Exposed: Cash for logos and drive by inspections

but code the electric shower without 30 mA RCD protection in the same home C3, if so why?

I'm actually quite comfortable using a (properly installed) electric shower without a 30mA RCD - even having had the experience of realizing that one I was using had developed an internal leak and I could actually see water trickling down inside the case past the 'pressure indicator' window. That one was fed from a fully functioning 30mA RCD - which didn't trip, They way I look at it all live parts within the shower are either surrounded by earthed metal or have a very large creepage/clearance distance from anything I could touch - even if the whole thing filled with water I doubt I could get a significant shock from it. Unlike portable appliances outdoors it's highly unlikely to suffer increased Zs (from long extension leads) or damage that could exposed live parts (like a cut flex). It's not that long ago that electric showers were permitted on 5s disconnection circuits without RCD additional protection (but with supplementary bonding) - 30mA RCD protection (in some form or other) for portable equipment outdoor has been around for much much longer (15th Ed if I recall correctly). So if we're going to accept something less that complete compliance with latest standards (or 2018 at least) - then something that's not been acceptable for nearly half a century comes a lot higher on the list of worries than something that's not been acceptable for the last couple of decades.

   - Andy.

So would you feel as comfortable in a hot tub in your garden without 30 mA RCD protection to the socket supplying it or even just a fishpond pump? Something I have seen in PRS home gardens along with people using lawn mowers from an extension lead thrown out of a window form a socket without 30 mA RCD protection.

 AJJewsbury   so upon the receipt of a copy of an EICR prospective tenants are supposed to assess the risks from the landlord othering a home to let not carrying out recommended improvement work to the electrical installation and then decide if they want to rent the home or not?

What if it is tenants who have been in the home for some years and want their home improved and also don't want to move, what happens then if the landlord says no and uses the EICR to prove there is not any requirement to carry out the improvement work?

Of course, none of this should be open to debate because we should have the government guidance the Working Group recommended, but the government failed to follow the recommendations.

So would you feel as comfortable in a hot tub in your garden without 30 mA RCD protection to the socket supplying it or even just a fishpond pump?

A bit less comfortable about the hot tub - as there's no supplementary bonding (unlike the 16th Ed shower setup) but probably tolerable. Again I suspect there's plenty of creepage/clearance distances internally. RCDs won't help with the main issue of exporting earth (PME) faults.

Much less comfortable about the pond pump - flex much more easily damaged by wildlife/gardening tools.

   - Andy.

We should try and sum up the part of the discussion about RCD protection in Private Rented Sector homes or else it could go on indefinitely.

The PRS Electrical Safety Working Group recommended that there should be guidance for landlords, tenants and electricians on the provision of RCD protection, the government has not provided this recommended guidance, so how can anyone really say if inspectors are trying to upsell by stating that an installation is unsatisfactory without RCD protection?

It is all down to peoples interpretation of the legislation and the 18th Edition Wiring Regulations.

If the legislation references the 18th Edition and the 18th Edition says "Shall" as it does in 701.411.3.3 why would I think it is only optional?

If the installation is used only by an old careful couple that do no D.I.Y.  or fit metal light fittings then all may be o.k. I have come across the same, and if the installation is undisturbed then may be quite suitable for continued use by them. BUT, if it is a family home with children and animals, and a D.I.Y. person, things may not be so safe.

The older installations had wooden back boxes behind light switches so even the accessory fixing screws could not become live. Alternatively the metal boxes had nylon lugs so that the accessory fixing screws were insulated from the non earthed box behind it. 

This stupid forum has answers/replies all over the place. THERE IS NO SENSIBLE CONTIUNUITY ON LONG POSTS. IT IS A MESS.

Z.

"Zoomup, Grenfell is immensely more complex than these press reports."

I do know that David.

Z.

Zoom is innocent. I think that you have confused me with A.N. Other David.

Z.

That's only bathrooms etc Andy. It is similar for hot tubs. I think we have aired most of the points here.

BTW Napit and NICEIC both think the situation is fine as it is, I and many others don't. Their response has been to issue coding guides for totally inexperienced inspectors. When did you have random jobs inspected by a third party? Do either do what they claim? Do you as an inspector not know the regulations well, and for the odd question have the Big Brown Book available on site? These people think that is not required!

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.