In my view, an inadequate number of socket outlets is not contrary to any regulation and does not merit any code upon inspection. Provided that the installation does have a minimum of two double sockets in the kitchen and one double in each other room.

This rather paltry provision is AFAIK a requirement under some regulation to render a home fit for habitation. Not in the IET regs though, possibly building regulations ? 

I think you're right.

I forgot to add that the reason this came about was a local authority carrying out an inspection on behalf of the tenants (we carried out an EICR on behalf of the landlords) and insufficient numbers of sockets was recorded on the Hazard Awareness Notice. I guess I should try to justify why we never mentioned it on the EICR. 

There seems some definite crossover here between the local authority (probably looking at some building reg) and BS7671 (which doesn't seem to mention it all). I think it shold be clear (not helped by the OSG) that as testers we're looking for what is potentially dangerous or not to current regulations, rather than whether the home is fit for habitation. Afterall it's not like we'd know how many people are going to live there or what electrical equipment they're going to plug in.

I guess in our defence, even if we had recorded it as a C3 then the landlord would still have had no obligation to rectify it. 

There is no regulation that a home has to have an electricity supply and there are off grid homes that don't, so how can there be a regulation regarding number of sockets?

so how can there be a regulation regarding number of sockets?

Well, there is. 553.1.7. Granted not a specific number, just a general requirement for the provision for a conveniently accessible socket for mobile equipment taking into account the length of flex normally fitted to appliances etc. It's part of the wiring regs, so only applies to places that have electricity (which a lot of off-grid homes do, if generated locally).

I suppose it's similar that other regs demand that cars have seat belts fitted, even though there's no requirement to actually own a car.

   - Andy.

so how can there be a regulation regarding number of sockets?

Well, there is. 553.1.7. Granted not a specific number, just a general requirement for the provision for a conveniently accessible socket for mobile equipment taking into account the length of flex normally fitted to appliances etc. It's part of the wiring regs, so only applies to places that have electricity (which a lot of off-grid homes do, if generated locally).

I suppose it's similar that other regs demand that cars have seat belts fitted, even though there's no requirement to actually own a car.

   - Andy.

Indeed, but there is no requirement to retro-fit seatbelts anymore than electrical installations have to be updated with each new edition of BS 7671.

whats your  Point here? if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it ? 

While it’s true that there’s no legal requirement to retrofit seatbelts in older vehicles or update electrical installations with each new edition of BS 7671, there are good reasons to consider doing so. Obviously seatbelts save lives and their absence in older vehicles increases the risk during accidents. Similarly, updating electrical systems to the latest standards can prevent fires and other hazards etc, making homes safer. Both car safety features and electrical standards improve with technology, and by not updating, we miss out on these advancements designed to protect us better. Regulations are updated based on new research and technology, so ignoring these updates means sticking with outdated practices that might not be as safe. while not mandatory, do you not agree that  retrofitting seatbelts and updating electrical installations are smart moves that can significantly enhance safety and align with the latest best practices ?

- Andrew

AMK said:

do you not agree that  retrofitting seatbelts and updating electrical installations are smart moves that can significantly enhance safety and align with the latest best practices ?

Well, Andy made the analogy with seatbelts.

I am all for continual improvement of the Wiring Regulations, and even obliging new builds to comply with them, but the gains in risk reduction by modifying an existing installation may be marginal.

Then there comes a stage where updating an installation requires it to be ripped out and start again, which might be likened to buying a new car.

Personally, I feel perfectly safe with my 15th Edn installation and driving a 90-odd year old car - no seatbelts, no air bags, rigid steering column, etc.

Both are in good condition.

Indeed. The addition of seat-belts may not be possible on a car never designed to have them, and the risk is already very low. Before seat-belts and ABS and 100 &1 other technical improvements to cars,  (lane assist, self braking collision avoidance etc) we had about 6000 fatalities and 60000 hospitalizations per year due to road traffic accidents Now we have rather less  than half that. - but its not so simple, as many other things have changed too, streetlights are better, many 'black-spot' junctions have been eliminated, and there are fewer pedestrians and cyclists to hit and children are no longer expected to go out side to play in the street, and the war time generation that got a driving licence before there was such a thing as a driving  test have left the road.Given the no of vehicles that make it from showroom to scrapyard without ever having a significant crash, there are other factors at work that are not seat belts.

In another non-parallel there is no equivalent of part P  no need to work at a state registered garage to do your car repairs for example indeed somethings that are really tightly regulated elsewhere are largely free for all in a car - hydraulics, LPG systems, air con, come to mind.

By all means make the comparison, but it is not perfect.

Back to wiring !

The pass fail limit as to does it need updating really does depend on the situation, and is not really a simple 'its safer' decision that can be made without looking at the use, as it may be safe now, and a new occupant moves in who uses the installation differently and then it isn't.

Mike

• (PS actually I did add rear seatbelts to my first car in the late 1980s, as I was carrying scouts a lot, and it seemed a good idea for them to be attached - but I did it on the basis of my own analysis, not because it was legally compelled.  And if like many  of my friends, I had had no intention of taking back seat passengers, it would have been a waste of money and time better spent on new tyres or brakes in terms of safety improvements Such decisions need to be taken in the round, not in isolation.)