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

  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 41 subscribers
  • Views 313 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Requirements for RCD protection on a 32a Socket supplying Mobile Equipment

Liam Puffitt

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. 

  • 0 in reply to Liam Puffitt

    Thank you. Back to 411.3.3: (i) from the sound of it, nobody will be using the socket, i.e.plugging anything in; (ii) a documented risk assessment might exempt the socket - some form of warning notice might help; (iii) does not apply.

    I would not give more than C3.

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    "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".

  • 0 in reply to keylevel
    keylevel said:
    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.

    Judgement available here.

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon
    gkenyon said:
    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.

Community Rules & Guidelines