Bathrooms, Rcd's, bonding & lack of & grey area's in the regs.

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Still working on various paperwork, but keep looking back at the report. Really busy at the moment and cant spare any time in the day

 

[park1]

I'm on my phone apologies in advance.

6 mm Earthing conductor, any signs of heat damage? Code 3 if not

No main bonding, code 2

Bathroom no supplementary bonding, does it need any?

Shower no rcd, code 2.

Sockets which may be used for equipment outside withing rcd, code 2

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

This is where the grey areas are. Why should different codes be given simply due to the age of the install. Why is it when something is the norm a blind eye is given. As an example, how many 12v downlights have you connected with the round style, screw terminal junction box laying in the ceiling void, then the choc box or similar comes along with cable grips and the old JB's are now incorrect. The old JB'S were always not 100% correct if not fixed, but then they would not be accesible if they were. Next 'big scare' will be different manufactureres parts in consumer units. how many code 2 will be issued ?

In my case what if the owner says he does not have a car, the garden area's are common ground so he will never need to use equipment outdoors & due to the age of the install Rcds are not needed ?

Can anyone tell me when did DNO's start insisting on 16mm earth and 10mm bonding in place before they would connect to a PME supply ?

 

[Steve3948]

Well I think the general concern is that if say an installation was installed to the 15th/16th and was deemed 100% safe at that time, then along comes the 17th, how can we suddenly say to a client its dangerous, it makes a mockery of the regulations.

So they like the term "not fully compliant" because a new regulation does not mean the old was dangerous.

 

[park1]

Well I think the general concern is that if say an installation was installed to the 15th/16th and was deemed 100% safe at that time, then along comes the 17th, how can we suddenly say to a client its dangerous, it makes a mockery of the regulations.So they like the term "not fully compliant" because a new regulation does not mean the old was dangerous.

There is always a balance between Cost and Risk, in my opinion the current Regs are an improvement in terms of safety. Take a socket outlet which is used for outdoor equipment, before the requirement of RCD's if a fault occurred it may of been "Potentially Dangerous", unfortunately there is always some risk. The new Regs reduce that risk by the requirement of a RCD, providing the RCD is correctly maintained the "potentially Dangerous" is now negated.

I think we need to be careful with the word "Retrospective", if a "potentially Dangerous" situation may of existed in a previous edition, and the new Regs negate that risk, then an improvement can be made to remove that risk, so a code 2 in my opinion.

In the OP's instance there are a lot of issues's. Code 2 "Potentially Dangerous", well most of the OP's findings are "Potentially Dangerous"

 

[steptoe]

thats over 20years old that reg!

its potentially dangerous to put 30a fuse wire in a 5a 3036, do we have to condemn all rewirable fuse boards too then?

bet that will go down well in 90% of factories. :slap

 

[Steve3948]

There is always a balance between Cost and Risk, in my opinion the current Regs are an improvement in terms of safety. Take a socket outlet which is used for outdoor equipment, before the requirement of RCD's if a fault occurred it may of been "Potentially Dangerous", unfortunately there is always some risk. The new Regs reduce that risk by the requirement of a RCD, providing the RCD is correctly maintained the "potentially Dangerous" is now negated.I think we need to be careful with the word "Retrospective", if a "potentially Dangerous" situation may of existed in a previous edition, and the new Regs negate that risk, then an improvement can be made to remove that risk, so a code 2 in my opinion.

In the OP's instance there are a lot of issues's. Code 2 "Potentially Dangerous", well most of the OP's findings are "Potentially Dangerous"

I totally agree, and you do need to assess each case, if sockets are likely to be used for outdoor use then C2 is the way to go, however if a socket has a RCD and labelled for outdoor use, would you code the rest C3, with cables flushed in walls less than 50mm then I would say C3, which is also documented under ESC recommendations,C3 = Improvement Recommended, this could cover a wide range so I think each individual inspection will have a different scenario.