Coding

[Electroglow]

hello all,

today i wan in the wholesalers and i seen a cert issued for a domestic property.

now, i was shocked at the codes he gave for different things

e.g

no RCD C1

no Earthing to water or gas C3

brocken back boxes C2

and things like that..

and then i thought is there a set list of codes. E.g no bonding C1, Broken back box live terminals showing C1.

i have looked but cut seem to find one

 

[steptoe]

there is a code of practice,

there can be no set rules on coding as every situation is different,

a lack of RCD is dependant on when the installation was commissioned,

ditto lack of bonding, or main bond csa.

a broken socket would normally be a C1[at least], but if its a radial it may be possible to lock off and issue a different code.

 

[Sharpend]

You could have a read of this. http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/industry/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

 

[philbas]

A lack of RCD is dependant on when the installation was commissioned,

This is where I get confused, why should it be dependent on when the installation was commissioned, if it was installed yesterday or 50 years ago it does not meet the current regs, so has to start as a C3 (it was a mistake to get rid of C4, that was much clearer).

After that you need to decide if the lack of the RCD constitutes a potential or immediate danger in which case you may upgrade it to a C2 or C1 depending on your opinion of the dangers involved. But to me the age of the installation should not affect the code, only the possible danger,

It could be argued that an older installation, when RCD protection was not required is potentially more dangerous than one installed yesterday simply because of its age.

In my opinion it is wrong to try and mix current regs into what is essentially a safety report, they should be two different reports.

 

[steptoe]

of course it is dependent,

a house wired to normal practice yesterday without an RCD is a C1 immediately,

a house wired to 15th with all equipotential bonding in place and in pristine condition can only be [usually] a C3

 

[steptoe]

are you trying to tell me green sleeving is a code 1 too?

 

[Apache]

of course it is dependent,

a house wired to normal practice yesterday without an RCD is a C1 immediately,

a house wired to 15th with all equipotential bonding in place and in pristine condition can only be [usually] a C3

You have my attention for a moment before bed!

What you say doesn't make any sense to me. Just because a new installation finished last week with no RCDs and doesn't comply with current regs how does that make it immediately dangerous? Lets say a retired spark who wired a house to the 15th and then dropped dead. Assume the workmanship is perfect.

That does not fit the definition of immediate danger. It is not compliant to the regs applicable at the time, but can't see how it could be more than a code 2 (and I believe you could put an argument in for a code 3!).

I just went and read the best practice guide.

 

[steptoe]

then probably 90% of the installation would be non compliant , and that would probably make it dangerous,

unless you are saying it was wired to the 15th, and done last week,?

possibly,

you have a point,

 

[steptoe]

it would deffo be a C2 though, as it didnt meet the requirements of the regulations in force at the time, and those are regarded as the minimum required to have a safe installation.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

When discussing a topic like this, comments saying bland statements such as "No RCD's", MUST be qualified with which application of RCD's you are looking at....

Without the specific application of RCD's you are considering being mentioned..

any further comments mean absolutely jack all..

e.g.

I think one of steptoes points is sort of implying situations such as...

Bathroom with full bonding but NO RCD protection... (compliant with earlier regs not inherently dangerous)

-vs-

Bathroom with no bonding but full RCD protection... (compliant with current regs not dangerous)

-vs-

Bathroom with no bonding OR RCD protection... (bodge up to NO regs or VERY old could be dangerous)

-vs-

Bathroom with no bonding OR RCD protection... BUT only 1x 12v light and cordpull switch, no other power in the room.... (unknown regs may not actually be very dangerous)

Or what about....

No RCD on an upstairs lighting circuit..

-vs-

No RCD on a downstairs socket circuit..

OR how about...

Ring final with 30A 3036 wire fuse, RCD socket for the outside use..

wooden downstairs floorboards.. cables mostly run under floor then few inches up wall..

-vs-

the same circuit as above with a 60898 32A MCB???

So..

How much of the cable is buried in the walls without RCD protection???

Or what are the risks of user sticking too big a fuse wire in.. so overload protection is not met??

No RCD anywhere on a TT farmhouse...

-vs-

No RCD anywhere on a TNS 3rd floor flat!

etc...

etc...

The point is that the individual installation has to be assessed on its own merits with regard to any non compliances and if or what their real danger risk is.....

