When should an RCD be fitted or not?

[danrich123]

I often get queried on whether a RCD is required or not, However depending which electrician you speak to you get different opinions:

Here are some of the sinerios i've been faced with/asked about (when theres no RCD for the circuit):

After a PIR on an old board with no RCD protection - ( i've seen both satisfactory and unsatisfactory)
Addition of ceiling light
Lowering of light switch
Moving existing socket above skirting board.
Addition of circuit which has an RCD Spur at the end of it

 

[ban-all-sheds]

After a PIR on an old board with no RCD protection - ( i've seen both satisfactory and unsatisfactory)

Any outside sockets?

Addition of ceiling light

Where?

Does the addition result in new cables concealed in a wall or partition?

Lowering of light switch

Does the change result in new cables concealed in a wall or partition?

Moving existing socket above skirting board.

Does the change result in new cables concealed in a wall or partition?

Addition of circuit which has an RCD Spur at the end of it

Does the addition result in new cables concealed in a wall or partition?

 

[danrich123]

Lets say:

'Outside sockets'
No

'Does the addition result in new cables concealed in a wall or partition? '

No
Yes
Yes and No
Yes and No

 

[ban-all-sheds]

'Outside sockets'
No

No.

'Does the addition result in new cables concealed in a wall or partition? '

No
Yes
Yes and No
Yes and No

No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

 

[Risteard]

What do you mean outside sockets?

Any socket outlet which could supply equipment being used outdoors would need additional protection of a 30mA RCD at a minimum.

Ideally in a domestic scenario all 13A socket outlets should now be RCD protected.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The question was, as I read it, should the addition of an RCD to a non-RCD board be recommended on a PIR.

The 17th makes no distinction about sockets likely to supply equipment outdoors, so my judgement would be:

No outside sockets - Code 4.
Outside sockets - Code 2.

 

[Risteard]

The 17th makes no distinction about sockets likely to supply equipment outdoors

Indeed, which is why I stated that ideally all general purpose socket outlets in a domestic premises should now be additionally protected. However for the purposes of a Periodic Inspection it would be my view that the risk is greater if it could be reasonably expected that the socket outlet would supply equipment being used outdoors.

As such, it would not be a simple non-compliance and would in fact at the very least require improvement.

If the socket outlet itself was outdoors then it would also need to be suitably IP rated.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The trouble then is that you're starting to build a de-facto requirement for installations to be updated to the latest standard....

 

[STI]

The trouble then is that you're starting to build a de-facto requirement for installations to be updated to the latest standard....

I agree.

I think the addition of a further code reading something like "Would benefit from improvement" is needed in a PIR. As far as i can see the new coding on the potential EICC makes the situation clearer but worse ie. as i read IT both a code 1 and a code 2 definitely leads to an unsatisfactory rating being given. Why therfore i ask, bother differentiating the two codes.

 

[ericmark]

I would agree to split faults into just three groups is not very helpful.
3 does not really count as all that says is it has not been tested.
4 previous edition! which previous edition?
1 immediate danger really is only code to worry about as code 2 can include so many minor items that as a code it tells one very little.

But how would you add to it? For example.

A) Risk of fire.
B1) Exposed live parts.
B2) Basic protection only.
C) Required additional protection missing.
D) Insignificant circuit divisions.
E) Earth bonding faults.
F) Faults not covered with A to E.

Although this might sound a good idea any fault not code 1 we often find again the next time it is tested so maybe it should be.

A) Needs immediate attention.
B) Should be corrected within 6 months.
C) Will need correcting before any alterations can be undertaken.

I would be in favour of getting rid of the code system and then letting agents and like would need to read the document properly and not pick up on silly faults or gloss over the important ones.

 

[Risteard]

as i read IT both a code 1 and a code 2 definitely leads to an unsatisfactory rating being given.

That is an NIC stipulation. IEE Guidance Note 3 clearly states that it would be unreasonable to Class an installation with a Code 1 deviation as Satisfactory, but that in other cases the Inspector's judgement should be applied.

 

[Agile]

What do you mean outside sockets?

Any socket outlet which could supply equipment being used outdoors would need additional protection of a 30mA RCD at a minimum.

Ideally in a domestic scenario all 13A socket outlets should now be RCD protected.

Is it generally agreed that any consumer unit with all circuits protected with 30ma RCds can supply any circuit included bathrooms and gararges and external sockets?

 

[skenk]

Yes

They're arguing a point about electrical inspection reports and whether or not something non-compliant to the previous version of the regs is automatically a code 2. The previous version of the regs said that sockets likely to supply equipment used outdoors should be on RCD, now all normal sockets should be on RCD, regardless of whether or not they are likely to be used outdoors.

 

[Spark123]

Again it is up to the person doing the PIR on the day.
If there are sockets outdoors for general use which are not on an RCD personally I'd go for a code 1.

 

[ericmark]

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.

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.

Personally I would say BS7671:2001 but when one reads how with labels on the consumer unit we can accept the rules before 1966 in respect of earthing and lights one has to consider it may mean previous?

This ambiguity leaves the whole idea of codes in shreds 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.

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 but strictly speaking it could still be code 4. Sockets not likely to be used for items used outside would be code 4.
2) The 17th has clarified the need to split the supply into circuits as far as RCD's go as well as with MCB's it did not really change the requirement. Just removed some of the ambiguity so it does not comply if everything is on a single RCD which is likely to trip during normal use.

However although a single RCD would possibly not comply as to if it should attract a code 2 is another question. Although it may have some danger it is not an electrical danger and as such I would note it but would not code it.

The same question arises with cables buried in a wall. It does not present a danger unless some one is rather silly and you can't contact live parts without the use of a tool be that a hammer and nail or a drill it is still a tool and with the use of a tool you can come into contact with live electrical parts by taking cover off consumer unit so I can't see how this can ever be a code 2? One could give it a code 4 but not a code 2.

Lack of RCD on it's own can never be a code 1. It does not expose one to live parts and it should not be relied on so can't be a code 1. Even a code 2 is not really warranted although I would tend to code it as 2 it really should be code 4.