Ring Main at Consumer unit

Andy, I did not say it is compliant, just not dangerous. The basis for coding is only the level of danger, not specific regulation compliance. This is exactly the problem with many EICRs, any deviation is coded to be as high as possible, for whatever reason. C3 is "requires improvement" as I am sure you realise, this requires improvement and yet is not dangerous in any way unless damage is caused which could equally happen to any exposed sheathed wiring. The details are the degree of risk that this is likely (no) and the relative lengths for damage, this very small, other wiring probably very large. This is a subtle case of degree, and therefore I do not see it as a C2. If there were yards of singles everywhere I would have a difference of degree and therefore a C2, but in the same way with a PAT, a lamp with 2 core unsheathed flex, I would not condemn it, just suggest improvement. In case you had not noticed, there are still many of these still about, and even some being sold new, particularly twisted cotton-covered conductors, which is NOT a sheath. You may wish to differ, but it is the opinion of the Inspector which he should be prepared to justify, which I think I have in a fair and reasonable way, just as I would in Court. You may make a counterargument, but need to say WHY the risk is higher than I have suggested, preferably with a previous case where this defect in the same length was proved dangerous.

Andy, I did not say it is compliant, just not dangerous. The basis for coding is only the level of danger, not specific regulation compliance. This is exactly the problem with many EICRs, any deviation is coded to be as high as possible, for whatever reason. C3 is "requires improvement" as I am sure you realise, this requires improvement and yet is not dangerous in any way unless damage is caused which could equally happen to any exposed sheathed wiring. The details are the degree of risk that this is likely (no) and the relative lengths for damage, this very small, other wiring probably very large. This is a subtle case of degree, and therefore I do not see it as a C2. If there were yards of singles everywhere I would have a difference of degree and therefore a C2, but in the same way with a PAT, a lamp with 2 core unsheathed flex, I would not condemn it, just suggest improvement. In case you had not noticed, there are still many of these still about, and even some being sold new, particularly twisted cotton-covered conductors, which is NOT a sheath. You may wish to differ, but it is the opinion of the Inspector which he should be prepared to justify, which I think I have in a fair and reasonable way, just as I would in Court. You may make a counterargument, but need to say WHY the risk is higher than I have suggested, preferably with a previous case where this defect in the same length was proved dangerous.