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?

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

geoffsd said:

Making a new rule does not transform something into becoming (potentially) dangerous.

No, but attitudes seem to have become more risk averse.

There is an interesting contrast between an EICR and an MOT. Once upon a time, there was no additional protection, but now that it exists we get a fail or advisory for not having it.

Once upon a time, seatbelts did not exist so for cars made before 1 Jan 65, they are not part of the MOT test.

Ohh. I thought seatbelts and their anchorage were inspected at MOT tests

They are checked, but only in cars that post date that legislation. A pre-seat belt car does not fail an MOT for not having any.

Mke

They are checked, but only in cars that post date that legislation. A pre-seat belt car does not fail an MOT for not having any.

Mke

ha so that explains " they are not part of the MOT test." was meant to say  there is a exception. Our regs don`t work in quite the same way though. Interesting