Rented House 5 year Electrical Check Tomorrow

[RF Lighting]

Yes that is the case, but they are different issues and would receive different codes.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes that is the case, but they are different issues and would receive different codes.

Are you saying that a single up-front 30 mA RCD would only get a C3 (i.e. a 'pass' as far as a 'landlord EICR' {or, I suppose, any other EICR} was concerned)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Possibly yes, but it depends on the specific property.

 

[JohnW2]

Possibly yes, but it depends on the specific property.

Are you implying that, for some properties, you would give it a C"? If so, what sort of features of the property would cause you to make that decision?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

It depends. If there's a vulnerable customer on a ventilator and dialysis with a lash up of outdoor ponds and garden lights, then it's very different to a top floor bedsit with two circuits and would most likely be coded differently.

You have to assess each property on a case by case basis.

 

[ericmark]

As said many times, if it was not potentially dangerous in 1960, then to be potentially dangerous now some thing must have changed. So we look at what has changed since 1960 to today, and yes there have been some, change from BA22 bulbs to E27, having bulbs cold enough to hold, inverter power supplies, class II appliances, but live chassis on TV and radio has gone, and the voltage needed for transistors is well below that needed for a thermionic valve.

There is also plastic gas and water pipes, and not sure when the ELCB-v was outlawed and the ELCB-c replaced it? But when I did my C&G2391 inspection and testing we had code 4, but it was decided it was unhelpful to say if it would comply is installed today, what it wanted is to know if potentially dangerous. The owner is not really interested if it complies if installed today, however he does want to know if to add some thing like a new socket then the consumer unit would need changing, so we do have code C3 so we can warn there will be a problem if we want to add to the system.

Some times one feels you need to be more of an English student than Electrician, where the regulations actually state the date after which a new design needs to comply, they are not required to comply if designed before that date, for the regulations published by IET/BSi or before that the IEE. But CENELEC Harmonization Document, and Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 for example are retrospective, so although it may not require to comply with BS7671 it may need to comply with other regulations which may be law.

So the inspector has a problem, he knows the current BS 7671 includes the CENELEC Harmonization Document, HD 384.4.41 S2/A1 2002 Protection against electric shock, but he does not know exactly what that document says, so he uses the guidance right or wrong, which the bodies who should now what these documents say, recommend, like the electrical safety council best practice guide.

However code C2 does mean potentially dangerous, so simply saying it does not comply with regulations is not good enough, for example if a rented property states in the conditions that nothing is to be attached to the walls, then it does not really any potentially danger from drilling holes in walls as it is not permitted. Not that such a condition could be made as tall furniture could fall over, so that condition could not be made, however you I am sure can see the point.

Until the new law, it did not matter if code C2 or C3, no one had to repair anything it was just informative, only with the new law was if C2 or C3 did it make a difference, and as far back as I can remember we have debated C2 or C3, so the law says the local council can over ride what any inspector says, but I suspect there would be a cost.

So we come to let the courts decide, but that also involves cost. So with a bill for £500 for new consumer unit it is hardly worth arguing about, the courts costs would be higher, so the landlord has no real option but pay.

 

[JohnW2]

It depends. If there's a vulnerable customer on a ventilator and dialysis with a lash up of outdoor ponds and garden lights, then it's very different to a top floor bedsit with two circuits and would most likely be coded differently.

You may need to talk to scousespark about that, since it sounds horribly as if you are talking about a 'risk assessment' (which he seems to believe is not appropriate in a domestic setting)

But, yes, I personally agree that, in 'extreme' situations, 'risk assessment' is appropriate - but dwellings with ventilators and dialysis machines are hardly things you will come across every day (maybe not every year!)

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

.... So we come to let the courts decide ....

As I keep saying to you, I don't think you should hold your breath, because I'm not sure that any Court will ever be asked to decide about the coding of EICRs!

Kind REgards, John

 

[JohnD]

if it was not potentially dangerous in 1960

I don't think that follows.

Like Asbestos, cigarettes and leaded petrol?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think that follows. Like Asbestos, cigarettes and leaded petrol?

Indeed, and I've often made similar points (although I'd be happier with your specific examples if they related o a date a bit early than 1960).

However, those are rather different situations from those we are usually discussing. Unlike the situation with asbestos, tobacco and leaded petrol, our understanding of electricity, and the dangers/risks it can present, has not changed appreciably in the last 60 or whatever years. What has changed is technology (allowing some issue to be addressed that couldn't sensibly have been addressed back then) but, far more importantly, 'our' (society's) perception as to what level of risk is acceptable. The youngsters of today would probably shiver at the thought of many of the risks that we regarded as 'acceptable' (and acceptable for our children) back in the 60s, or whenever.

Kind Regards, John

 

[conny]

Well the test has been done and as suggested by RF it's a new CU because of the 100mA ELCB.
As it's an old board there is no room to simply change the main isolator and you can't fit RCBO's either. 3 downlights in the bathroom are not correctly IP rated so they will have to be changed as well. Other than that all the other tests were good. Apparently there is another meter to the right, (out of normal sight), which was for off peak heaters and he said that can be removed as that too is also quite old. The heaters are no longer in existence and a separate circuit for a water heater is also unused as we have oil fired CH but they will probably leave the wiring in situ.
Wait for an appointment to change the CU now.

