Exposed: Cash for logos and drive by inspections

So @David Stone you are quite satisfied that a lack of 30 mA RCD for additional protection is acceptable under all circumstances in older rented homes, so a rented home with an electrical installation installed twenty years or more ago without any 30 mA RCD protection does not need any upgrading to provide 30 mA  RCD at all, despite the tenants using outdoor equipment such as a portable hot tub, lawnmowers and hedge cutters or whatever else they may to plug into sockets indoors or out, as well as using an electric shower and driving nails into walls to hang pictures.

You are also satisfied that if stood in a coroners court you could justify signing an EICR to say the installation is safe to use and can explain a lack of 30 mA RCD protection is always a C3, never a C2?

I know of one reference I could give to the court to back up those claims, but generally supporting guidance is very scant for that point of view.

My reply to that is that you have not listened to what I said above. There is no reason at all why you cannot fit a 30mA RCD in the tails for a small amount of money. That provides all the protection that is required against every circumstance you have mentioned.

Even if the install appears new, you cannot do a "quick inspection". You might be able to save some time if the install was your work, but anything else? I certainly would not be happy with that.

The case for previous editions of the regulations being "Actually Dangerous" would be a legal minefield and you will not find anyone prepared to go there. The latest regulations possibly provide a greater degree of safety, but you would have to show  that a previous version was much worse than the new ones being different, and accident statistics do not support that argument in any way. I'm afraid you would lose, although Coroners sometimes make remarks, prosecuting someone would be difficult as BS7671 is not statutory. You also need to understand that upgrading every installation in the country because of a regulation change is impossible, so a suggestion that this is done is unreasonable. The same applies to proving someone negligent for not using a particular coding, unless you can show actual perceived danger you are onto a looser. You are again stuck in the "but what if" loop, which will only harm yourself. Showers have not proved dangerous, you may think they are because there is electricity and water, but they are well apart as you know.

Even without an RCD, what is the danger? The device is class 1 so Earthed. The element could fail but this will trip the supply. Someone could take a knife to the cable whilst showering but that would be self inflicted. So what could go wrong? OK a double or triple fault. This is extremely unlikely as you must admit.

"My reply to that is that you have not listened to what I said above. There is no reason at all why you cannot fit a 30mA RCD in the tails for a small amount of money. That provides all the protection that is required against every circumstance you have mentioned."

A bad move I say. A single R.C.D. goes against the Regs.

531.3.2.

Another example of the regs contradicting themselves - no wonder folk get confused. 'You must fit a RCD' - but not just one RCD!

That is not correct Zoom, the regulation says "unwanted tripping shall be considered", and a lot of notes. I consider there is no such thing as unwanted tripping, there is always a reason. I assure you that a single RCD provides all the benefits of protection, yet simply SHOULD not randomly trip. If it does you have a problem. Please don't start on the cumulative Earth leakage current thing, you SHOULD (SHOULD is the correct grammar for SHALL in these sentences!) not see that in a domestic.

That is not correct Zoom, the regulation says "unwanted tripping shall be considered", and a lot of notes. I consider there is no such thing as unwanted tripping, there is always a reason. I assure you that a single RCD provides all the benefits of protection, yet simply SHOULD not randomly trip. If it does you have a problem. Please don't start on the cumulative Earth leakage current thing, you SHOULD (SHOULD is the correct grammar for SHALL in these sentences!) not see that in a domestic.

Common sense overrules everything. Do you really want a total loss of power in a house on a winter evening because just one appliance becomes faulty and trips off the one and only supply R.C.D?

Z.

I have considered unwanted tripping and I have concluded that the risks involved by such should be prevented at all costs. Obviously the wise regulation writers have considered this matter very carefully as the need for comment is manifested in this observation.

131.1 (vi).

Z.