc are always going to arrive … whether their inclusion then makes something existing unsafe/unsatisfactory (if it is still performing well), well that's the debatable point.

My analogies are likely not good ones  but… e.g.  a car from the sixties, assuming no safety defects (MOT if applicable good, maintained well etc) , is still safe to drive;  modern cars are safer due to improvements.  Ho hum.  :-)

psychicwarrior: 
 

All things being equal, if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD, or where a socket is located;  

Well, when you are holding onto a damaged live faulty appliance or damaged live flex and no R.C.D. is protecting you, you may not like the time it takes for an M.C.B. or fuse to disconnect (if it ever does). Whereas the R.C.D. will disconnect very swiftly and possibly save your life.

Z.

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

All things being equal, if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD, or where a socket is located;  

Well, when you are holding onto a damaged live faulty appliance or damaged live flex and no R.C.D. is protecting you, you may not like the time it takes for an M.C.B. or fuse to disconnect (if it ever does). Whereas the R.C.D. will disconnect very swiftly and possibly save your life.

 

Z.

Of course ! Swifter is a safety improvement.  Just as modern cars are improved over older still safe to drive ones;  where one would appreciate the better brakes and seatbelts amongst other safety improvements.   Ok ok  I'll drop the analogy, as its a different subject :-)  Peace.

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

AJJewsbury: 
 

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

Agreed :-) Because there is a socket that may or may not be near a door where someone may or may not plug in a long lead appliance that [they state] may or may not be used outdoors (and who is responsible for any of those) and may or may not be well maintained or may or may not be used appropriately, then the installation is thus unsafe/unsatisfactory for continued use … unless/until the face is changed to RCD, or the circuit is provided RCD protection, or the board changed; but a plug in RCD device is not acceptable.  I'm being obtuse.

It would be disappointing if anyone thinks this, but one must not take this as raging against improving safety or lacking in the ability to appreciate that a non-faulty RCD is a huge improvement generally speaking, which is accepted. It is a consideration on whether a [whole] installation is reported as no longer safe for continued use, when it was previously and probably still is and perhaps depending on how it is ‘driven’ . Everything can be potentially dangerous if one searches hard enough and H&S is an interfering, misused and abused beast at times in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Perhaps if that [socket for use outdoors no RCD] was the only issue, one might just change the face and have done with it and issue a ‘satisfactory’. Of course no RCD anywhere makes alterations somewhat tricky too going forward.

Any way, regardless of what ‘we’ think, there does need to be a consistent well defined set of  standards for all to consistently follow for inspections, whatever that ends up being.  I rest.

I am not trying to shoot Colin (the messenger) or anyone else. This is a very important conversation. Industry guidance means what? BS7671 does not say this lack of RCDs may be dangerous, it says that they must be fitted for new installations, and the circuit capacity where that must be fitted keeps increasing! Does a circuit in a third-floor flat need RCD protection in case a long lead is dropped to the ground to charge a car for example? The 18th floor? How would the Inspector either know or probably care. Charging cars is fraught with problems that have still not been satisfactorily resolved, and in reality, the regulations are often difficult or impossible to implement properly. How does one ensure that a car charge point is sufficiently isolated from PME? How do you stop the owner from using a PME extension cable in the car when it is charging?

I assume that “Industry Guidance” comes from vested interests somewhere, be it the IET, NICEIC accessory manufacturers, or whatever. It might be in those “coding books” which are not a substitute for skill or analysis of relative risk. That is the job of the properly skilled and competent Inspector because every situation is different.

psychicwarrior: 
 

AJJewsbury: 
 

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

Agreed :-) Because there is a socket that may or may not be near a door where someone may or may not plug in a long lead appliance that [they state] may or may not be used outdoors (and who is responsible for any of those) and may or may not be well maintained or may or may not be used appropriately, then the installation is thus unsafe/unsatisfactory for continued use … unless/until the face is changed to RCD, or the circuit is provided RCD protection, or the board changed; but a plug in RCD device is not acceptable.  I'm being obtuse.

