C2. Potentially Dangerous.

[ITS]

Can I just confirm that a light in a bathroom with no RCD protection or Supplementary bonding would be classed as a C2 on an EICR. Thus making it potentially dangerous. .... or am I wrong?

 

[Ian Speirs]

The light does not have supplementary bonding. Its earthed via CPC or should be class 2. Zones and IP rating are other factors to consider when assessing lights in bathrooms.

 

[Adrian]

C3

 

[ITS]

Ok. Assuming its IP44 in zone 2. If it has no RCD protection would you classify this as a C2 when doing an EICR?

 

[Ian Speirs]

Class 1 or class 2 fitting? Earthed if class 1? Max zs and disconnection times met? If test results OK then C3 as a note for no rcd

 

[ITS]

Class 2. Tests fine. So what I'm really getting at is whether a lighting circuit is considered a 'final' circuit or not.

 

[Technician]

How old is the installation?

 

[ITS]

Approx 30 years I reckon.

 

[Ian Speirs]

A lighting circuit is a final circuit.

 

[Technician]

A lighting circuit is a final circuit.

ALL circuits suplied from CCU or distribution

board and operated by the user are final circs.

 

[ITS]

I would also put this down as a C3, but I've just read the "Best Practice Guide 4 (Issue 3) Electrical Installation Condition Reporting" and it says this....

"Code C2 (Potentially dangerous)

* Absence of supplementary bonding where required, such as in a location containing a bath or shower, where any of the following three conditions are not satisfied:

* All final circuits of the location comply with the requirements of Regulation 4113.2 for automatic disconnection, and

* All final circuits of the location have additional protection by means of a 30 mA RCD.and

* All extraneous-conductive-parts of the location are effectively connected to the protective equipotential bonding (main earthing terminal)."

This reads to me like lighting with no RCD is a C2.

 

[kme]

I would agree that the BPG appears to suggest a C2 - however individual circumstances are a part of the coding process; influenced by the inspectors experience.

This may be a C2; or a C3, to my mind - Put the person SIGNING the certificate, as the "competent person", has to make their own judgement, based on other influencing factors.

Sorry if that seems a bit "fence-sitty" - it isn`t really, but none of us are putting our names to this; or have seen the install.......I`m afraid its one of those areas where YOU have to make the decision....you can base your decisions on PBG, and/or experience, and/or other factors.

KME

 

[ITS]

Thanks everyone. I've never considered this to be potentially dangerous before. I guess when KME says "based on other influencing factors" he means how much I like the customer ordering the report - eg. If he is an ignorant smelly **** - C2, If shes nice and makes lots of tea - C3 etc etc...

 

[Technician]

Thanks everyone. I've never considered this to be potentially dangerous before. I guess when KME says "based on other influencing factors" he means how much I like the customer ordering the report - eg. If he is an ignorant smelly **** - C2, If shes nice and makes lots of tea - C3 etc etc...

That's favouritism! IIll advised!

 

[kme]

Yes mate, it is. But I think the client`s attitude CAN have quite an effect. For instance, if you have to put a mask on to breathe in the house, cos it stinks; and you stick to the carpet, you`re not going to want to be there as long as a nice house where they have a well-kept property, and make a cuppa / talk to you about the work before you begin (which also tends to reflect the relative affluence of the client; and thus the typical profit). It shouldn`t affect coding of an installation however!

 

[Technician]

Yes mate, it is. But I think the client`s attitude CAN have quite an effect. For instance, if you have to put a mask on to breathe in the house, cos it stinks; and you stick to the carpet, you`re not going to want to be there as long as a nice house where they have a well-kept property, and make a cuppa / talk to you about the work before you begin (which also tends to reflect the relative affluence of the client; and thus the typical profit). It shouldn`t affect coding of an installation however!

KME you are right on this one.

According to one source, favouritism

could be manifested as a "loading" of

the invoice with a percentage that

reflects, in inverse proportion, upon the

quality of the reception you receive.