When should an RCD be fitted or not?

[Spark123]

The issue with code 4 is back to the inspector on the day of the PIR, if they see a deviation from the current day regs which in their professional opinion does not constitute a hazard but still does not comply then they are free to use this, the deviation does not have to be compliant with any earlier regs such as missing switch live sleeving in a bu/bn twin+earth (sorry - don't know much about the regs prior to 16th edn anyway).

 

[ericmark]

(sorry - don't know much about the regs prior to 16th edn anyway).

I think this is a really good point. Although I know 1966 was when earths were required on lights and I know the earlier editions refereed to distance from a sink etc. I have not got any copies before the 16th and could not tell you when exposed knife switches were outlawed.

 

[ericmark]

(sorry - don't know much about the regs prior to 16th edn anyway).

I think this is a really good point. Although I know 1966 was when earths were required on lights and I know the earlier editions refereed to distance from a sink etc. I have not got any copies before the 16th and could not tell you when exposed knife switches were outlawed.

 

[dingbat]

Should code 4 be previous or preceding edition? Previous means any edition before the one we have now, but preceding it the one just gone.

That is not what a code 4 recommendation is. Regardless of whether or not an observation ever did comply with any previous edition, if it does not comply with the current edition, but is not necessarily dangerous, it's a code 4.

So if it was allowed in Edition 1 should it get code 4? I would think not. But if preceding there is still a problem would that refer to anything allowed in 16th Edition or BS7671:2001? Clearly a big difference.

This is immaterial. You do not need to refer to earlier regulations (although knowledge of earlier editions should be expected of an inspector) indeed to do so would be more confusing for all concerned.

This ambiguity leaves the whole idea of codes in shreds

I don't think there is any ambiguity.

as what electricians class as code 2 and 4 varies from electrician to electrician making the whole idea of codes silly until they are clarified as to what they mean.

Their meanings are pretty clear, actually, and the ESC guidance of coding has generally been accepted as reasonable. You are right about electricians varying in application, but this would happen in any area where a practitioner applied knowledge and experience to arrive at a decision; what would be a code 4 in one type of installation may be coded 2 in another type of installation.

However as far as the RCD goes there are two major points.
1) Sockets likely to be used outside have needed RCD protection for some time so any without it I would consider a code 2 rather than 4

which is exactly what the ESC recommends.

but strictly speaking it could still be code 4.

not if you consider it requires improvement - remember, you only apply one code per observation.


This entire subject is a perennial problem and the attempts to clear it up in the forthcoming amendment will not, in my view, remove the problem. The amendments may, in fact, muddy the waters by introducing yet more documentation, which will further confuse the hard of thinking.

In my view - and remember I have daily contact with electricians from one-man bands up to national/international companies - the solution lies in better educating those who carry out inspections. I genuinely believe [and nothing in my experience tells me otherwise] that the large majority of electricians have insufficient understanding of the regulations to be properly competent to carry out inspections and write accurate reports.

This is not to say they are not competent electricians, but it is a rare day indeed when I meet a competent inspector. And for all its supporters the 2391 is not a training course for inspectors; if anything it should be seen as a low rung on that ladder of competence. It is doubtful, however, that the situation will really improve in the near future and I fully expect to see discussions like this arising with monotonous regularity for many years to come.

 

[Adam_151]

This entire subject is a perennial problem and the attempts to clear it up in the forthcoming amendment will not, in my view, remove the problem. The amendments may, in fact, muddy the waters by introducing yet more documentation, which will further confuse the hard of thinking.

In my view - and remember I have daily contact with electricians from one-man bands up to national/international companies - the solution lies in better educating those who carry out inspections. I genuinely believe [and nothing in my experience tells me otherwise] that the large majority of electricians have insufficient understanding of the regulations to be properly competent to carry out inspections and write accurate reports.

This is not to say they are not competent electricians, but it is a rare day indeed when I meet a competent inspector. And for all its supporters the 2391 is not a training course for inspectors; if anything it should be seen as a low rung on that ladder of competence. It is doubtful, however, that the situation will really improve in the near future and I fully expect to see discussions like this arising with monotonous regularity for many years to come.

