Imposed code 2

Seems a bit heavy handed to me. To date the socket may only have been used for a tree, but there would be nothing to stop a workman plugging in e.g. a drill there so I wouldn't argue with C2.

In my view, 13 amp sockets are a standard type into which non technical persons may plug anything with a matching plug. Therefore presumed use only for a Christmas tree is irrelevant.

Also Christmas trees are rather high risk if line voltage lights are used. And not much better if SELV lights are used but with the transformer exposed to the rain.

RCD sockets are so useful ;-) That is one where it probably makes more sense than one RCD at the origin, the tree lights can trip off and be reset with minimal aggro to the rest of the building.
Without seeing it, it could go either way really - if the balcony is well sheltered by some sort of porch or roof, it is no worse presumably than a socket on the inside of the building on the same circuit, near a door or window that is permanently  open when the place is open. On the other hand if it obviously all gets rained on regularly then it is not so sensible at and is probably the wrong place.
It also depends what else may get plugged in there in the future, and if that is likely to be class I or Class II.
This does show that at least in some places/ organizations  the assessment process is being performed and working after a fashion  -looking around it is not always clear that it does.

Mike.

411.3.3

Z.

"I am afraid I may have taken a more belligerent stance!"

Hi Lyle,

I`m not sure if you mean that as if you were in the position of  an assessor or as the contractor. 

I think the NICEIC solution was probably correct but can also see the argument that they "should have come down on the contractor like a ton of bricks" .

Now where is my tin hat?

Yes anything could have been plugged into that socket, even at ground level via an extension lead. Things like an outdoor kiddies ride, a vending machine or other equipment. The socket should have R.C.D. protection.

Z.

It is NOT up to anyone else what coding is chosen by an inspector, it is entirely his responsibility. This idea that codes can be imposed by someone else is daft, as is the idea that coding books are even required! The problem is as I have discussed before, that qualifications are inadequate for many inspectors.

I can give NO advice on the coding of this socket, I have not seen it, and as Mike says above, the danger may or may not be significant. Whilst additional protection is a good idea for items used outside, the actual level of danger depends on many uncontrolled factors, one being the actual user. Remember this socket may well have been fully compliant with a previous edition of the regulations, it is NOT that easy with a stroke of the pen!

I do wonder Lyle if this is just a "put up job" by the scheme provider, or perhaps it is one of the rare occasions where bad work is actually followed up?

I can see both sides to this one. No argument that these day we'd expect a 13A socket to have 30mA RCD additional protection - the question is how to code it if it doesn't. The usual rule on thumb is that if it's likely to supply mobile equipment outdoors the lack of RCD would be a C2, otherwise a C3. It's hard to judge without seeing it, but I can see the possibility that in some particular circumstances that a socket on a sheltered 1st floor balcony could be judged to be no more hazardous than an interior first floor socket.

I suspect there's some background going on here - e.g. customer or property purchaser later had the lack of RCD pointed out an incurred some unexpected costs to rectify it which they're now seeking to recover (especially if they've been badly advised that is demands something major like a CU change).

   - Andy.

"It is NOT up to anyone else what coding is chosen by an inspector, it is entirely his responsibility."

Yes David I agree with you. However are we to say any teacher/tutor/assessor may not give guidance and award marks or pass/fail a test or exam, likewise some governing body?

"qualifications are inadequate for many inspectors." Agreed.

"I can give NO advice on the coding of this socket, I have not seen it, and as Mike says above" again I agree.

"the actual level of danger depends on many uncontrolled factors, one being the actual user." Yes again. however we surely must reasonably foresee who might use it or what those other factors might be. If it so unlikely to ever be a problem then fair enough but however unlikely if it does become a problem that has not been reasonably dealt with then how will the inspector or those inspecting the inspector be able to convince they took all reasonable steps to prevent issues even arising from unlikely events (how unlikely? dare we risk it?)

"qualifications are inadequate for many inspectors." Agreed

"Remember this socket may well have been fully compliant with a previous edition of the regulations, it is NOT that easy with a stroke of the pen!" Disagree, our perception of danger, particularly from experience" . Remember the Home Office Skirt requirement on lampholders thingy. 

How would you reasonably expect a person hot naked sweaty stood in a full bath reach up to change the lamp in a lampholder or lean over to reach the boiler to adjust controls or click the SFCU etc etc or have an extension on their chest with a mains radio plugged in? No you wouldn`t but some folk do such silly things. Do we offer them protection or do we let Charly Darwin sort them out?

Just because something did comply with a previous edition does not make it become safer but if it did comply with one of the more recent editions then we might be encouraged judge it more relatively safe .

A lot of my time was spent in the era of rewireable fuses, No RCDs and switchgear being up for off and down for on, I never thought them unsafe back then. Nowadays I might not feel that totally confident. In fact a lady asked me to change a fuse to a breaker (30A BS 3036 Ring Final) cos it made a right bang and frightened her to death and she would feel happier with a MCB she could just reset. I replied that she should really be asking someone to investigate those bangs rather than just resetting a switch that had merely gone thwack.

Yep my guess too Andy