The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 5351 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Socket 1.5m from bath but outside bathroom

Sparkymania
Hi


On a periodic inspection I have given a code 2 to a socket that is in a hallway opposite a bathroom door with the edge of the bath 300mm from the door. In fact you can even touch both at the same time.

My supervisor has said that it is not in the location so it's not required to be at least 3m away.

I disagree with this for two reasons.

1) The principle of the 3m distance is to reduce the chance of someone plugging in something that can be used while in the bath or shower, e.g. a TV balanced on the edge of a bath. Therefore, it does not make a difference if the socket was in a bathroom less than 3m away from the bath or outside the bathroom less than 3m away.

2) The definition of "location" in section 701. This can mean different things depending on context. E.g. Shot on location in Egypt can mean the whole of Egypt. Insert pin in correct location means a specific point. I have read a discussion on this forum where the definition was described as only being within the zones but this was disputed. 

I always took it to mean "room" but then why does is not say room. Because of this issue with the 3m I then decided that "location" must be more general and include the areas outside the "room" that are effected by this reg. 

However, looking at reg 701,1 it seems to be more specific. To quote "...locations containing a bath... AND to the surrounding zones".

According to that statement the "zones" are surrounding the "location". Therefore the location must be the actual position of the bath or shower. Not the room it's in. Not the area around the zones. Not the area up to what is effected by the 3m reg.

Therefore, the 3m to sockets reg should still count as being "anywhere" irrespective or the definition of "location".


What are your views?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    At the end of the day its your report based on your experience and training, if you want to give it a code 2 and can justify your decision then that is the end of the matter. A single blanking plate will fix it. I wouldn't code it myself but the world would be a dull place if we all agreed with each other.
  • 0
    Sparkiemania - at the end of the day, you have to adopt the pragmatic view that you cannot save the world, you cannot, despite the best of intentions, regulate against pure stupidity.

    Charles Darwin will take good care of those who fall foul of this.
  • 0
    I bet Charles Darwin never had sockets outside his bathroom. ?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    so if a socket in a bedroom is within 3m of the bath would you code that a C2.
  • 0

    I get what you are saying. 

    To keep the population in check we must electrocute a small percentage of the population. Relaxed

    Seriously though, isn't even one electrocution per year in the bathroom enough for the IEE to take some sort of precautionary action within the regs. When the report of a politician's daughter was electrocuted in the kitchen when knocking a nail into the kitchen wall to hang up a dish rack (or something) got the IEE to start changing regs to include RCD protection for cables in wall less then 50mm etc, would this not be on the same par?




    Almost. I think we can afford to allow a few more people to be electrocuted, if we can divert the effort that might have saved them to some other measure that would have saved more lives for the same cost or effort. For example, would we have been better not introducing part P, and spending the same money on inspecting hot water cylinders ? - the no. of babies and old folk killed by scalding accidents in the last 15 years suggests we might well have been. Of course it is not possible to visit the parallel universe to check, and in the mean time we have changed the rules on immersion heater thermostats, though there are plenty of old ones in service.

    Please do not believe that the famous kitchen rack through a cable example, the death of death of MP Jenny Tonge's daughter, Mary Wherry in 2004, drove either the introduction of part P or the sockets on RCD rules - these things take far longer to implement, and  are rarely influenced by one event, and the rule changes were already in the pipeline. However it does not stop the Daily Mail, and some of the trade press, who really should know better, from implying a link, and dramatic examples do make headlines. In that example arguably the fact that other family members had noticed tingles off it and did nothing also suggests that a public information campaign with  some technical education on how to recognise dangerous situations and what to do about it would have been a good idea.

    Of course any one death is a tragedy for the family and friends of the departed but it makes a very bad basis for changes of rules, - consider the 3 to 4000 fatalities on the road each year, should we rush out and ban cars perhaps ?

    We need to be realistic about what we can, and cannot, be responsible for.

