Floating sockets..
- Thread starter robinbanks
- Start date
Fair enough, but there's really (ideally) a need to try to define what "improvement recommended" means - and, in particular, why an inspector has given such a recommendation. If they don't believe that a situation is 'potentially dangerous' (C2), then is their recommendation just based on 'tidiness', or what?
Improvement would be to screw the socket to the wall.
As its hidden under the cupboard people seem to think it's acceptable....if there was 6 sockets in a lounge lying around on the sofa or coffee table would it still be acceptable?
True, but that judgement/discretion almost always relates to whether or not an inspector judges something to be 'potentially dangerous' - hence all of the discussion and arguments we see about iffy C2s (which, unfortunately, appear sometimes to be done in attempts at 'work generation').
There are very often ways in which one can argue that there is a theoretical 'risk of danger', so (given the vagueness of the code definitions) it's inevitably down to the inspector to decide whether something is 'significantly' a 'potential danger'. If they think it is then, as you say, they should give a C2 - but, per this discussion, if they do not think that, then I don't really understand on what basis they would give any code (i.e. a C3)?
Are you suggesting that should be a C2 or a C3?
As a generalisation, one could argue that - but, again, then it could be said that the inspector should decide whether they regard that as a ('significant') 'potential danger' - and then either give a C2 or no code. I remain unclear about what a C3 would mean in terms of their judgment.
However, returning to context, as with the OP's case, whenever I've seen situations like that (and I've seen quite a few in my time) it is nearly always behind/underneath a kitchen appliance or suchlike - a situation in which the cable is virtually never going to be 'moved around' at all, let alone moved around enough to fracture the cores!
That would be an improvement aesthetically, and maybe also in terms of the perpetrators feeling of professionalism/pride etc., but I would not say that it was addressing any ('significant') potential danger - so I wonder on what basis the improvement would be recommended (in the context of what is meant to be a primarily safety-related exercise)
You've really just introduced a new word ("acceptable") - which, again, would need definition/interpretation.
In the situation you describe, then if the sockets were wired with T+E then, per the comment Ragnar has just made, I might give some consideration to a C2 - since, unlike the situation behind/under a kitchen appliance, the cables would probably be moved around a lot. However, if the sockets were wired with flex (and with adequate strain relief) then I don't think I would have any such concerns - since that would be no different from having two or more multi-output 'extension leads' lying on the floor or tables (which, incidentally, is the very situation in the room I'm sitting in whilst typing this!). However, those thoughts/considerations relate to "C2 or no code", since I'm not sure on what basis I would give a C3.
Good job we do things differently for me it needs improving but isn't dangerous.
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"?
If I came across this on an EICR I'd probably (if the customer agreed) just fix it in an adjoining cupboard or wherever so no code would need to be thought about.
Fair enough - so might I (not that I'm ever going to be doing an EICR).
However, that's a bit of a 'cop out' as far as my question is concerned. On what basis do you think that inspectors give (if ever) a C3?
Im sticking with, 134.1.1 Good workmanship....we all view that differently
The only technical arguments I can see are strain on the solid copper conductors and strain relief at the other end of the cable. In theory someone tripping over this contraption could yank on the cable hard enough to break it at the terminal in the next socket, assuming the cables run in capping or oval conduit.
It’s extremely unlikely to ever pose a real danger but there are theoretical arguments for a C3 or possibly even C2 (if you
managed to break a ring final circuit by damaging the cable).
It’s extremely unlikely to ever pose a real danger but there are theoretical arguments for a C3 or possibly even C2 (if you
managed to break a ring final circuit by damaging the cable).
Yep, that's about all you would have - but, as you imply, that is so vague and subjective that it is not going to be of much use to anyone, let alone in any sense 'consistent'.
As a matter of interest, would you be inclined to give C3s to 'wonky accessories', surface cables or trunking on a living room wall or even accessories on surface 'pattress boxes' in a living room etc.?
Yes, not impossible - but as you go on to say, incredibly unlikely, particularly in a situation like the OP's in which the 'contraption' is behind a washer!
OK, but therein lies the questions I've been asking ... if you really believed that, despite being incredibly improbable, the situation was significantly presenting a 'potential danger', then the appropriate code would be a C2. However, what would a C3 mean? .... "not liable to present a potential danger, but ...... " surely begs the question "but what?", doesn't it?
No, but I'd give a C2 for 3.5mm screw heads not being vertical.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
