Imposed code 2

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 

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.

HI Lyle

I hope you are well and the AM2E bit is going well.

When you say you'd have taken a more beligerent stance, you'd not have agreed with the NICEIC?

I'd certainly not have agreed with them either...........I'd have argued my corner a bit more. I'd accept though that this could well be a contentious issue being only on the 1st floor, but that's no more dangerous than any socket on the first floor indoors. So going back to the 16th (maybe the 17th edition too?) - not that long ago anyway........

Surely the original intention - the spirit behind the regulation that required the DSSO nearest the outside door needed additional protection - was to protect the user when they are in contact with the ground outside, which may have a different potential to the usual earth fault path and hence additional protection was required. Outside the equipotential zone, outside the faradays cage type thing. I'm fairly aware of the limitations involved in those descriptions. 

A socket on a balcony on any floor above the ground, is - id suggest - still with in the confines of the property, still inside the zone, there's no other earth to choose from other than the intended earth fault path or metalwork associated with the same building, and that balcony metalwork or whatever the case might be, is probably not providing a fault path anyway unless carried out in the 15th edition when bonding was done all over the show.......

So in modern times, sure an RCD is required, but I'd not argue so hard for this case 10 years ago.............I wonder if the NICEIC would have accepted such an argument 10 years ago the way they clearly have not now? Assuming the argument was along these lines of course.........

So, what if an extension lead is used to feed a vending machine or similar at street level? Would you suggest an R.C.D. protected socket then?

CLICK ON THIS LINK

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+cafe+street+vending+machine&docid=607991391890470255&mid=FA17358ACB0EFE1DF576FA17358ACB0EFE1DF576&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Z.

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.

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?