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

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 45 subscribers
  • Views 5870 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Imposed code 2

lyledunn

A contractor gave a code 3 to an outside socket located on the exterior wooden balcony of a first floor restaurant which was only used for Xmas tree. Reason no additional protection. He was subsequently subject to NICEIC assessment the outcome of which required him to re-visit his client, withdraw the satisfactory report and amend it with a code 2 thereby resulting in the report having unsatisfactory designation. To add insult to injury, he was required to confirm he had carried out that instruction by writing to NICEIC head office. This he obediently did. I am afraid I may have taken a more belligerent stance!

Parents

  • 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.

Reply

  • 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.

Children
  • in reply to AJJewsbury

    Yep my guess too Andy

  • in reply to AJJewsbury
    AJJewsbury said:
    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.

    I think this discussion really interesting.

    Since the 17th Edition (BS 7671:2008), the definite line is that RCDs are required for additional protection for all socket-outlets. Being outdoors doesn't necessarily come into it, because one of the hazards being protected against is an ordinary person having direct access to a live conductor (broken or damaged products, cut leads etc.).

    I agree in some circumstances (lawnmower or strimmer) damage to flexible cables is more likely outdoors, but products can be dropped and broken anywhere. And I still see people of a wide range of ages dislodging toast in toasters (plugged in) with an ordinary metal table knife!

    In addition, more manufacturers of products are saying their products should be protected by RCDs now in the user instructions.

    Not conclusive ... but it does make me think.

  • in reply to gkenyon
    gkenyon said:
    Since the 17th Edition (BS 7671:2008), the definite line is that RCDs are required for additional protection for all socket-outlets.

    When would this socket have been compliant?

    Does the repeated non-compliance (assuming regular I&T) matter?

Community Rules & Guidelines