I have been presented an EICR with a code 2 referencing Regulation 411.3.3, no 30mA RCD protection for socket outlets under 32amp. The 32a socket has a 100mA Time Delay RCD fitted, as it's being used to supply a local DB within a cabin. My initial thoughts were this was satisfactory and shouldn't have been coded a C2 due to the requirement for discrimination between the RCD's to avoid nuisance tripping, now I am not so sure.
C2 is the guidance from Electrical Safety First's BPG4: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/2149/bpg4-1.pdf
See page 16, 4th item down.
Why was the 32-amp socket installed and why is it being used to supply the cabin, instead of the cabin supply being hard wired?
What type of premises is it installed at and how are the premises and the cabin used?
Good question, but if it was designed as a mobile & Transportable unit ... a number have a BS EN IEC 60309 series appliance inlet fitted to them.
I might be misreading it but it seems to say an RCD can be ommitted with a documented risk assessment in this sort of situation.
Not according to Regulation 411.3.3, this is item (iii) usage, and the risk assessment exception applies only to (ii).
Perhaps if those trotting out code 2’s were asked to fully explain the potential danger, there would be less of them issued. Blind code hugging must be a significant burden to British industry!
Yes, although if it's a metal-framed or container-type mobile/transportable unit, I wouldn't be happy without RCD protection, given the risks of rodent damage. That said, as aligarjon pointed out, would a different selection of cable/connection type be more appropriate, particularly if the cabin is going to be there long-term ... especially considering this case: www.independent.co.uk/.../turney-sue-logan-fire-calder-vale-b2843032.html
"which investigators said could have been caused either by a carelessly discarded cigarette end or an electrical fault relating to wiring leading to a freezer"
So, £350k for a possibility?
Whilst it was not done properly, where is the proof that this caused the fire? Could it not also have been a fault in the freezer itself?
Never happy to see poor installation, but also not happy to see people convicted by "it might have been".
Never happy to see poor installation, but also not happy to see people convicted by "it might have been".
Not a conviction, but essentially a dispute between the neighbours' insurers as to who should pay for the loss to the neighbouring property. So, balance of probabilities applies.
I am unimpressed by the judge's reasoning as to the standard of care required by an ordinary householder: §§ 112 - 122. He refers to Part P at § 120 and BS 7671 at § 121, but clearly an extension lead is not part of the installation, so out of scope of both.
The reasoning appears to be that the defendants were negligent because they failed to call in an electrician either to install a permananet circuit, or inspect the DIY arrangement.
There must be plenty of similar lash-ups around the country and this one had lasted 13 years, which must have seemed reassuring to the householder. There is, however, no mention of an EICR during that period.
would a different selection of cable/connection type be more appropriate, particularly if the cabin is going to be there long-term ... especially considering this case
Not quite sure how that case is relevant to this discussion.
Connecting a 'long-term' unit to an installation via a flexible cable might be considered 'less suitable' than, say, an SWA alternative.
The case cited makes it plain that a flexible cable might not always be considered suitable. The rodents didn't know whether the cable was 'posted through a drilled hole' or were 'connected to an outdoor socket-outlet' ?
Although, I also accept that the rodents wouldn't know the difference between the cable going from the house to the shed, vs the flexible cable between the socket-outlet of the 'extension lead' in the shed vs the flexible cable between socket-outlet in the shed and the fridge-freezer for a more 'permanent' installation !
Which is one of the reasons I brought this case up in this thread ... it has, potentially, far-reaching connotations if considered alongside guidance for EV installations adjacent to 'combustible materials' as cited in RC59 (if one wanted to make that parallel) ?
This caught my attention too: "...effectively destroyed by the fire, which investigators said could have been caused either by a carelessly discarded cigarette end or an electrical fault relating to wiring leading to a freezer in one of the couple's garden sheds..."
'could' but also , which was it - a cigarette or an electrical fault ... the investigators didn’t know but the judge did. Perhaps I missed the clarification somewhere, or is it a poor journalist report.
'could' but also , which was it - a cigarette or an electrical fault ... the investigators didn’t know but the judge did. Perhaps I missed the clarification somewhere, or is it a poor journalist report.
I think this excerpt explains the decision:
He added that an expert assessing the evidence had found that “the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the fire is that it resulted from an electrical fault on the extension lead’s cable” and that “taking the evidence as a whole … a defect on the electrical cable, arising from it not being of a suitable standard for the purpose to which it was put, provides the most likely accidental cause of the fire”.
Chris Pearson might be able to comment from a better position of understanding, but I believe that two principles would be used in a non-criminal case like this:
'could' but also , which was it - a cigarette or an electrical fault ... the investigators didn’t know but the judge did. Perhaps I missed the clarification somewhere, or is it a poor journalist report.
I think this excerpt explains the decision:
He added that an expert assessing the evidence had found that “the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the fire is that it resulted from an electrical fault on the extension lead’s cable” and that “taking the evidence as a whole … a defect on the electrical cable, arising from it not being of a suitable standard for the purpose to which it was put, provides the most likely accidental cause of the fire”.
Chris Pearson might be able to comment from a better position of understanding, but I believe that two principles would be used in a non-criminal case like this:
Chris Pearson might be able to comment from a better position of understanding
Yes and no. I shall explain later.
- Burden of proof is the 'balance of probabilities' rather than the more onerous 'beyond reasonable doubt' required for a criminal case; and
- The principle of Occam's razor (basically, the simplest explanation is most likely to be true) being applied to competing hypotheses.
This is more complex than it may seem and I have learned something today by reading the cases.
The judge in Smith v Logan refers to appropriate authorities and although he correctly directs himself about the law, I am not sure that he applied it in reality.
Take Occam's razor first. The leading case is Rhesa Shipping Company S.A. v Edmunds (Popi M) in the House of Lords. It concerned the cause of the loss of a ship and as in our case, most of the evidence was lost (at the bottom of the sea).
Their Lordships cite with disapproval Sherlock Holmeswords to Dr Watson in The Sign of Four: "How often have I said to you that, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
So, Occam might lead you to the most likely cause, but that is insufficient.
The 'truth' may be that we just do not know because there is insufficient evidence, i.e. we do not know with a probability of at least 51%. Even if there are only two competing causes, the more likely one does not automatically achieve a probability of 51%.
The burden of proof rests with the Claimant on the balance of probability, and if the claimant has insufficient evidence, it may not be possible to reach that standard.
In summary, it is a two-stage process: first, identify the most likely cause; second, determine whether it is more likely than not. So, the probability of smoking being the cause might have been 10%, and rodent damage 40%, but the Claimant still loses having failed to discharge the burden of proof. I think that in the absence of any physical evidence either way, the cause must remain unknown.
ETA: I like Occam's razor - it is one of my favourite tools.
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