The problem is that you'll never get two inspectors/ sparkies who agree absolutely... what I code as a 2, someone else might view as a 1, what someone else might code as a 4.... I generally find code 2 to be a broad spectrum that can cover everything from 2 way switching not working right* all the way upto disconnection times not met, open ring finals, etc.

Though someone did once try and convince me that I should code missing red sleeving on switchwires as a 2 but didn't get very far

Any inspection will miss some defects, thats a given, the trick is to try and get to a technique that doesn't miss too many and gets the job done in a reasonable time, the tell tales signs that this hasn't been adopted are a lack of limitations on circuit schedules and 200+ meg insulation resistance on every circuit for large DBs


(some will disagree and say as there is shock fire risk, that 2 is a bit harsh, but I defy anyone to tell me it does not 'require improvement')

 

[Risteard]

The problem with the Regulations is that if we accept that they are concerned primarily with safety, then it is difficult to argue that a non-compliance does not at least require improvement. This includes conductors not properly identified/sleeved etc.

On the other hand, there would be no purpose to Code 4 deviations if everything was at least Coded 2.

I have also always pointed out that Code 4 does not stipulate whether something complied with any edition of the Regulations. It quite clearly states that it does not comply with the current Edition of the IEE Wiring Regulations as amended (if applicable).

 

[ericmark]

The Best Practice Guide PDF is the document that lays out the codes 1 to 4 but if one excepts the BS7671 is written to ensure safety then how can not complying have no danger?

A guard and auto stop risk assessment works out the injuries that would result if it should fail and the type of switch or guard depends on the warning of danger and severity of likely injury.

If we take drilling into a cable buried in a wall as an example where the walls are thick so only worried about hitting cable from one side the risk is reduced to that with thin walls. And where the item it supplies is hidden with furniture (i.e. kitchen units) the risk is increased. But at no point is the risk zero so to say "The user of the installation are not in ANY danger as a result." is not correct. Had it said very little then it would have made some sense. OK door bell SELV cable buried in a wall would strictly come under code 4 but to me that's an error with BS7671:2008 and I am sure the writers never intended to include SELV cables.

The whole idea of the code system is to make it easy for Joe public to read the report and to understand the extent of the danger. I have gone to many premises where there has been a report written listing loads of code 1's when I asked what the guy testing said at the time I find he said nothing they only got what it said in the report. Yet the guide clearly says "The inspector should not wait for the full report to be issued" before informing the persons using the installation they are at risk.

When inspected 99% of the code 1's should have been code 2's and there was no need for emergency work to correct or isolate them.

but it is a rare day indeed when I meet a competent inspector.

That is a very valid comment but I still maintain it is the documents published by the Electrical Safety Council with their series of Best Practice Guides which have caused much of the problem with the poor use of English language leaving ambiguity throughout the documents.

In the BS7671:2008 there is very little room for interpretation it is very good in conveying the message. However the Electrical Safety Council seem to play down the need to follow the regulations. I realise of course there are times when we need to bend the rules. But if we look at the earth on lights as an example my fathers house built 1954 had earths on the lights and although the rule did not come out until 1966 most houses even before that time had earths to the lights. We considered in 1966 that it was not safe to have no earths on lighting circuits yet 44 years latter the Electrical Safety Council is still telling us to put a sticker on the consumer unit and just ensure only class II fittings are used. This is after the owner should have been informed 4 times at least with each decade periodic inspection report that improvement is required.

It is that "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" that is all important to many and I have seen very few installations over 10 years old where "Satisfactory" could be hand on heart used. And the guys doing inspections every day rely on that and will always try to find something which can allow them to write "Unsatisfactory" on the report as it gives them a let out should anything go wrong.

There is a red line against the absence of RCD protection for socket outlets and says you should give a code 1 to a socket outlet in a bathroom without RCD protection! What! nearly every socket I find in a bathroom has no RCD protection they comply with BS EN 61558-2-5 and are considered as safe for bathroom use and even where the socket is supplied from a RCD the isolated output has no RCD protection. So if I follow the instructions given in the Electrical Safety Council's guide I would consider any installation with a shaver socket in the bathroom as "Unsatisfactory" and would recommend it is isolated? I don't think so!
The idea is good but the English leaves a lot to be desired. Would it have been so hard to have said "Except for sockets to BS EN 61558-2-5"?

