Floating sockets..

[pete01]

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?

Clip the cable and fix the socket? Thats better

 

[securespark]

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!

'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

I'm not quite sure where you are going here.

Of course these things are subjective. One of the complaints about the 14th Ed. was that it was written too much like an instruction booklet, that it was "dumbed down".

So a decision was made by the committee to write the 15th and future Eds. in a style that required more input from the user and require the user to make more of their own decisions.

When the 15th was released, there were complaints aplenty from electricians who said it was too difficult to understand and a changeover period was agreed before use of the new edition became mandatory.

So, TCALSS, there are subjective things. Some people will always interpret regs differently to others.

This is why guides are introduced.

To go to your example of the water in the socket: if you genuinely believe a socket will be at risk of getting wet, you should consider mounting it elsewhere or fit an appropriate IP rated socket.

As for the socket heights and furniture and vacuum cleaner knocks, I was talking generally.

You have to ensure when installing equipment that it's suitable for it's environment and not likely to get damaged in normal use. Another example of this is not fitting sockets so low that that get bashed about.

 

[securespark]

You are rather wriggling

I rather think you are.

I have to agree with Pete.

Fix the box, socket and cable, all of which designed for fixed installation, to the fabric of the building. If you think the socket will get wet, re-site it elsewhere or replace it with a suitably rated socket.

You even suggested replacing the socket and cabling shown in the picture with a trailing socket and flexes. But the trailing socket is not designed for that job.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not quite sure where you are going here.

I suppose the same place that I often go - my personal opinion that there is need for a lot more restriction/regulation/education of those who can undertake EICRs, a lot more audit/policing of what EICR inspectors do (with the ability to 'ban' them from doing further EICRs when necessary) and some method of formal appeal/dispute (to some 'authority') against the finding of an EICR. The lack of all this has always been 'bad enough', but has got a lot worse in relation to rental properties now that EICRs have legally-enforceable teeth (with financial consequences) in that situation.

Of course these things are subjective.

There will always be some inevitable subjectivity, with the need for personal judgment/discretion, but there is currently far more than there probably needs to be, with the result of a lot of inconsistency, not to mention a lot of what some people would regard as 'errors'

One of the complaints about the 14th Ed. was that it was written too much like an instruction booklet, that it was "dumbed down". So a decision was made by the committee to write the 15th and future Eds. in a style that required more input from the user and require the user to make more of their own decisions.

Hmmm. Unless and until the 'improvements' I mention above are implemented (and I'm not holding my breath!), I would say that a "dumbed down instruction booklet" is exactly what is needed - just like the menus/algorithms used by essentially 'unskilled' people at call centres, on behalf of the NHS downwards!

So, TCALSS, there are subjective things. Some people will always interpret regs differently to others. .... This is why guides are introduced.

One problem with 'guides' is that they are produced by various organisations, and are often inconsistent with one another. Perhaps more to the point, they are rarely, if ever, guides to assist one in applying ('subjective') judgment/discretion in the face of vague or non-comprehensive regs but, rather, consists of 'rules' being specified, as if they were regulations (although they aren't)! A lot of 'subjective judgment' really comes down to 'common sense' (with an underlying foundation of a very good understanding of underlying electrical principles) - common sense being something which is difficult to teach but is not necessarily a conspicuous skill of those currently undertaking EICRs!

To go to your example of the water in the socket: if you genuinely believe a socket will be at risk of getting wet, you should consider mounting it elsewhere or fit an appropriate IP rated socket.

That leads me on to what has probably been the main point I've been recently discussing - the 'judgement' as to whether something should be coded as C2, C3 or not coded at all. With the regs worded as they currently are, if one genuinely believes that a socket is at risk of getting wet, and that if it did it would present a 'potential danger', then it should be given a C2. However, if one does not believe that it represents a 'potential danger', then why on earth would one 'recommend improvement' (C3)? - how can one 'improve' a non-existant 'potential danger'?

One only has to go around looking under kitchen sinks and behind washing machines/dishwashers etc. (in the vicinity of the associated plumbing) to see that there are an awful lot of sockets (and other electrical accessories) in such places that no-one seems to have felt the need to recommend 'should be improved'!

As for the socket heights and furniture and vacuum cleaner knocks, I was talking generally. ... You have to ensure when installing equipment that it's suitable for it's environment and not likely to get damaged in normal use. Another example of this is not fitting sockets so low that that get bashed about.

Indeed - and that's where (in the context of the OP) the 'common sense' I've just mentioned should be come into play - since none of the 'risks' you mention are really of any significant relevance to electrical items hidden behind a washing machine, are they!

 

[JohnW2]

I have to agree with Pete. ... Fix the box, socket and cable, all of which designed for fixed installation, to the fabric of the building. If you think the socket will get wet, re-site it elsewhere or replace it with a suitably rated socket.

