When should an RCD be fitted or not?

[Risteard]

Code 2 Would benefit from improvement but not dangerous. Satisfactory classification

May or may not be satisfactory (inspector's judgement required) I believe would be more appropriate.

 

[STI]

Code 2 Would benefit from improvement but not dangerous. Satisfactory classification

May or may not be satisfactory (inspector's judgement required) I believe would be more appropriate.

The only problem then is it becomes subjective again. My definitions are trying to position it so that if it requires improvement to the extent it would cause an unsatisfactory classification it should actually be thought of as dangerous and therefore a code 1

 

[ericmark]

I feel most electricians will know how to inspect and test and how to write a technical report on what they have found.

The problem arises when we are asked to interpret that into layman's language. And at the same time not leave one's self open to any claims that one has mislead the reader.

The English language is not the best for accuracy and people attribute different meanings to the same word. In some cases near opposite meanings as with "Decimate" which comes from the Latin and days of Roman's meaning to kill one in ten. Hence "Deci" meaning ten. However many now consider it to mean to get rid of nearly everything.

Words like "need" and "dangerous" seem to mean different things to different people and really they need qualifying i.e. "Danger of electrocution" which of course is very different to "Danger of getting a shock".

The problem arises when a letting agent wants to see certain words used so they don't have to read through the report but can home in on some handy phrases.

So if we consider a family with small children but no DIY than what is "Dangerous" is completely different to a couple without children who pride themselves on their non existent DIY skills.

I can't see how we can possibly protect the person with tools. And so if the item is safe unless there is some one armed with tools I would say it's satisfactory.

The other point has to be where the danger is not due to electricity. I will take the immersion heater as an example. Old house has metal header tank in loft and it starts to leak. Plumber changes it for a new plastic one. There is no cut out on immersion heater. Is that an electrical fault or a plumbing fault? How should it be worded? To me the type of immersion heater thermostat does not match type of header tank is way to describe it and if you see there is also a solid fuel stove with back boiler then clearly it's not an electrical problem. So how could it be labelled as unsatisfactory? Nothing wrong with electrics it's the plumbing at fault.

 

[Risteard]

My definitions are trying to position it so that if it requires improvement to the extent it would cause an unsatisfactory classification it should actually be thought of as dangerous and therefore a code 1

I think there is some merit in that approach.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

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.

 

[Risteard]

Indeed. But I said that in your specific scenario it would likely achieve little to alter it. I also stated that this did not mean that such an installation method was acceptable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I feel most electricians will know how to inspect and test and how to write a technical report on what they have found.

All the time we see electricians here who can barely string two words together and remain coherent.

In some cases near opposite meanings as with "Decimate" which comes from the Latin and days of Roman's meaning to kill one in ten. Hence "Deci" meaning ten. However many now consider it to mean to get rid of nearly everything.

But those people are wrong.

Words like "need" and "dangerous" seem to mean different things to different people and really they need qualifying i.e. "Danger of electrocution" which of course is very different to "Danger of getting a shock".

Unless you go with the (utterly and disgustingly appalling) decision of the Oxford dictionary, of all institutions, to dumb themselves down to the level of the semi-literate idiots who think that "electrocution" means a non-fatal electric shock.

And so if the item is safe unless there is some one armed with tools I would say it's satisfactory.

And there's another oft-misunderstood word. How many people, when told that their performance or creations were "satisfactory" feel that they have been criticised? (As an aside, "adequate" is another such word).

Code 2 Would benefit from improvement but not dangerous. Satisfactory classification

May or may not be satisfactory (inspector's judgement required) I believe would be more appropriate.

The only problem then is it becomes subjective again. My definitions are trying to position it so that if it requires improvement to the extent it would cause an unsatisfactory classification it should actually be thought of as dangerous and therefore a code 1

But "satisfactory" is subjective.

2 people might take the same second hand car for a test drive, over the same roads etc, and one might consider it a satisfactory vehicle, the other not - it depends on what their minimum acceptable standards are for performance, comfort, NVH etc.

