I agree with C3 as well.
As for ESF - buy a plug-in RCD.
As for ESF - buy a plug-in RCD.
Code 2 or 3
- Thread starter awaitcall
- Start date
Sponsored Links
As I would be thinking that ever socket outlet has the potential to be used outside and every socket outlet has the the potential to be protected via RCD equipment being used outside.
So the GUIDE should be a little more expansive on this and why just socket outlets?
Or according to the guide you would code 2 every domestic property that is without RCD protection!
So the GUIDE should be a little more expansive on this and why just socket outlets?
Or according to the guide you would code 2 every domestic property that is without RCD protection!
Isnt ESF the spawn of NICEIC?'
Yup.
Sponsored Links
aka the organisation that makes up regulations if they feel like it?
Yup.
"No RCD protection to any circuits" is not a valid observation.
Observations might include the likes of:
No RCD protection to socket outlets with a rating not exceeding 20A
No RCD protection of wiring concealed within the building fabric at a depth not exceeding 50mm and without earthed metallic mechanical protection etc.
No RCD protection to circuits in a location containing a bath/shower
You get the idea. These should be observations about things which do not comply. The generic statement "no RCD protection" is meaningless and does not demonstrate why it is required.
Irrelevant. We are not concerned with what was required at the time - we are only interested in assessing the safety of the installation now giving cogisance to the requirements of Amendment No. 3 to BS 7671:2008.
To be fair we don't know if he put that on his report - it could just be a summary made for the purposes of this topic.
True. Although the extra clarity in his post would have made for a more objective assessment of the recommendation code attributed to the observation(s).
Yes, but that doesn't automatically mean that something which was considered perfectly acceptable a few years ago but which doesn't comply the current edition has suddenly become any less safe so as to present a potential danger which would warrant a C2.
No, it doesn't. But it also means that it isn't necessarily considered safe enough not to warrant a C2 nowadays having given due consideration to the risks.
Basically it requires an objective judgement, and whether it was or wasn't acceptable at the time of installation isn't actually relevant.
Have you any examples (except bonding) where something 'more safe' because of recent regulations has become the minimum required?
Unless at that point a couple of years ago the requirements were changed because they decided that, after all, it wasn't safe enough, and there was a potential danger.
Using your philosophy, if you had a time machine you could go back 100 years and smoke tobacco with impunity, as it wasn't dangerous back then.
PBC, as a matter of principle, refuses to accept the idea that things change.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
