I get what you're saying, but to me it does seem illogical why the OSG and BS7671 aren't signing from the same hymn sheet. Maybe BS7671 aren't saying 'you must have n sockets in a particular room', though the OSG is saying exactly that, as are the LA (based on Electrical Safety First). It makes a mockery of an EICR when we can state an installation is compliant with the current edition of BS7671 when it's so easy for people to pull it apart afterwards with conflicting versions of what is acceptable. If it's important enough to be stated in the OSG (and force landlords to do something about it via a 'Hazard Awareness Notice' from the LA) then why isn't it made clearer in BS7671 so we can code it appropriately? 

It isn't rocket science in my view for the OSG and BS7671 to be in lockstep regarding what they separately state. Isn't that what they try to do with everything else? 

Scott Seedell said:

Perhaps in their wisdom, the IET assume that every electrical installation will have been designed properly in the first place and that minimum numbers of sockets will have been installed originally?

No, see my earlier reply. As to whether it's safe, that will need to be taken on its merits for the particular installation, and the current homeowner.

What is acceptable for private homeowners wouldn't be the case for rented.

Scott Seedell said:

It makes a mockery of an EICR when we can state an installation is compliant with the current edition of BS7671 when it's so easy for people to pull it apart afterwards with conflicting versions of what is acceptable.

Or you could take the view that, if there is no evidence a smaller number of socket-outlets is unsafe for a particular homeowner, the installation is suitable for continued service in that instance. In another property, or in rented accommodation, you might see evidence of things being unsafe, and make a different decision. As an example, if you were carrying out an EICR on "change of occupancy", the new owner might welcome the lack of outlets being reported ... it could be an issue for them even if not for the previous occupants.

I'm not sure that providing concrete "fixed and firm rules" for inspection and testing is a good idea ... but then again, other people might want a "computer says no" approach taken in the industry ?

gkenyon said:

Or you could take the view that, if there is no evidence a smaller number of socket-outlets is unsafe for a particular homeowner, the installation is suitable for continued service in that instance. In another property, or in rented accommodation, you might see evidence of things being unsafe, and make a different decision. As an example, if you were carrying out an EICR on "change of occupancy", the new owner might welcome the lack of outlets being reported ... it could be an issue for them even if not for the previous occupants.

Indeed, and that's exactly what we did say in that instance. However, going back to my original question, where does it put us as testers if the installation is suitable for continued use but there are insufficient numbers? Is it worthy of a C3 (even if just to state we have recognised it doesn't satisfy OSG and LA requirements) and if so, under which regulation of BS7671? 

but there are insufficient numbers?

From a BS 7671 perspective it's not just about numbers - you could have 20 double sockets in a room, but if they were all grouped together at one end you could still be in a position of not having a reasonably convenient socket at the other end. If it's a problem in there not being a socket where it's needed then quote 553.1.7.

   - Andy.

Scott Seedell said:

Is it worthy of a C3 (even if just to state we have recognised it doesn't satisfy OSG and LA requirements) and if so, under which regulation of BS7671?

Well, the C3 itself is only guidance, because it's only mentioned in Appendix 6 of BS 7671, which is 'informative'.

If you want something for Insufficient or poorly placed socket-outlets: Regulation 132.3 in general, with a view to list item (i) ?

(The design was suitable at some point in the past, but for modern domestic usage, perhaps not now?)

I would say that this requires a little more explanation from the inspector than just saying "insufficient socket-outlets, 132.3, C3" ... some explanation for the decision is really needed I think.

AJJewsbury said:

From a BS 7671 perspective it's not just about numbers - you could have 20 double sockets in a room, but if they were all grouped together at one end you could still be in a position of not having a reasonably convenient socket at the other end. If it's a problem in there not being a socket where it's needed then quote 553.1.7.

   - Andy.

Also what Andy said. In reality, 553.1.7 supports 132.3.

What you really don't want is a couple of 3-bar heaters plugged into the one and only double socket.

You can never really have too many sockets nowadays. Multi-way extension leads daisy-chained behind desks, etc. is not ideal. I put 4 doubles for each desk in my daughter's house. They do get used!

I wouldn't get too worried about a C3 unless there are ridiculously few. Like all C3s, they should not be ignored for ever.

Guidance notes 1 refers to regulation 553.1.7 and shows a table with minimum number of twin socket-outlets (page 158)

"The installation is safe and (except where noted) meets the meets regs requirements"

"The installation is sensible for its intended purpose"

are not quite the same.

One is an EICR, the other is an assessment of the likely user.

The whole point of having two sorts of inspection is that the condition report is focused primarily on  the former.

Mike

mapj1 said:

"The installation is safe and (except where noted) meets the meets regs requirements"

"The installation is sensible for its intended purpose"

are not quite the same.

One is an EICR, the other is an assessment of the likely user.

The whole point of having two sorts of inspection is that the condition report is focused primarily on  the former.

Interestingly, and pedantically, the objective of the periodic inspection & testing is NEITHER of the above. Specifically, as described in Regulation 651.1, it is to determine, so far as is reasonably practicable, whether the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service.

Whether the installation has sufficient socket-outlets in a particular room "for continued service" is, therefore, a VERY pertinent question.

As I said in an earlier post, if a domestic installation has existing occupants who appear to be happy with the existing provision (and to be using the installation safely), there is no problem ... but if there is a change of occupancy, particularly in rented accommodation, the objective of the EICR provides a different answer ?