It is a decision  call for the inspector using his/her engineering judgment.


It is a non-compliance with BS 7671 so needs recording in my view.


Depending on actually seeing the installation myself my views are:-


Unless the cable supplying the cooker panel is surface run, more than 50mm deep in the wall or is mechanically protected then that is a C3.


If the socket could be used to supply mobile equipment outdoors then a C2. E.g near a door to the outside or a convenient window that could could be used to supply a jet wash, lawn mower, power tools etc.


If the socket cannot reasonably be used to supply mobile equipment outside then a C3.


I am risk averse and a strong believer in Rectum Protectum. I am not going to dilute my standards to please a client such as a landlord who does not give a stuff about their tenants. I make observations and recommendations based on my engineering judgment it is very much up to the client if they wish to accept or reject my advice as I cannot compel them to do anything.


So if you are doing an inspection and test it is your report and your signature under the declaration. Just remember if you are standing in the square box gripping the rail and the man in the fancy dress and wig will ask you early in the cross examination, "is that your signature and date under the declaration on page 38 of the court bundle".  I have been in that square box on many occasions over the last 30 years as a witness and it is a scary place, I would not like to be there as a defendant.

I have just seen the post above on due diligence. If you are doing any sort of work, especially for payment, you have a statutory and common law duty to exercise due diligence.


I know of a case many years ago where a contractor sent one of their employees in to do and inspect and test for a potential buyer.


A less than thorough inspect and test was carried out and a PIR as it was then was issued. After the buyer occupied the house she wanted the wall lights changed. Another electrician was called in to install some nice new wall lights and found the existing ones (Class 1) were not earthed and there was no CPC present so the electrician said, quite properly, I cannot install these and explained why.


The new owner, who was lawyer , then went to town on the contractor who issued the PIR. She claimed that she would not have purchased the house had she had known about the dangerous condition as she could have been killed or seriously injured and made a huge claim in the Count Court. It was settled before court with the contractor completely rewiring the property and paying for the making good and decoration.


Never a good idea to upset a lawyer as if the dispute ends up in court thy are playing a home match and you are going to get comprehensively stuffed.

There was a discussion about cooker switches with sockets not so long ago, and whether the socket is an anachronism from a previous era.


The best solutions are to either install a RCD for the circuit or replace the switch with one without a socket.

Also, if an appliance is used near to a cooker with a hot plate, plugged into the cooker panel 13 Amp socket,  and the flex drapes over the hot plate and is damaged revealing a live conductor, which later gets touched by the appliance user, a lack of R.C.D. protection will increase the risk of a fatal electric shock, especially if the user touches the earthed cooker and live flex conductor at the same time.


Z.

Chris Pearson:

John Peckham:

If the socket could be used to supply mobile equipment outdoors then a C2. E.g near a door to the outside or a convenient window that could could be used to supply a jet wash, lawn mower, power tools etc.

John, why C2, which makes the installation unsatisfactory? Given a 50 m extension cable, any socket could be used to supply mobile equipment outdoors.

Isn't that why BS 7671 now has 411.3.3 worded in the way it is, when formerly the wording in the 16th Edition Amendment 2:2004 Reg 471-16-01 was  "A socket-outlet rated 32 A or less which may reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment for use outdoors shall be provided with supplementary protection ..." ?


It could be argued that the interpretation is now clearly stated in the requirements from 17th Ed (BS 7671:2008) onwards?




So perhaps C2 is the only option unless the socket-outlet is located such that it's not available for "general use" (e.g. behind a large appliance etc.)?

Chris


If the 50m extension lead is "reasonably foreseeable " then a C2 would be appropriate. How would you code the non-compliance?

I never put a cooker switch with onboard socket outlet in. To me its a throwback to the old days of yore when people never had enough sockets (example one on ground floor and one on first floor) and ho if we adding a lecky cooker circuit we will throw i  that extra socket outlet. They were intended to be for occaional use of kettle but often get used for a washer or drier etc, not good. If you need extra sockets put a proper un in. Of course if youare replacing an existing damaged unit then ok but if its not RCD protected already then advise customer. I cant think of many times i have been persuaded thatsuch a socket will neverbe used on outdoor extension leads thrown thru a window.

Hm, this is getting difficult because it is being suggested that a change in the regulations in a fairly minor way makes an installation go from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. In the same way we could say that every installation now needs a new CU. If the regulations can wield such power then the people making them need to be accountable for the huge cost, and need to provide evidence of increased safety of a significant nature, such as guaranteeing a reduction of deaths from electric shock or fires by 10% immediately, not just a bit of hand waving and a general statement of "increased safety". It seems we are in a bad place when "back covering" is more important than good regulation. Ok I could change the cooker switch / socket for £50 quid, but that is not the point. I could fit a 30mA RCD to the whole installation but fall foul of those who would say this is unsafe because a trip removes all the lights. I could fit an RCBO to the cooker circuit, but because the oven element is old it trips when the oven is hot. Where does this retrospective chain end, because I think that it does not. I repeat my remarks about speed limits above, is this really where you want to be? I shall stick with C3 and a note of what to do for safety. If it is ignored this is not my problem and it would be very difficult to prove that it was, unless the customer could not read, and then they could not pay me by cheque (nothing else accepted!).