Floating sockets..

[ebee]

common sense being something which is difficult to teach but is not necessarily a conspicuous skill of those currently undertaking EICRs!

Bang on statement and not only in Electrical disciplines. Jobsworth Syndrome at its best , what gets me is that some of these people undertaking inspections often seem to completely miss some pretty obvious "transgressions". LOL. too

 

[Highway Man]

To trail...

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

Exactly, only flex would be designed to trail, the problem with T&E is that it isn't designed to bend and flex. I would issue a C3 to this with the recomendation that it gets fixed to the wall and the T&E clipped.

 

[JohnW2]

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.

That does rather surprise me, although you have to understand that I only described a 'hypothetical situation' in order to explore the thinking behind views (e.g. on the part of Pete and yourself)about the OP's actual real-world situation ....

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.

... the issues about the OP's situation which had been mentioned were the fact that the wiring was in T+E (even though it was in a place where it would never be moved significantly) and that the back box had 6mm holes in it (which would be non-compliant if the back of the box was upward facing. I was therefore merely trying (with my 'hypothetical situation') to discover what your view would be if there were neither T+E nor a box with small holes in the back - but you now seem to have answered that.

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.

Nor would I - at least, not for more than (truly ) 'temporary' reasons. However, although I'm not at all sure that it's really within the scope of an EICR would you be tempted to give a C3 that situation if you came across it?

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

I'm not sure I understand that one. Why should an extension lead which is satisfactory and safe to use for, say, 30 minutes be any less satisfactory and safe after, say, 30 years in-service, particularly if it were hidden away where it could not be disturbed?

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.

As I think we're agreed, that reg (which remains unchanged) is probably 'valid' for anything which an inspector 'does not like the look of', even if it contravenes no explicit regs and is not considered by the inspector to present any 'potential danger'.

 

[JohnW2]

Exactly, only flex would be designed to trail, the problem with T&E is that it isn't designed to bend and flex.

I've addressed that. T+E hidden behind a kitchen appliance is surely not likely to be "bent and flexed" to any significant extent, is it?

I would issue a C3 to this with the recomendation that it gets fixed to the wall and the T&E clipped.

I think that;'s what most of us would be tempted to do, since it's far from a 'nice' situation. However, do you think that it poses any 'potential danger' ... and, if not, why would you recommend that it needed 'improving'?

 

[Highway Man]

I've addressed that. T+E hidden behind a kitchen appliance is surely not likely to be "bent and flexed" to any significant extent, is it?

I think that;'s what most of us would be tempted to do, since it's far from a 'nice' situation. However, do you think that it poses any 'potential danger' ... and, if not, why would you recommend that it needed 'improving'?

From the sheer fact that the T&E could be pulled out of that gland assuming it is a standard compression gland, if moving the washing machine in or out it could get caught and pull this cables out. Safer to have it fixed to the wall.

 

[JohnW2]

From the sheer fact that the T&E could be pulled out of that gland assuming it is a standard compression gland, if moving the washing machine in or out it could get caught and pull this cables out. Safer to have it fixed to the wall.

So you think the situation, as is, presents a 'potential danger'?

 

[Highway Man]

So you think the situation, as is, presents a 'potential danger'?

A low risk potential danger

 

[pete01]

Exactly, only flex would be designed to trail, the problem with T&E is that it isn't designed to bend and flex. I would issue a C3 to this with the recomendation that it gets fixed to the wall and the T&E clipped.

OMG you'll start John off again....

Oh too late....

(Sorry John)

 

[Highway Man]

OMG you'll start John off again....

Oh too late....

(Sorry John)

OMG

 

[JohnW2]

A low risk potential danger

That would be a C2, then, wouldn't it - given that the regs say nothing about 'low risk' potential dangers not counting?

 

[JohnW2]

OMG you'll start John off again.... Oh too late.... (Sorry John)

Perhaps I have not been clear enough, since I'm not at all convinced that any of you have understood the point I've been trying to make (not for the first time!), so let me try again ....

As I understand it, BS7671 (which defines EICRs) exists primarily only in relation to 'safety' (of humans and animals) - directly ('electrical risks', but also indirectly due to fire and, occasionally, indirectly due to 'electrical failure') - or, at least, existed for only that reason before SPDs showed their face

In describing EICRs, the regs talk about 'potential danger' - which I would have thought that most people would interpret as meaning something like "any possible danger". In relation to the OP's situation, and various hypothetical variants thereof, people have illustrated that it is possible to argue that there is "a possible danger" - so one might expect them to give the situation a C2.

However, if they attempt to apply 'common sense' and interpret "potential danger" as meaning "a significant possible danger", then if, on that basis, they decide that a C2 is not warranted, why should they code the situation at all? - if they believe that the situation poses NO "significant possible danger" (hence no C2), then what is it that they would be recommending should be 'improved' (if they gave a C3), and why?

 

[pete01]

Perhaps I have not been clear enough, since I'm not at all convinced that any of you have understood the point I've been trying to make (not for the first time!), so let me try again ....

As I understand it, BS7671 (which defines EICRs) exists primarily only in relation to 'safety' (of humans and animals) - directly ('electrical risks', but also indirectly due to fire and, occasionally, indirectly due to 'electrical failure') - or, at least, existed for only that reason before SPDs showed their face

In describing EICRs, the regs talk about 'potential danger' - which I would have thought that most people would interpret as meaning something like "any possible danger". In relation to the OP's situation, and various hypothetical variants thereof, people have illustrated that it is possible to argue that there is "a possible danger" - so one might expect them to give the situation a C2.

However, if they attempt to apply 'common sense' and interpret "potential danger" as meaning "a significant possible danger", then if, on that basis, they decide that a C2 is not warranted, why should they code the situation at all? - if they believe that the situation poses NO "significant possible danger" (hence no C2), then what is it that they would be recommending should be 'improved' (if they gave a C3), and why?

Because it should be improved....E.G. fixed to something....C3

 

[JohnW2]

Because it should be improved....E.G. fixed to something....C3

Yes - but if fixing it to something 'improves safety' (i.e. reduces 'potential danger') in some sense, then it should be given a C2, not a C3, shouldn't it?

You all seem to be thinking that I'm arguing against 'coding' the situation at all, but that's really the opposite of what I'm suggesting. What I'm actually saying is that, with the regs worded as they currently are, if one believes that some 'improvement' will reduce potential danger, then one should be giving it a C2 !

To make this situation more sensible, what is needed (in my opinion) is a much clearer definition of the criteria for giving a C2.

 

[pete01]

Yes - but if fixing it to something 'improves safety' (i.e. reduces 'potential danger') in some sense, then it should be given a C2, not a C3, shouldn't it?

You all seem to be thinking that I'm arguing against 'coding' the situation at all, but that's really the opposite of what I'm suggesting. What I'm actually saying is that, with the regs worded as they currently are, if one believes that some 'improvement' will reduce potential danger, then one should be giving it a C2 !

To make this situation more sensible, what is needed (in my opinion) is a much clearer definition of the criteria for giving a C2.

I'll stick with a C3 improvement recommended....if it isn't addressed it might be perfectly fine or it might end up a C2 potentially dangerous.

This is a three phase sub main I found a few weeks back I gave this a C2 as it could be

drove over.
bad workmanship,
cable isnt support throughout its run
people were lifting it up to get fork lifts in and out etc.

But you would give this no code, yes?

 

[pete01]

From the best practice guide.