 

[scousespark]

You may need to talk to scousespark about that, since it sounds horribly as if you are talking about a 'risk assessment' (which he seems to believe is not appropriate in a domestic setting)

But, yes, I personally agree that, in 'extreme' situations, 'risk assessment' is appropriate - but dwellings with ventilators and dialysis machines are hardly things you will come across every day (maybe not every year!)

Kind Regards, John

I was referring specifically to Eric posting that a Risk Assessment in a domestic setting led him to believe no RCD was required. I pointed out that the regs did not allow for a Risk Assessment in a dwelling. We all assess risks every day, whether or not it is formal.

 

[JohnW2]

I was referring specifically to Eric posting that a Risk Assessment in a domestic setting led him to believe no RCD was required.

Indeed, and I had already questioned the conclusion/'belief' that his 'risk assessment' had led him to.

However, your point seemed to be a very general one. You now write:

I pointed out that the regs did not allow for a Risk Assessment in a dwelling.

... and your original comment was:

A risk assessment is not applicable in a domestic installation.

However, as you now go on to write:

We all assess risks every day, whether or not it is formal.

With which I would certainly agree. If I understand correctly, it therefore seems that you are making a distinction between "a Risk Assessment" and "assessing the risks". Is that the case?

This is all separate from the fact that I think both of us (certainly myself) have questioned the conclusion eric came to as a result of his assessment (whatever one calls it).

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

I don't know why you have pulled me into this thread.

In another thread, Eric posted that he would omit RCD protection after a Risk Assessment. All I said in reply was that would be inappropriate. You queried whether I meant risk assessments are never appropriate in a domestic installation.The following was my reply posted yesterday morning.

I have not said I don't carry out risk assessments in a domestic environment. I just said the Risk Assessment to omit RCD protection does not apply in this posters case.

I would agree that we carry out risk assessments all the time.

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...ing-consumer-unit.566084/page-2#ixzz6pGuNNKZi

This is why I seldom bother posting.

 

[ericmark]

I would say having 30 mA RCD protection is what we all should have, and specially where property is rented as the tenant has no option, I could look at my father-in-law and say as a retired electrical project director for Liverpool Hospital board with no signs of dementia there was no pressing need for RCD protection, but with my mother with signs of dementia, in fact she had put an extension lead in a bucket of water as she thought the neon was it catching on fire, she really did need all circuits RCD protected, in both cases I knew who visited and I could assess the risk, so in mothers case there was also the electricity at work act to consider as she had an array of carers so was a place of work.

As a rented property the landlord can't really control what people in the property do. Or what visitors they get. So in real terms one has to consider it may have people with reduced mental capacity in the property which may not live there but do visit, so really it does need 30 mA RCD protection.

However this is not what an EICR calls for, we can forget the other codes as there is very little argument, the only code in question is code C2, and we have to as inspectors consider if any part of the installation is "potentially dangerous" and 230 volt is always "potentially dangerous" we know since the removal of code 4 it is not related to BS 7671, so to decide if code C2 or C3 we can put BS 7671 in the bin, it is if "potentially dangerous" and with a TT supply I would not think anyone would argue that not having some RCD protection is "potentially dangerous" and one would also need to consider the type of RCD protection, so even with a 30 mA at 40 mS RCD if type AC and there are items used which could cause DC even with the RCD it could be still classed as "potentially dangerous".

So the RCD situation clearly changes between TT and TN, and where class I items used outside even the single pole and double pole switching, and we start to having to consider is a caravan stored not used at home under the same rules as caravans or electric cars? Can a caravan at home be supplied by a type AC RCD when stored in the garden? It is not a caravan site so not under caravan site rules, and where an earthed extremity to the home can be touched at the same time as the caravan then there is a clear problem having a different method of earthing, with my father-in-law's house there was around 1.5 meters between the gas and electric meter and the motor caravan which was left on charge 24/7 except when mowing the lawn, to have installed a TT supply for caravan was more dangerous than using the TN-C-S.

But returning to "potentially dangerous" any risk assessment starts with a method statement, i.e. we look at how the system will be used, and by whom, and access by key or tool is taken into consideration, so a clip on bath side is not the same as a screw on bath side, so we are looking at if lack of a 30 mA RCD causes a potential danger.

The 30 mA RCD will not in general help when touching a live part, it can take up to 40 mS to trip so in the main the risk is not reduced, I can still have 10 amp pass through my body, where it helps is when it trips before I touch anything, so for example with the Emma Shaw case had there been a RCD it would have tripped before she touched any live part, and so we can site the Emma Shaw case to show not having a RCD is "potentially dangerous". What is more of a problem is 30 mA v 100 mA, from what she said before her death it is clear there was a substantial leak to earth. And the 100 mA RCD would have tripped.

So in this case it is 100 mA v 30 mA, and I would like to hear the argument as to why 100 mA is "potentially dangerous" and 30 mA is not, and I can't actually formulate an argument as to why 30 mA passes and 100 mA does not.