It would be disappointing if anyone thinks this, but one must not take this as raging against improving safety or lacking in the ability to appreciate that a non-faulty RCD is a huge improvement generally speaking, which is accepted. It is a consideration on whether a [whole] installation is reported as no longer safe for continued use, when it was previously and probably still is and perhaps depending on how it is ‘driven’ . Everything can be potentially dangerous if one searches hard enough and H&S is an interfering, misused and abused beast at times in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Perhaps if that [socket for use outdoors no RCD] was the only issue, one might just change the face and have done with it and issue a ‘satisfactory’. Of course no RCD anywhere makes alterations somewhat tricky too going forward.

Any way, regardless of what ‘we’ think, there does need to be a consistent well defined set of  standards for all to consistently follow for inspections, whatever that ends up being.  I rest.

Note what Chris said earlier

“411.3.3 mandates RCD protection for all sockets in dwellings (> 32 A is hardly domestic) and mobile equipment for use outdoors. Mobile equipment includes things on wheels (e.g. pressure washer, lawnmower) and well as portable equipment - anything which may be carried, not just hedge trimmers.”

Z.

In response to Weirdbeard, I rather hope not. That is a different discussion for another time, and I expect you know my general thoughts from other posts!

It needs to be noted that in the first video the EICR is being undertaken as part of void maintenance, so there’s no one living it it.

If people were living in the flat and there were extension leads trailing around the rooms because of insufficient socket outlets then we would be making a recommendation for improvement.

Regulation 553.1.7 of BS 7671 states:
“Where mobile equipment is likely to be used, provision shall be made so that the equipment can be fed from an adjacent and conveniently accessible socket-outlet, taking account of the length of flexible cable normally fitted to portable appliances and luminaires”.

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1204/guidance-on-minimum-provision-socketsv2.pdf

Recommending using the redundant storage heater circuits as new socket circuits is a sound recommendation to enable the installation of additional sockets at minimal cost and can be justified by quoting the Wiring Regulations.
 

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

AJJewsbury: 
 

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

Agreed :-) Because there is a socket that may or may not be near a door where someone may or may not plug in a long lead appliance that [they state] may or may not be used outdoors (and who is responsible for any of those) and may or may not be well maintained or may or may not be used appropriately, then the installation is thus unsafe/unsatisfactory for continued use … unless/until the face is changed to RCD, or the circuit is provided RCD protection, or the board changed; but a plug in RCD device is not acceptable.  I'm being obtuse.

It would be disappointing if anyone thinks this, but one must not take this as raging against improving safety or lacking in the ability to appreciate that a non-faulty RCD is a huge improvement generally speaking, which is accepted. It is a consideration on whether a [whole] installation is reported as no longer safe for continued use, when it was previously and probably still is and perhaps depending on how it is ‘driven’ . Everything can be potentially dangerous if one searches hard enough and H&S is an interfering, misused and abused beast at times in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Perhaps if that [socket for use outdoors no RCD] was the only issue, one might just change the face and have done with it and issue a ‘satisfactory’. Of course no RCD anywhere makes alterations somewhat tricky too going forward.

Any way, regardless of what ‘we’ think, there does need to be a consistent well defined set of  standards for all to consistently follow for inspections, whatever that ends up being.  I rest.

Note what Chris said earlier

 

“411.3.3 mandates RCD protection for all sockets in dwellings (> 32 A is hardly domestic) and mobile equipment for use outdoors. Mobile equipment includes things on wheels (e.g. pressure washer, lawnmower) and well as portable equipment - anything which may be carried, not just hedge trimmers.”

 

Z.

Just so i can rest easy; for clarification: "note" in relation, please, to what (bit or all) i said, or “note” about [retrospective] application/consideration during condition inspection outcomes (not about verification of new work) as I thought this was mainly about.