Or I might stop for fish, chips & mushy peas on the way home, and regard it as a satisfactory meal. If I got the exact same food in a Michelin starred restaurant I would judge it to be far from satisfactory.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed. But I said that in your specific scenario it would likely achieve little to alter it. I also stated that this did not mean that such an installation method was acceptable.

So if you consider it unacceptable for the installation to contain a spur to a boiler not wired in brown/blue, how would you code it?

 

[OwainDIYer]

Is the Gas system any clearer?

- Immediate Danger (disconnection or making safe required)
- At Risk
- Not Current Standards

 

[Risteard]

Indeed. But I said that in your specific scenario it would likely achieve little to alter it. I also stated that this did not mean that such an installation method was acceptable.

So if you consider it unacceptable for the installation to contain a spur to a boiler not wired in brown/blue, how would you code it?

I have already acknowledged on several occasions that I would not require this particular scenario to introduce a danger.

This does not mean that most simple non-compliances could not be argued on safety grounds, e.g. switched line at a light switch in a blue core which has not been reidentified brown. Most would regard this as Code 4, however it could be argued that it requires improvement (Code 2). It's a matter of opinion.

 

[Spark123]

How can unidentified switch live conductors, if left, give rise to danger though? Personally I'd go with a code 4.

 

[Risteard]

How can unidentified switch live conductors, if left, give rise to danger though? Personally I'd go with a code 4.

If someone does not identify it as a line conductor, which is the reason why they require identification. My point is that if the Regulations are concerned with safety, then it surely follows that non-compliances could be less safe.

This is where the difference between Codes 2 and 4 can become blurred.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is the Gas system any clearer?

- Immediate Danger (disconnection or making safe required)
- At Risk
- Not Current Standards

So how should an old, but perfectly sound and leak-free gas cooker without an FSD, in a flat, be judged?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have already acknowledged on several occasions that I would not require this particular scenario to introduce a danger.

Yes, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that you also said "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."

I guess we can't accept that they are concerned primarily with safety?

And now you seem to be saying that you would say "this is unacceptable, but satisfactory".

Anyway - this is just going to start looking like arguing for the sake of it and degenerate from there, so we'd better leave it.

It's a matter of opinion.

They all are, and what's worse an opinion which ought to be, but cannot be, informed by other factors....


For example...

How can unidentified switch live conductors, if left, give rise to danger though? Personally I'd go with a code 4.

If someone does not identify it as a line conductor, which is the reason why they require identification.

But what danger is there in that?

And picking up on what Eric said earlier, is any danger the same to a skilled person, or an instructed person, or someone who is none of those?

My point is that if the Regulations are concerned with safety, then it surely follows that non-compliances could be less safe.

Could be. Might not be. Might not be depending on who is doing what with/to the installation....?

This is where the difference between Codes 2 and 4 can become blurred.

Maybe there is absolutely no point to having a Code 4? How many installations over 2 years old would you now find with no Code 4's, even if originally done 100% perfectly and never fiddled with since?


Maybe STI is right:

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

(Except for #2 - if something would benefit from improvement then it cannot be satisfactory.)


As I write this I have a nagging feeling that these sorts of problems are going to be addressed, possibly, in AMD1? What are the proposals in the DPC?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And another thought on the "it depends who" factors.

I haven't got the BRB with me right now, but I'm pretty sure that the definition of skilled/instructed person includes the concept of knowing enough to avoid dangers that might arise, or recognise risks etc.

Now - in the context of the reg which requires installations not under the supervision of etc to have cables, even in "safe" zones RCD protected if <50mm from the surface, the only knowledge that someone needs to avoid dangers or recognise risks is "here there be cables - don't drill holes".

A clearly worded notice, with a diagram, informing people that they should assume the presence of buried cables in zones horizontally and vertically from accessories, in corners etc, makes them sufficiently informed to avoid the risks of drilling into cables which RCDs are supposed to prevent.

So should the provision of such a notice mean that omitting RCD protection for concealed cables doesn't even merit a Code 4?