It looks like it was never proof read! They did however point out the safety cutout on immersion heaters is not required with metal header tanks. However there are now special plastic tanks designed for solid fuel boilers also able to withstand boiling water and as a result don't require the safety cutout on immersion heaters.

 

[Risteard]

The Best Practice Guide PDF is the document that lays out the codes 1 to 4

I disagree. It is merely the opinion of the NICEIC charitable wing "ESC".

Judge each installation on its own merits. If I am inspecting an installation then I decide on the recommendations and observations - not the ESC.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The problem with the Regulations is that if we accept that they are concerned primarily with safety, then it is difficult to argue that a non-compliance does not at least require improvement.

How about an addition to an installation which was entirely wired in old colours, but done after 2004, using non-harmonised cable?

 

[Agile]

Most of the latest consumer units being sold have two sets of RCDs with 4 or 6 MCB positions.

Is it general practice to wire everything upstairs to one RCD and everything downstairs to the other RCD?

OR is it normal good practice to wire the lighting circuits to the OTHER RCD so that if an electric kettle in the kitchen trips the ring main supplying RCD then at least the lights stay on.

How would you describe someone who connects power and lights downstairs to the same RCD?

Tony

 

[Risteard]

The problem with the Regulations is that if we accept that they are concerned primarily with safety, then it is difficult to argue that a non-compliance does not at least require improvement.

How about an addition to an installation which was entirely wired in old colours, but done after 2004, using non-harmonised cable?

Yes indeed. You could argue that it may cause confusion {EDIT: just realised you are referring to addition and not new installation so confusion unlikely} but then it isn't any more likely to cause confusion than legitimately mixed colours with warning notice.

Doesn't mean that it is acceptable of course.

 

[Risteard]

OR is it normal good practice to wire the lighting circuits to the OTHER RCD so that if an electric kettle in the kitchen trips the ring main supplying RCD then at least the lights stay on.

I think risk assessment is the way forward. I don't see two RCCBs as necessarily much safer than one RCCB. However I think the use of RCBOs would be better, or perhaps some circuits protected by RCCB and others by RCBOs.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

but then it isn't any more likely to cause confusion than legitimately mixed colours with warning notice.

Less likely, IMO.

Doesn't mean that it is acceptable of course.

So you'd recommend that the, for argument's sake, spur for the boiler installed 5 years ago should be removed and replaced with brown/blue cable, and a warning notice fixed to the CU, and that this would be an improvement?

 

[Risteard]

So you'd recommend that the, for argument's sake, spur for the boiler installed 5 years ago should be removed and replaced with brown/blue cable, and a warning notice fixed to the CU, and that this would be an improvement?

I thought I had already conceded that in your particular scenario it would achieve little.

 

[STI]

I still think codes have a place but mainly as a quick "executive summary". I think (at the moment ) that we should have

Code 1. Dangerous Leading to a unsatisfactory classification.
Code 2 Would benefit from improvement but not dangerous. Satisfactory classification
Code 3. Needs further investigation.

So Mr customer looks at his scores on page 1 and thinks o S**t i have a problem or what do they mean would benefit from improvement or whoopee we're ok.

The key part then becomes the notes where you explain each item and why you have given it the rating you have followed by the recomendations.

For me a code 1 is no RCD protection to an electric shower. Why because its dangerous to mix electricity , water and humans in one place. As a punter i can understand this.

A code 2 No rcd protection to inside sockets. Why its just possible you could get a nasty bolt if you drilled through a wire in your bare feet.

Code 3 Anything that you genuinely cant come to a conclusion about.

I know my examples are too simplistic but the point i am trying to make is its the notes that should be important not the codes and to be frank not references to clauses in the building regs. The inspector should be aware of these but not the customer/client.

I think and i am leaving myself open here, but i think the competent electrician/inspector community could agree if something was immediately dangerous and or a legal requirment or could be improved upon but not actually dangerous or needed further investigation.