RCD on bathroom circuit

[Murdochcat]

Well I probably will, but that doesn't really answer the question

There is no right or wrong. The coding is down to the inspector and I would probably go for a C2 - especially if it’s a rental

You have not answered my question - is this a rental ?

 

[pete01]

There is no right or wrong. The coding is down to the inspector and I would probably go for a C2 - especially if it’s a rental

You have not answered my question - is this a rental ?

Why? are tenants more likely to get a shock compared to home owners

 

[Murdochcat]

Why? are tenants more likely to get a shock compared to home owners

Lots of tenants do some particularly stupid things , in my experience

 

[Mecca]

By the way, you say that there is 'no main bonding', and there clearly can't be any bonding of a plastic supply pipe - but do you have a gas supply? If you do, that is very probably 'main bonded', in which case it would not even be true to say that your installation has "no main bonding".

Yep, the gas is yellow plastic into the property. So no main bonding at all. I would have said the lack of RCD is a C3 as it was done before the regulations changed. But this is beside the point really as you've answered my question - supplementary bonding doesn't rely on main bonding. Thanks all for the replies

M

 

[JohnW2]

Lots of tenants do some particularly stupid things , in my experience

So do some, maybe many, owner-occupiers and their fellow occupants.

I suspect that you may not be making you point clearly enough - since that seemed to be that a landlord has a duty of care to tenants which is a little different from the duty of care to himself/herself and family etc.

 

[JohnW2]

Yep, the gas is yellow plastic into the property. So no main bonding at all.

My understanding is that plastic gas pipe is not permitted within domestic properties. If it changes from plastic to metal before it enters the property, the metal pipe may (but may not) need bonding.

I would have said the lack of RCD is a C3 as it was done before the regulations changed.

What change in regulations are you referring to?

It is not necessarily the case that something which was compliant with prevailing regs when it was installed will never deserve a C2today.

The requirement for circuits serving bathrooms to be RCD protected has existed for quite a while. It was certainly a requirement of the 2008 edition of the regs, and possibly much earlier (others here probably know). When was this circuit installed?

But this is beside the point really as you've answered my question - supplementary bonding doesn't rely on main bonding. Thanks all for the replies

Indeed. You got your answer to that question in the very first response you received (from EFLI in post #2), upon which I expanded a bit in post #8 and, since you asked the question again, I re-iterated my answer in post #14.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Yep, the gas is yellow plastic into the property. So no main bonding at all. I would have said the lack of RCD is a C3 as it was done before the regulations changed. But this is beside the point really as you've answered my question - supplementary bonding doesn't rely on main bonding. Thanks all for the replies

M

whether it was done before or after the regs change is completely irrelevant.
What applies is what it is now when tge EICR is undertaken.

 

[ebee]

If we all agree that the regs state bathroom circuits must be RCD protected then they must be to avoid non compliance.
The code attributed is down to inspector.
When it was done, by who it was done is irrelevant .

I would caution against adding an RCD FCU just for the bathroom part of a larger circuit (i used to do it) .
Someone pointed out that lets say an existing bedroom circuit could have a disconnection time of 5.0 seconds under previous versions.a fault on say a bedroom portion of that circuit would leave a potentially dangerous voltage on that c.p.c entering the bathroom and the FCU RCD would not detect it.

Not to mention that the old BS for RCD protection has been disallowed for a while now anyway.

Make the whole circuit RCD protected to current standards.

Ps - would probably err towards a code 2

 

[ericmark]

Thanks John. RCD not present wouldn't be a C2 though surely?

As said all 230 volt electrics are potentially dangerous, so the C2 can be given to nearly anything. The idea of C1, C2, C3 was to guide the person who commissioned the EICR as to what order to do any upgrades, remember the EICR was never designed to be like an MOT with a pass/fail, it is simply a report as to the condition. Fact the English government decided that C2 was a fail with rental property has nothing to do with how an EICR is done.

There are organisations who offer advice, the electrical safety first as an example. But these are suggestions, it is not written in stone.

