Imposed code 2

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         

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?

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.

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.

Chris Pearson said:

When would this socket have been compliant?

Being a place of work, not that clear cut. Was/is there a risk assessment in place ? If so, potentially very recently. Not commenting on whether I would or would personally agree with that risk assessment (and would that matter?) ... but it's a possibility.

Chris Pearson said:

Does the repeated non-compliance (assuming regular I&T) matter?

Perhaps, in reality, this is a question for the duty holder of the premises, it being a place of work. It's really their responsibility.

Then again, it's recommended to review risk assessments and provisions for safety when conditions change, however - as well as changes in  legislation, this includes changes in standards and technology, as these may well affect what is considered 'reasonably practicable', 'reasonably foreseeable', etc.

Hi Ebee,

The regulations require new work to comply with the latest edition so I think probably something from 1880 would have been replaced by now. If not then it would be up to an inspector to decide if it was actually dangerous. Making a new rule does not transform something into becoming (potentially) dangerous.

Anyway, we are talking about the lack of an RCD; the addition of which would make something safer - less safe is not inherently dangerous.

Apart from that, classing something as C2 means that, today, it is virtually legally compulsory to have the item rectified. The regulations do not, except in certain limited circumstance, work like that. The item will be rectified in due course when it has to be replaced.

I would say an unearthed lighting circuit is not any more dangerous if there are no exposed-conductive-parts - so it could be argued that it was a wrongly-fitted exp-c-p that was the potential danger. How many people have received shocks from plastic light fittings who would not have received that shock were there an unconnected CPC?

I think I am arguing that A and B can indeed be viewed as you say but you still seem to be ignoring my point which is:

Less safe does not automatically mean potentially dangerous (for coding) - noting my other point that the whole electrical installation is potentially dangerous.

I note you are calling A's problem a defect rather than an improvement it has not yet had. How can A be given more than C3 - improvement recommended? 

Hi Geoff,

"I think probably something from 1880 would have been replaced by now". Agreed, the point I was making was that rules for safety (and our perceptions of such) alter over the years, whenever from and to occurs.

"Making a new rule does not transform something into becoming (potentially) dangerous." Agreed, however as above.

"an RCD; the addition of which would make something safer - less safe is not inherently dangerous." Agreed - when do we perceive less safe as edging closer to more dangerous though? Jusy a thought.

The remainder I think I`m in agreement with you.

"I note you are calling A's problem a defect rather than an improvement it has not yet had" . I may be using the word defect rather than a non compliance. However the perception of safety I think is relative.

Take the motor car, over the years construction of cars has changed, I think we all would be horrified if a car was built today that had all the features of cars that were built far earlier in our lifetimes yet back in those days we were not as concerned as we would be viewing them today. We felt that they were reasonably safe back then.

I think our perception of safe/unsafe is relativity

Back when I was a lad, if you climbed up a tree then fell and broke yer leg then it was yer own daft fault, nowadays we go to great lengths to protect folk from doing daft things, even putting notices up is not deemed enough. Even dafter is the notation, by some, that if a manufacturer produces a knife is so sharp it can damage someone it then somehow becomes their fault if someone is daft enough to use it in a very unwise manner

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.

My personal rule of thumb is: bare live conductors (zero faults to danger): C1; lack of ADS (one fault to danger) C2, lack of additional protection: C3.

However lack of RCD protection on sockets used for things outdoors can suggest a lack of ADS - long leads (e.g. on gardening equipment) can raise Zs to a point where disconnection no longer occurs within 0.4s when relying on overcurrent devices alone and some faults which we tend to ignore indoors (e.g. cutting through the insulation of a flex) are far more likely outdoors (using mowers or hedge clippers) where conventional approaches to ADS (e.g. earthing + overcurrent disconnection) are unlikely to work. To my mind in such cases the RCD provides the equivalent protection to ADS indoors - so it's absence should be treated similarly.

   - Andy.

geoffsd said:

Making a new rule does not transform something into becoming (potentially) dangerous.

No, but attitudes seem to have become more risk averse.

There is an interesting contrast between an EICR and an MOT. Once upon a time, there was no additional protection, but now that it exists we get a fail or advisory for not having it.

Once upon a time, seatbelts did not exist so for cars made before 1 Jan 65, they are not part of the MOT test.