Floating sockets..

[trojanhawrs]

Unsuitable for location with regards IP ratings etc. That could be considered C3 as that reg was no doubt introduced at some point.

The only reason I wouldn't code that would be laziness, which I'm not immune to.

 

[JohnW2]

No, but I'd give a C2 for 3.5mm screw heads not being vertical.

It sounds as if you are starting to get my point

 

[JohnW2]

Unsuitable for location with regards IP ratings etc.

What do you believe would be the required IP rating for that location?

Would you say the same if the socket were attached to the wall, close to those bits of plumbing, with the cable clipped to the wall?

That could be considered C3 as that reg was no doubt introduced at some point.

... so here come my question yet again. What would you mean by "C3" in that situation? If you would regard it as meaning something like "presents no potential danger but improvement is recommended", what exactly does that mean (and why?)?

The only reason I wouldn't code that would be laziness, which I'm not immune to.

Nor am I. However, in this situation I imagine that at least some would say that the reason for their not coding it was that it didn't need coding

 

[trojanhawrs]

@JohnW2 I would say a C3 is anything which isn't likely to be dangerous at this moment in time, but which an improvement would enhance the safety of or bring up to current standards.
You make a good point though because I likely wouldn't code a fixed socket although being off the floor is protection in itself.
It's just rough.

 

[JohnW2]

@JohnW2 I would say a C3 is anything which isn't likely to be dangerous at this moment in time, but which an improvement would enhance the safety of or bring up to current standards.

It sounds as if you may be getting a little bit closer to understanding what I've been saying - which is really about the (I would say unsatisfactory) wording of the definitions' of C2 and C3.

One has to remember that, with present wordings, the decision as to whether something is a C2 depends entirely on a (Yes/No) decision as to whether the situation is 'potentially dangerous'. If, as above, you would/might give a C3 to something for which you believed that "improvement would enhance the safety" that surely implies that you think there is some safety issue which could be improved - which I'm sure some would say constituted a way of saying that there was a 'potential danger' - in which case you would logically give a C2? If that's not what you think "potential" means, what do you feel that it means in this context?

None opf this used to matter much, at least to those who had some degree of knowledge/understanding, since everyone was free to simply ignore any C2s which one didn't feel warranted (or one was advised didn't warrant) any action. However, the situation has now changed in relation to rental properties with potential financial consequences for landlords (and, worse, no apparent means of 'appealing against an EICR C2' in that situation).

You make a good point though because I likely wouldn't code a fixed socket although being off the floor is protection in itself.
It's just rough.

As you say, 'just rough', hence probably not deserving any code. However, I (and I suspect others) would probably feel much the same about the situation described in the OP.

 

[securespark]

Don't get me wrong - my gut feeling and intuition are exactly the same as yours. If I came across such a situation, I would probably say ('informally') that "I would recommend some improvement" - just as I probably would if I saw, say, surface wiring or trunking across a living room wall.

However, we're talking about EICRs, not 'informal', and I suppose I'm playing Devil's Advocate - since, as you've seen, I'm struggling to see how I could actually objectively justify giving any code.

If we are to have a C3, it would be nice if it had a least a vaguely consistent meaning across inspectors, and I'm not convinced that it does - i.e. other than aesthetically, what is meant by "not even potentially dangerous, but improvement recommended"?

You can't compare a socket and twin and earth cables lying on the floor, albeit behind an appliance, with "surface wiring or trunking across a...wall."

The latter is fully compliant (assuming of course the correct cabling and trunking have been selected. But the former is not compliant, because the materials selected are designed to be fixed to the fabric of the building and in this case are not.

 

[securespark]

What do you believe would be the required IP rating for that location?

You could say that a wall mounted socket is better protected from a water leak than one left lying horizontal on the floor.
Especially if the washing machine sprung a leak.

Also, you have to consider minimum heights (I'm not talking Part M) when mounting accessories, to prevent damage. Eg from furniture knocks, vacuum cleaners etc...

 

[JohnW2]

You can't compare a socket and twin and earth cables lying on the floor, albeit behind an appliance, with "surface wiring or trunking across a...wall."

Well, you can in the sense that both are pretty 'rough', even if one struggles to find any regs they have contravened.

The latter is fully compliant (assuming of course the correct cabling and trunking have been selected. ...

Indeed.

.... But the former is not compliant, because the materials selected are designed to be fixed to the fabric of the building and in this case are not.

'Catch-all' regs are all very well, but they boil down to the requirement for a very subjective judgement, such that I don't think there would be a lot of agreement about compliance/non-compliance.

 

[JohnW2]

You could say that a wall mounted socket is better protected from a water leak than one left lying horizontal on the floor. ... Especially if the washing machine sprung a leak.

One could, but we would then again be in the territory of 'subjective judgements'. In terms of the situation we have shown, if the socket were mounted on the wall in the vicinity of that WM valve, then a loakk from the valve (or the connected hose) could send a jet of water straight at the socket!

In any event, what you say does not answer my question (which you quoted) as to what is the allegedly 'required IP rating' for a socket in that location!

Also, you have to consider minimum heights (I'm not talking Part M) when mounting accessories, to prevent damage. Eg from furniture knocks, vacuum cleaners etc...

'Subjective judgements' again - and, in this case, presumably influenced by the fact that things like "furniture knocks and vacuum cleaners etc." are not really a consideration behind a WM

 

[securespark]

Cable is for fixed installations.

Those sockets and boxes are not designed to be trailing.

 

[JohnW2]

Cable is for fixed installations.

Cables like T+E are certainly not designed for situations in which they might be frequently moved - but I don't think that 'behind a WM' would qualify as such situation!

Those sockets and boxes are not designed to be trailing.

Probably literally true. So, if one replaced the socket and box with one of these (and maybe also changed the T+E to flex) and left it on the floor behind the WM., would you still feel that it deserved a C3?

 

[pete01]

Cables like T+E are certainly not designed for situations in which they might be frequently moved - but I don't think that 'behind a WM' would qualify as such situation!

Probably literally true. So, if one replaced the socket and box with one of these (and maybe also changed the T+E to flex) and left it on the floor behind the WM., would you still feel that it deserved a C3?
View attachment 416112

Yes but the trailing socket in the back of the socket in the OP's picture will have 4 or 6 6mm fixing holes in the back......

Could be a C1 acces to live parts...mmmm.

Wouldn't want a child poking a bit of metal through one of the holes.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes but the trailing socket in the back of the socket in the OP's picture will have 4 or 6 6mm fixing holes in the back...... Could be a C1 acces to live parts...mmmm. ... Wouldn't want a child poking a bit of metal through one of the holes.

The one you illustrate seems to have 12 such holes

Well, for a start, one could in some way 'eliminate' those holes. However, more to the point, unless it were positioned 'upside down' (such that the back of the box was 'upwards facing'), as far as BS7671 was concerned, any number of 6mm holes would be acceptable and fully compliant BS7671 !

 

[pete01]

The one you illustrate seems to have 12 such holes

Well, for a start, one could in some way 'eliminate' those holes. However, more to the point, unless it were positioned 'upside down' (such that the back of the box was 'upwards facing'), as far as BS7671 was concerned, any number of 6mm holes would be acceptable and fully compliant BS7671 !

Yep but it could easily be upside down

 

[JohnW2]

Yep but it could easily be upside down

You are rather wriggling

... so what if the socket were glued to the floor, or if the cable were clipped to the floor close to the socket?