Inadequate inspections on the safety of wiring in buildings across England are increasing the risk of fires, E&T has found. A flawed regulatory system has sparked a race to the bottom, with some businesses profiting at the expense of the public’s safety.
Please get in touch with any comments/thoughts you may have
The requirement for 30mA RCDs for sockets in general (for indoor equipment, or indeed for bathroom circuits) is much much more recent.
Bathrooms 2008 ... given plastic pipe repairs etc., definitely more urgency getting that addressed, but GP socket-outlets (especially where there are likely to be children or vulnerable persons) can't be overlooked.
If we are talking about rented accommodation, it's not like the tenant has a choice whether to install or not. Yes, they could buy a PRCD for socket-outlets, but an inordinate cost to do that for every outlet or appliance ... and of course that won't work for the bathroom.
1) Should rented accommodation have RCD protection because the property is being let as a profit-making business?
No, but it should have RCD protection because:
(a) The landlord has a duty of care
(b) The tenant has no realistic choice to do that themselves
(c) original bathroom installation may be affected by plastic pipe extensions/repairs
(d) There may be children or vulnerable people.
(e) it's the right thing to do.
2) Do RCDs enhance safety for the end user even though an installation not equipped with one or more RCDs, still meets the disconnection times for the existing OPDs employed?
Yes:
(a) additional protection the often-used example of a damaged flex on a lawnmower or vacuum cleaner (Class II) that leaves exposed line conductor - that wouldn't operate an OCPD - but damaged plastic case of equipment, and a raft of other faults, are also covered by additional protection.
(b) fault protection in cases where the model of "fault to earth of negligible impedance" doesn't work, for example certain broken heating element faults, some faults in AC power electronic devices etc.
Overall, though, I'm appalled by fact this thread has be hijacked mainly by a debate on whether it's right to "code" RCD's or not. There are other things to go at in the article, and there is sufficient industry guidance out there on what code to give "no RCD for xxx".
The debate about the requirement for RCD protection in PRS homes could have been completely avoided if the Government had followed the Working Group recommendation to issue Government guidance.
The debate clearly demonstrates why there is not any uniformity in PRS EICR.
It also worth noting that back in 1981 the requirement for sockets supplying equipment used outdoors to have 30 mA RCD protection was intended to give additional protection to people using lawn mowers and similar equipment, but now there are the extension leads running out of homes to supply EV Granny chargers, often in a shared communal area or on the public highway.
The debate about the requirement for RCD protection in PRS homes could have been completely avoided if the Government had followed the Working Group recommendation to issue Government guidance.
The debate clearly demonstrates why there is not any uniformity in PRS EICR.
Point well-and-truly missed, sadly. We've had the "what to code" debates many times before ... repeating people's (somewhat different) opinions in this thread has, sadly, hijacked it, and there's little I've seen that will address the salient points of the article, in the 104 replies so far.
Perhaps that's why it was seen as impractical to issue Government Guidance ... we'd still be waiting for it.
The debate clearly demonstrates why there is not any uniformity in PRS EICR.
Should an PRS EICR be any different to any other EICR?
- Andy.
By recommending the Government issues guidance on the requirements for RCDs in PRS homes the Working Group acknowledged that the actual requirements are not clearly defined in the Wiring Regulations, because there’s no compulsion to upgrade in line with the requirements in the current edition.
Only the Government can issue guidance that should be followed across the whole of England, individual Local Authorities issuing guidance that varies across the country would not improve the situation.
The Government issuing guidance on the provision on RCDs in PRS homes does not require a change in legislation, it just needs to be done to clarify what outcome the Government is expecting from the introduction of this legislation:
Currently no one can say with any authority that an electrician is trying to make a landlord carry out unnecessary work by coding a lack of RCD protection for sockets used for supplying equipment used outdoors as a C2 and stating an installation is unsatisfactory, when there has been industry guidance to do so for over twenty years and the RCD protection has been required by the Wiring Regulations for forty one years.
RCD protection for sockets supplying outdoor equipment is only one issue in amongst many, but saying exactly what RCD protection the Government require in PRS homes would certainly resolve this and several other related issues, such as RCD protection for electric showers.
Government intervention is required.
AJJewsbury @Chris Pearson
If I wrote an EICR for the potential purchaser of a property similar to the examples in the IET OSG and Guidance Note I would be fearful of ending up in court like the electrician in Pembrokeshire did last year.
Generally every observation requires a code and every adverse code definitely needs an observation; and every deviation from the requirements of the current edition of the Wiring Regulations requires both.
I know that EICRs that I did for landlords were subsequently used to sell the property and the reverse is true, EICRs I did for people selling properties are now being used for letting the property to tenants by the new owner.
So every non-compliance gets coded and an observation added when I do EICRs regardless of if it’s for a person selling, buying, letting or renting, because these EICRs will be “valid” for years to come and you don’t know who will eventually be holding it or what purpose they will use it for.
Only the Government can issue guidance that should be followed across the whole of England, individual Local Authorities issuing guidance that varies across the country would no improve the situation.
But that is already accepted as the "norm" across our Devolved Nations ... we have accepted that already.
What is good for the SE of England is NOT good for the rest of the country. In fact, going forward even with only Solar PV as an example, what works in the South Coast of England does NOT work in much of the rest of the country in exactly the same way.
Having said that, if such a small nation as the UK can't have the same rules across the Nation, why would it ever work for the EU ???
(hang on, Pandoras Box opens ... )
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