If I were 'installing' it myself then that's what I'd do - since I personally "don't do 'rough' ". However, if I came across such a situation, I would not necessarily change it, or recommend that it should be changed. It follows that my personal judgement is that such a situation does not present a ('significant') 'potential danger' - which is currently what matters for an EICR.

You even suggested replacing the socket and cabling shown in the picture with a trailing socket and flexes. But the trailing socket is not designed for that job.

That is surely open to debate? What do you think a trailing socket is 'designed for'?

 

[pete01]

That is surely open to debate? What do you think a trailing socket is 'designed for'?

Flex

 

[JohnW2]

Flex

Pay attention .... That's what secure wrote ....

You even suggested replacing the socket and cabling shown in the picture with a trailing socket and flexes.

So, in response to his ...

But the trailing socket is not designed for that job.

... I was asking what he felt a trailing socket [with flex(es)] is designed for

 

[pete01]

Pay attention .... That's what secure wrote ....

So, in response to his ...

... I was asking what he felt a trailing socket [with flex(es)] is designed for

To trail...

The trailing socket in question is wired in twin and earth which isnt design to trail.

 

[JohnW2]

To trail... The trailing socket in question is wired in twin and earth which isnt design to trail.

I'm still not convinced that you're 'paying enough attention' What I asked was ...

.... 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?

What is your answer?

 

[pete01]

I'm still not convinced that you're 'paying enough attention' What I asked was ...

What is your answer?

Im probably not

Im not answering that either because no one is going to rewire the circuit in flex just to have a trailing socket....it would just be fixed in the next cupboard.

Look john you're a clever chap who is probably used to being right but this time you're wrong.....admit defeat.....go on John just this once

 

[securespark]

I'm still not convinced that you're 'paying enough attention' What I asked was ...

What is your answer?

Think about it from a design POV.
Why would you design an installation for a stationary appliance like that?
You just wouldn't.

I think anyone who looked at that mess wouldn't think of doing anything other than fixing the stuff to the wall or cupboard.

 

[JohnW2]

Im not answering that either because no one is going to rewire the circuit in flex just to have a trailing socket....it would just be fixed in the next cupboard. ... Look john you're a clever chap who is probably used to being right but this time you're wrong.....admit defeat.....go on John just this once

I think there's probably a misunderstanding here.

I'm not suggesting that anyone would (or would recommend that anyone else should) 're-wire' the situation shown in the the OP to one in which there was a trailing socket lying on the floor wired with flex - that would be plain daft, particularly given that I think you would be happy with merely addressing the issue with a couple of screws and cable clips.

What I AM asking, more generally, is whether IF you came across a situation in which there was a trailing socket, wired with flex, on the floor behind a WM, would you still feel it appropriate to 'recommend improvement' (i..e.give a C3)?

 

[JohnW2]

Think about it from a design POV. ... Why would you design an installation for a stationary appliance like that? ... You just wouldn't.

I've already agreed with that.

I think anyone who looked at that mess wouldn't think of doing anything other than fixing the stuff to the wall or cupboard.

Again, I've already essentially agreed with that - well, either do as you suggest or perhaps 'do nothing'.

However, as I've just written to Pete, the question I've been trying to get an answer to is ...

What I AM asking, more generally, is whether IF you came across a situation in which there was a trailing socket, wired with flex, on the floor behind a WM, would you still feel it appropriate to 'recommend improvement' (i..e. give a C3)?

Pete seems unprepared to answer, but what about you? (after which there might be 'supplementary questions' )

 

[securespark]

What I AM asking, more generally, is whether IF you came across a situation in which there was a trailing socket, wired with flex, on the floor behind a WM, would you still feel it appropriate to 'recommend improvement' (i..e.give a C3)?

As I said...

Why would you design an installation for a stationary appliance like that?
You just wouldn't.

You're really stretching the bounds of credibility now. Which is why Pete sensibly declined to jump down this rabbit hole.

I have seen many ridiculous, dangerous and nonsensical things in 30 years of working with electricity.

But I've never seen the situation you are describing.

I just have two simple questions.

How is the flex attached to the supply?
What CSA is the flex?

But, whatever your answers, as determined as you are to make your hypothetical situation compliant, I would still mark it on the sheet as at least a C3 as the trailing socket is not designed for fixed installation.

They are intended for use in extension leads. I would not plug a heavy current using appliance like a WM, TD, DW, MW or kettle into an extension lead.

Hell, there are even discussions on here about not using certain cheaper brands of "proper" socket for the above appliances to avoid burn-out, let alone something like that which you propose.

Lastly, and crucially, extension leads are not designed to be used long term.

If I came across either the OP's situation or the one you propose in an EICR, I would say 134.1.1 (as it was in the BGB) would be valid.

 

[securespark]

And that, Mr W2, is my final reply to you on this matter!