Hi,
I have recently had an incident whereby an employee received a shock from using a kettle in the kitchen. He was fine thank goodness. Although the employee wasn't looking when he was filling up the kettle, the outcome of the investigation is that there is no RCD protection or RCCB protection. When looking at the recent Electrical installation certificate ( 2014 after a refit took place) it states under RCD N/A. My understanding of the 17th edition is that you had to have one or the other.
This has since been installed but now I fear that this could be an issue at other locations. Any advise as I am 100% a sub contractor hasn't done what was set out... Thank you,

OK 1st thing, RCD, RCCB, different names for the same thing.
BS7671 is not law, it is hopefully, if complied with one way of meeting the requirements of EAWR etc.
As you are talking about a workplace then you are talking about skilled,mor instructed persons, they are not ordinary persons, as used to be the terminology.
To decide on whether the use of the most unreliable electrical safety device ever is required or not, more information is needed.
Also, you must refer back to the designer, you can't blame the installer if the designer did not specify this.
The next issue you possibly have is paying peanuts, you get monkees, also the market is flooded with incompetents who call themselves electricians and many of whom have only done 5 weeks classroom training as an electrician, with no on the job work whatsoever.
Finally, as it's late, you need to be looking why the RCD is required and why the circuit protection failed.
An RCD is not basic protection that is by automatic disconnection of suppl, an RCD is for additional protection.
Too many people are relying on RCD's as the first line of defence, they are not classed as this in the regs.

I would suggest that you do check with the designers, however, my gut feeling from the date that you specified is that additional protection may well not have been required for that socket.
I am guessing it was designed and installed under BS7671:2008, Amendment 2 2013.
I can’t really comment on the rest of the installation as I can’t see it from here! ;)

As far as the user filling the kettle.
So someone had a kettle plugged into a socket, with the socket turned on, and the kettle reached into a sink to enable the user to fill it with water.
Now, I can see a few things wrong with this, even if you can’t.
You are saying that you will check out the “17th”, I would look at 515.1.
The next thing would be to look at if the kettle meets the requirements of the product standard, is the lead very long?
The kettle either has a very long lead which does not meet the requirements of the product standard I suspect, or the socket is too close to the sink.
If it is within the length of a normal kettle flex, then it would need a different IP rating to a “standard” socket outlet due to the external influences, try 512.2.1.
Next thing is, I bet a £ to a p that the kettle manufacturer’s instructions state that the device must be unplugged before filling.
So, why did the user not do this, at the end of the day, you would not have become involved if this had not been at a workplace, thus, the user was an instructed person under EAWR.
I’d go for EAWR Reg 3, points 2 a & b, then Reg 6, which is covered by 512.2.1, then Reg 16.
Sometimes I think Darwinian selection should be encouraged.
To be honest if the person was working for me, I would have made up an excuse by now to sack them the way I am reading this.
Something like gross negligence or wilful endangerment, not probably the correct legal terms.

Now you have had the issue and it could have been a fatality, you really need to get to the bottom of it.
If you need to train the staff on how to fill kettles then so be it, if the IP is embarrassed because they caused all this then with any luck they’ll leave, which would be a good thing because they are a liability.
You need to get an EICR done on the premises to the current version of BS7671 which if you do it before the end of next month from the way I read the dates could legitimately be the one in force when the installation was designed.
If you go after that point then you would need to have it done to the Amendment 3 version, however, you could legitimately request that additional works were undertaken to compare the installation to the version of the regulations in force at the time of the design.
You would need the design date for that though.

As far as the EIC goes, I would hope that there are a LOT of N/A’s an EIC covers ALL aspects of BS7671, and you will not have all of these aspects in your premises, the N/A’s however MUST be accurate & correct.
I can’t comment on whether the N/A’s are correct I can’t see the cert nor the install.
Also, there is a minimum level of cert given by BS7671, and some of the scheme providers add additional information into their certs to capture greater detail on the installation.
I am guessing that the N/A’s are mainly on the “Schedule of Inspections”, and perhaps a few on the “Supply Characteristics and Earthing Arrangements” and the “Particulars Of Installation At The Origin/Referred To In The Certificate”

To be honest you need someone competent to check the EIC, & the install, rather than an untrained person just comparing it with a book because the meaning of the regulations against the location of the N/A’s is important.

Thanks for the lengthy responses I have carried out the investigation regarding the way of which the kettle was being filled - that was human error of course. He wasn't looking when he was filling... that's another issue and you are totally right regarding the manufacturers instructions. As far as the incident investigation is concerned, I have covered everything that I have needed to.
I'm thankful that the incident wasn't fatal

In any case, other circumstances have to come to light with regards to this incident - but its getting rectified.

Thanks for the advice everyone.