There is no required qualification or membership to do an EICR, yes one should have passed C&G 2391 and have what ever is the current qualification to say you can read the regs book, but this is all it says

“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;

There is no set qualification.

I have seen where clearly the mark has been over stepped, like missing smoke detectors, which are clearly required, but if not fitted it is some thing for a fire protection report it is not an electrical danger clearly as it is not there. One problem with writing a report is not to give the impression one has tested something which has not been tested, and to test a smoke alarm one needs a smoke generator. We see the same with the home buyers report where the surveyor has included comments about electrical items, he is clearly reporting on the condition of the electrical installation, so it is an EICR although with no codes, and not to the depth one would expect for an EICR done by an electrician.

As an inspector one does not need to code at all, one can simply point out the condition. Or one could use the old codes, there is nothing anywhere that says one MUST code, but not to code would make it hard reading for the owner. Had the English law said the person doing the EICR must be authorised to do this under his scheme membership then there would be some control, but this is not the case, if I want to rent the flat under my house I can write the EICR for the flat, there is nothing stopping me writing my own report.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

So do some, maybe many, owner-occupiers and their fellow occupants.

I suspect that you may not be making you point clearly enough - since that seemed to be that a landlord has a duty of care to tenants which is a little different from the duty of care to himself/herself and family etc.

Yeah this one. If your tenant manages to injure themselves on your property the easy way to deflect the ambulance chasing claim firms is to have all the risk reduction installed.

 

[Murdochcat]

- since that seemed to be that a landlord has a duty of care to tenants which is a little different from the duty of care to himself/herself and family etc.

The OP seems reluctant to respond to my question so lets work under the assumption that its a rental and yes in this case the landlord has a duty of care.

I can't really be bothered to argue with the OP or you either about coding as neither of you are claiming to be a competent person. Would you argue with your MOT station or doctor?

What a home owner does or doesn't do in their own home is not my issue.

 

[ericmark]

I would caution against adding an RCD FCU just for the bathroom part of a larger circuit (i used to do it) .

In the main I would say no need for RCD FCU or RCD sockets, but I have one RCD FCU and two RCD sockets in spite of having an all RCBO consumer unit.

To be frank not happy, but not due to using RCD FCU and sockets, but the procedure for isolation. I expect an isolator to look like this not this and I think doing an EICR on my own house I would be tempted to list this as a code C2, I look at my flat kitchen and there are 4 wall isolators, plus 2 built into the consumer units, and turn them all off and 2 x twin sockets and a FCU stay live, clearly marked EPS supply, but no instructions on where and how to turn off the EPS supply.

But I have a compliance certificate to say this all complies with the latest regulations. It has only been fitted a month. I think it is potentially dangerous, but having said that when would one need to isolate an UPS, the U stands for uninterruptible.

The same applies to you, one person may feel it is safe, and another that it's not, no one can say either option is wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

The OP seems reluctant to respond to my question so lets work under the assumption that its a rental ...

That's a very interesting "assumption"

I can't really be bothered to argue with the OP or you either about coding ...

Only the OP is arguing about the coding. I told him early on that it's entirely down to the opinion/judgment of the person undertaking the inspection and that, as we know, electricians' views vary as to whether it should be C2 or C3.

as neither of you are claiming to be a competent person.

'Competent' or not per some definitions, either of us would be 'allowed' to undertake an EICR, and are entitled to our own opinions and, even if I say so myself, I believe that I would be 'competent' (in an every sense) to undertake an EICR - not that I ever will (other than, effectively, in my own home - which I do regularly)

Would you argue with your MOT station or doctor?

Yes and yes - if I felt it necessary.

What a home owner does or doesn't do in their own home is not my issue.

 

[skenk]

Are you sure the gas supply pipe isn't plastic coated metal? I bet it is. If an RCBO is possible get that for the bathroom lights.

 

[Murdochcat]

That's a very interesting "assumption"

Seeing as he hasn’t responded and obviously needs a satisfactory report, only the PRS legislates for remedial action.

And yes, as usual you keep complicating matters with posts that not many people can be bothered to read as they wander off point