periodic inspection report no rcd code on flat

[sparkattack]

hi, on a periodic inspection report for a ground floor flat what would you code no RCD protection on sockets or cables in the wall for drops to light switches etc. There are surrounding gardens around the flat but is cut under their building maintenance. ive always been told that all sockets require rcd protection unless they are only to be used by competent persons

cheers

 

[batty]

Will be a code 4 ie doesn't comply with current regs.

 

[kme]

If there is a possibility that the customer may use equipment outdoors, code 2.

Otherwise, as long as all other criteria are acceptable,code 4.

KME

edit: what is the earthing system at the premises, and existing OCPDs?

 

[sparkattack]

its a tncs system and its all 60898 mcbs with no rcd protection

 

[Theorysparky]

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety Council

have a read

who told you only a competent person can use a non rcd socket ?????

someone is pulling your todger mate.....!!!!!

 

[SteveT]

Agree with KME, Regs not being retrospective - i.e. there does not have to be RCD on old installations - however if major work or CU change since 17th Edition it should have been done.

A point is covered in PIR - we have to give an estimate of the age of installation or evidence of recent work - whether by inspection or by enquiry if there is no previous paperwork.

Often lack of RCD goes hand in hand with poor earthing arrangements

I think that sometimes we should be more proactive in getting customers to have RCD's fitted, although I admit, some would take so much persuading for what is a relatively cheap option when weighed up against the possible consequences.

It is about time he government made it mandatory to have them fitted at the first oppertunity. Electricity is as dangerous as Gas, is it not!!!

 

[spinlondon]

The percieved danger and applicable code is allways subject to the opinion of the inspector.

Do you believe there is a likelyhood that the householder would use any mobile equipment outdoors?

If yes then code 2 if no then code 4.

Perhaps the house holder likes to sit outside during the summer listening to a portable radio or surfing the net on a laptop.

Perhaps they use an extension lead to save the batteries?

 

[Sidewinder]

SteveT,

I wish lecktrickery were as dangerous as gas on times.

However, it is not, it will not demolish blocks of flats, or complete houses in one fell swoop!

 

[spinlondon]

If the government were to insist that RCD protection be provided, and that existing installations be upgraded as soon as possible, it would indicate that the 16th edition Regulations were not safe.

This would affect not only recent installations, but also some ongoing installations that were designed before the 17th came into force. For instance the Olympic Site.

Would householders then be able to sue whomever was responsible for their installation, as they are now deemed unsafe.

 

[Sidewinder]

Good point Spin, never thought I'd type that! ; )

 

[sparkattack]

would you class the little ceiling rose support arms broken as unsatisfactory and code 2?

 

[Manator]

would you class the little ceiling rose support arms broken as unsatisfactory and code 2?

There is a problem here, according to guidance any broken accessory should be noted. As no present danger is there ie no live cables to touch it can not be a code 1, so that leaves us with 2, 3 or 4. (I have two types of code 4).

If its not a code 1 then is it code 2? It can not be a 3 because no further investigation is required its broken or it is not, code 4 is even less appropriate to describe a broken fixture. That only leaves us with a code 2, dependant on the danger which would upgrade this to a code 1. The support arms on a ceiling rose prevent strain to the cable any fault occuring during normal use could not be attributed to the manufacturer if these are broken.

When I do any PIR I always follow the guidlines the ESC and NICEIC have some very good info, as I am sure other providers do. I then base my most important code 1 and 2's on the basis of my risk assessment for the site. If you fo;;ow the same procedure you quickly learn how to code properly and also defend that code for the future.

Long answer but I thought I would clarify.

Oh my two code 4's one is fixable one is not required to be fixed, just is.

 

[SteveT]

If the government were to insist that RCD protection be provided, and that existing installations be upgraded as soon as possible, it would indicate that the 16th edition Regulations were not safe.This would affect not only recent installations, but also some ongoing installations that were designed before the 17th came into force. For instance the Olympic Site.

Would householders then be able to sue whomever was responsible for their installation, as they are now deemed unsafe.

Yes maybe, although legislation can be retrospective it is generally without exception that liability is not retrospective, as long as the job was done to the standards existing at the time.

Opinion changes all the time - it was only a short time ago that smoking was trumpeted as a benefit to health!!! I think it is now generally accepted that RCD protection is an advancemet for the safe use of electricity and should be mandatory, therefore acknowledging that previous Regs were deficient at the time is the whole point of revision - progress in the science!!

If the Gov were to legislate that all installations had to have RCD protection then this would most likely be ongoing with a grace period, ie until next inspection, fault etc. and therefore although applying to old as well as new, would not be retrospective in application, a distinct difference.

 

[steptoe]

its also an opinion,

as is the fact some may say PME/TNCS is an improvement over TT.

wait for the amendments and then tell me that everything in the 17th was an improvement on the 16th.

 

[batty]

its also an opinion,as is the fact some may say PME/TNCS is an improvement over TT.

wait for the amendments and then tell me that everything in the 17th was an improvement on the 16th.

Trouble is steps I think it was rushed in. When I did my training I was told not to rcd protect cooker/ immersion circuits due to them nuisance tripping then when they bring the 17th in all of a sudden everything has to be rcd protected.

 

[steptoe]

just shows how opinions differ,

I was taught to ALWAYS RCD imm htr as it was water, same as a shower.

how do you think 17th was rushed in as 16th was here for 20yrs.!

they had long enough to consider an upgrade.