You can't just have a one size fits all list of code values..

:C

 

[philbas]

It seems quote is now broken, at.least for me.

As an example let us take a ring main that under current regs requires RCD protection (not going into the details of why it does, just assume it does).

Compare it with one installed under 15th that does not require RCD protection.

Why is the first a C1 and the second C3, the danger is the same.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

It seems quote is now broken, at.least for me.

As an example let us take a ring main that under current regs requires RCD protection (not going into the details of why it does, just assume it does).

Compare it with one installed under 15th that does not require RCD protection.

Why is the first a C1 and the second C3, the danger is the same.

It is daft to say bland statements like just assume something is true... when a statement is incorrect..

Otherwise I will just say..

Nothing requires RCD protection, (not going into the details of why just assume it does)

Thus your coding assumptions are wrong....

A ring main (supply cable in the street) Has never needed RCD protection AFAIK?

A ring final, per say also does not require RCD protection due to its ring-y-ness...

Socket outlets for use by portable equipment outdoors need RCD protection..

as do Socket outlets used by unskilled bods..

Or ring circuit cables buried in walls <50mm without suitable protection.. do....

BUT either way....

to my knowledge none of these are a C1 recommendation if following the ESC best practice guide...

Either C2's or C3's..

So NO..

I am not going to just assume your imaginary circuit is a C! purely because it is a ring with no RCD..

no matter what regs it was done under....

See my earlier post..

to discuss this in a productive way..

You MUST qualify with which application of RCD's you are looking at....

:C

 

[philbas]

Ok lets totally forget about RCD's.

The point I am trying to make is that just because it was ok in an earlier version of the regs does not make it safe under current regs.

You go to a house that was wired to version 1 of the regs, you can't fault it, it meets all of version 1's requirements

Wired to the standards in force at the time, so it must be safe .

You then go to one wired Yesterday that doesn't meet the requirement in force in the 17'th.. Which is safer.

I just don't agree on a C1 or C3 depending on when it was wired, the decision should be made on how dangerous the installation is not when it was installed.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

I just don't agree on a C1 or C3 depending on when it was wired, the decision should be made on how dangerous the installation is not when it was installed.

Agreed...

thats what I was trying to illustrate back in post #10...

obviously unsuccessfully! :C

Which is precisely why the old code 4 was an irrelevant bit of writing to note down something that does not comply with current regs but is not unsafe!!!!!

All we need to identify are items that are immediate danger, potential danger, or need improvement

:coat

 

[Apache]

Yes guys - that is what I was trying to get at in the early hours of this morning. It was Steptoe saying that not up to current regs was a C1 that didn't make sense to me.

 

[Sidewinder]

C1 - the fault can kill immediately, i.e. exposed live parts.

C2 - the fault requires another to be lethal, e.g. 400A MCCB protecting a 40m long1.0mm cable which could easily be overloaded as it feeds a 63A commando socket, running through an area where there is flammable material used and stored, this could catch fire and burn the place down, thus killing someone. Fault 1 incorrect co-ordination of OPD, fault 2 overload of cable.

Either make an EICR unsatisfactory.

Not perfect examples, but just trying to illustrate things, to stimulate sensible debate...

 

[steptoe]

well, yep, my example of an RCD wasnt a good one,

but my point is that something that was perfectly fine under a previous edition cannot now be deemed unsafe simply because it doesnt meet current regs,

this is what the OP wanted to know, a list of faults and their codes,

a perhaps better example,

3 ph installation with no mixed colours labels anywhere,

originally wired 12 years ago with recent additions last week,

black unmarked cable used as a neutral originally,

last week:-

some more unmarked black cable used as a neutral

whats the code?

unmarked black cable used as a phase

whats the code?

 

[Sidewinder]

TBH Steps, I'd probably go with a C2 for that!

Anyway, I was not having a go at anyone, just adding a few explanations in my own way of my own opinions.

 

[steptoe]

yep,

my point was that an installation done 12 years ago could never be coded for using black as a neutral,

but one done last week would need coded for the same issue, whether 3p or single,

so it is very relevant as to what edition of the regs it was installed to,

not, as someone said, irrelevant, it is very important to know what was permitted when the installation was first wired, as well as what is permitted currently.