    The socket location meets the current regs, - is it RCD protected ? if so poses a very  small extra risk, no action needed, but if you wish record  in the 'notes' part of your  report that despite its location it is not meant to be used to supply equipment in the bathroom    . If  it is not on a circuit that is RCD protected then that is non-compliant to current regs and something needs to be done.


  • 0
    Interesting point from sparkymania and one that I would have hitherto disagreed with. 701.32.1 allows the zones to be limited by walls, widows and doors where this can be effectively demonstrated. So the danger envisaged in the setting of the limit is definitely compromised by the bathroom door being open. When in the house on my own, I sometimes have a soak with the bathroom door open so that I can listen to a wee bit of Joe Dolan on the stereo system. I will be so much less relaxed now as the single socket I personally installed in the hall immediately outside the bathroom door is clearly potentially dangerous!

    Anyway, your point is well made Sparky and if I was responsible for a design now, I think that I would endeavour to have the socket located at least 3m from zone 1 irrespective of a door.

    Lisa, can you ensure that your moderator rules are strictly applied on any snide comments made about Joe Dolan?
  • 0
    sowie1959

    I'm going by the Best Practice Guide 4 (issue 4) BPG4 Condition Reporting under Code 2 items on page 13 second from last item.

    Are we talking through the hallway then into a bedroom? Then no.

    Or in an on-suite, in which case you make a good point and that is a no as well. I do student accommodation (among other things including workshops, labs, etc). I have never given them a code anything and in both cases they have been less than 3m from the bath.

    In my brothers house 3 of the bedrooms have on-suite and have sockets on the wall in the bedroom less that 3m. Never gave it a second thought.

    I had forgotten that. 

    Maybe this particular issue has got me going as the socket is dead opposite the bathroom door. 


    Mapj1.

    Excellent point about car fatalities. If we were to take it that far we would have to ban getting up in the morning in case we trip and hit our head.

    A public information campaign would be a good idea for a lot of things. They used to do that in the 50s and 60s. Would be a good idea for those bloody middle lane hoggers.

    I don't know the statistics for electrocutions in total (strangely, a web search showed no info) but a TV electrical safety campaign would be good.

    Also excellent point about the action to take. If RCD protected no problem. If not it would normally be code 3 but I would class that the same as a socket that is liable to feed equipment outside so code 2. (I class any socket as liable to feed equipment in situations of higher risk the same as feeding outside. I have given code 2 for sockets in plant rooms with concrete floors and plant that is liable to leak water the same and my supervisor and the client have agreed this is appropriate).

    Not too sure about the notes with the advice about not supplying equipment in the bathroom. It would then have to go into detail about not supplying when taking a bath but okay when using a hair dryer or clippers as long as no one else is in the bath. Could be a bit long winded.


    That is what I will do from now on. Base it on whether the socket is RCD protected and treat the same as any other socket feeding areas of higher risk.

    If RCD protected then "no comment". If no RCD then code 2. (Possibly still code 3 if less than 3m but through the hallway first then into the bedroom. Will have to think a bit more on that one).

    That's cleared things up in my mind.

    Thanks everyone for responding

    Very much appreciated.


  • 0
    What about immersion heater switches fitted inside cupboards in bathrooms?
  • 0
    Firstly, it is not a socket so the 3m reg does not apply. Nothing can be plugged into it and moved close to the bath.

    Secondly, many cupboards are outside the zones so a switch is within regs.


    That only leaves cupboards that are less than 600mm from the bath.

    I have heard 2 opinions.

    1) The door of cupboards tends to be closed which puts it outside the zone, and the switch is not likely to be operated by someone using the bath at the same time.

    2) The NICEIC (he who shall be obeyed (sometimes)) says no unless the cupboard can only be opened by key or tool.

    However, as long as the switch itself is outside the zone then there is no issue. 



  • 0
    Whilst I might agree with Sparkymania's interpretation of the wording of the regulation, it is merely a worded replacement for zone 3.


    Did anyone ever argue that zone 3 extended to outside of the bathroom?

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines