Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 45 subscribers
  • Views 5893 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Imposed code 2

lyledunn

A contractor gave a code 3 to an outside socket located on the exterior wooden balcony of a first floor restaurant which was only used for Xmas tree. Reason no additional protection. He was subsequently subject to NICEIC assessment the outcome of which required him to re-visit his client, withdraw the satisfactory report and amend it with a code 2 thereby resulting in the report having unsatisfactory designation. To add insult to injury, he was required to confirm he had carried out that instruction by writing to NICEIC head office. This he obediently did. I am afraid I may have taken a more belligerent stance!

Parents

  • This post once again, illustrates the diversity of understanding between members of the competent persons schemes, all members should be aware of when RCD protection is required; It's very basic. IMO, an assessor is quite correct, in seeking confirmation of corrective work being carried out, where lapses occur. Perhaps there should be a grading system for electricians and ad hoc assessments carried out instead of the contractor nominating his selection. 

    Jaymack         

Reply

  • This post once again, illustrates the diversity of understanding between members of the competent persons schemes, all members should be aware of when RCD protection is required; It's very basic. IMO, an assessor is quite correct, in seeking confirmation of corrective work being carried out, where lapses occur. Perhaps there should be a grading system for electricians and ad hoc assessments carried out instead of the contractor nominating his selection. 

    Jaymack         

Children
  • in reply to Jaymack

    The issue isn't whether members are aware that RCDs are required. The issue is to what extent do installations which comply with older editions  - but not the current edition - deserve a C2 v C3. This is very non-obvious and highly subjective. There is no legal or regulatory specification which can arbitrate for us. There are some things which are usually clear-cut: exposed conductors gets C1; lack of ADS gets C2. But lack of additional protection is a grey area. A large number of properties won't have RCD protection on lighting circuits, because this only became a requirement 4 years ago. Should such houses get a C2?

  • in reply to wallywombat

    Chapter 65 is mainly concerned that an installation "is in a satisfactory condition for continued service." Not necessarily whether it conforms to the latest edition of B.S. 7671. (651.1).

    But it also says that an installation should provide for "the safety of persons and livestock against the effects of electric shock and burns." (651.2)

    AN EXISTING INSTALLATION MAY HAVE BEEN DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF B.S. 7671, THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT IS UNSAFE.

    But how they are used might render the situation unsafe in my opinion. So additional R.C.D. protection may be required.

    Z.

  • in reply to wallywombat
    wallywombat said:
    A large number of properties won't have RCD protection on lighting circuits, because this only became a requirement 4 years ago. Should such houses get a C2?

    I haven't got RCD protection on any circuits in the house, just the outbuildings and as I have said before, I am not going to give myself a C2.

Community Rules & Guidelines