Imposed code 2

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?

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?

"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.

ebee said:

Remember this socket may well have been fully compliant with a previous edition of the regulations

14th Edn? By 15th, we had RCD sockets by the back door, etc. So that's a lot of C3s which have been ignored, which is not in itself a reason for making it C2.

I think that the assessor was entitled to give the inspector a personal C3 for improvement required, but not to force him to change the report.

Hi Chris, I never liked the idea of socket by back door/garage idea as often a fridge/freezer or battery charger would occupy it , front door either. Many folk would not use the nearest socket whether hidden or not but would use the nearest accessible socket usually

PS - I do agree with your  "daft, as is the idea that coding books are even required!". I do agree that coding books/advice by Napit codebreakers etcshould not be treated as our Bible as MAPJ1 said yet used as guidance I think is a good basis

"Remember this socket may well have been fully compliant with a previous edition of the regulations,"

True, so how can it since have become 'potentially dangerous' if it was not before?

Electricity is potentially dangerous so the whole installation should always have been Code 2.

Hi Geoff, the first Edition of the regs was 1880 or something (I haven`t got a regs book to hand) . I believe the first Edition was 4 pages A4 size. I would not think that there are not some things that whilst not contravening those regs would always be considered safe now. Our perception of safety changes over time (as well as type of use of installations too). How long ago is it that unearthed lighting circuits were considered safe or main/sup bonding was not required or smaller than which we consider safe/unsafe now. We can`t simply say we can go back X years but not Xplus years or Xregs Edition but not Xplus Editions. We must base it on it`s merits and our perception including historical data of accidents.

Neither can we look at two identical installations next door to each other and say A was installed in the year XXX so was considered "safe" at that time so it must be safe today but as B was installed yesterday and this defect was not allowed and therefore code them different on that basis alone. With the same likely use etc then they are both relatively safe or relatively unsafe by todays considerations 

David Stone said:

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!

What is the point in having codes if every inspector can make up their own ones?  What's even the point in having standards?

How do you even know if somebody has passed the test to become qualified if everybody is allowed to make up their own answers, and every answer is correct according to the person answering the question?

If you take your car for an MOT, the MOT inspector has a big book of tests to do, including the criteria that would fail a test.  There is some room for opinion on whether something is moderately rusty, or seriously rusty.  But given that, the book says what's a pass and what's a fail.  If the customer feels that the car has wronly been passed or failed, then they can appeal, and the MOT inspector could be censured if they have wrongly coded something.

Hi Ebee,

The regulations require new work to comply with the latest edition so I think probably something from 1880 would have been replaced by now. If not then it would be up to an inspector to decide if it was actually dangerous. Making a new rule does not transform something into becoming (potentially) dangerous.

Anyway, we are talking about the lack of an RCD; the addition of which would make something safer - less safe is not inherently dangerous.

Apart from that, classing something as C2 means that, today, it is virtually legally compulsory to have the item rectified. The regulations do not, except in certain limited circumstance, work like that. The item will be rectified in due course when it has to be replaced.

I would say an unearthed lighting circuit is not any more dangerous if there are no exposed-conductive-parts - so it could be argued that it was a wrongly-fitted exp-c-p that was the potential danger. How many people have received shocks from plastic light fittings who would not have received that shock were there an unconnected CPC?

I think I am arguing that A and B can indeed be viewed as you say but you still seem to be ignoring my point which is:

Less safe does not automatically mean potentially dangerous (for coding) - noting my other point that the whole electrical installation is potentially dangerous.

I note you are calling A's problem a defect rather than an improvement it has not yet had. How can A be given more than C3 - improvement recommended? 

Hi Geoff,

"I think probably something from 1880 would have been replaced by now". Agreed, the point I was making was that rules for safety (and our perceptions of such) alter over the years, whenever from and to occurs.

"Making a new rule does not transform something into becoming (potentially) dangerous." Agreed, however as above.

"an RCD; the addition of which would make something safer - less safe is not inherently dangerous." Agreed - when do we perceive less safe as edging closer to more dangerous though? Jusy a thought.

The remainder I think I`m in agreement with you.

"I note you are calling A's problem a defect rather than an improvement it has not yet had" . I may be using the word defect rather than a non compliance. However the perception of safety I think is relative.

Take the motor car, over the years construction of cars has changed, I think we all would be horrified if a car was built today that had all the features of cars that were built far earlier in our lifetimes yet back in those days we were not as concerned as we would be viewing them today. We felt that they were reasonably safe back then.

I think our perception of safe/unsafe is relativity

Back when I was a lad, if you climbed up a tree then fell and broke yer leg then it was yer own daft fault, nowadays we go to great lengths to protect folk from doing daft things, even putting notices up is not deemed enough. Even dafter is the notation, by some, that if a manufacturer produces a knife is so sharp it can damage someone it then somehow becomes their fault if someone is daft enough to use it in a very unwise manner