Floating sockets..

[JohnW2]

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.

OK - but that's sort-of 'sitting on the fence' as regards the current reg's wording of what C2 and C3 mean.

One thing I think is clear - an EICR is meant to be a report of the installation at the time of the inspection - so I don't think that "what something might end up as" really comes into it. Hence, if you feel the situation is 'potentially dangerous' at the time of the inspection you should obviously give a C2, but if you don't feel that, you certainly should not give a C2, and arguably not any code at all. I personally don't think it makes sense, or is 'intended', that you should give a C3 to something because, although it does not deserve a code at the time of the inspection, it 'might end up' deserving a C2 at some point in the future!

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?

Definitely coded. As you say, C2 ....

522.6.1 Wiring systems shall be selected and erected so as to minimize the damage arising from mechanical
stress, e.g. by impact, abrasion, penetration, tension or compression during installation, use or maintenance.

To attempt to clarify even further, given the regs as they are, it's the C3 that I have problems with. If one's opinion is that something presents a 'potential danger' (which I would say your illustrated cable does - a cable that is likely to be driven over, or insulted by tools, is a totally different kettle of fish from one behind a DW!), then it's a C2 - but if one's opinion is that it does not present a 'potential danger' then I don't see why one should be 'recommending improvement'.

 

[pete01]

but if one's opinion is that it does not present a 'potential danger' then I don't see why one should be 'recommending improvement'.

Because it isn't potentially dangerous but the cable isn’t clipped or designed to be trailing and the back box which is designed to be screwed to something isn't...

Shall we agree to disagree?

 

[JohnW2]

Because it isn't potentially dangerous but the cable isn’t clipped or designed to be trailing and the back box which is designed to be screwed to something isn't...
Shall we agree to disagree?

I think we'll have to!

I think that (in the absence of anything useful from the regs) it really comes down to how one interprets 'potentially dangerous' since, in terms of my personal interpretation of it, if it is not "potentially dangerous', it can't be 'improved' (in relation to safety), so does not really require a code. On the other hand, if it's given a C3 because it is believed that 'improvement' would make it 'safer' (less 'potentially dangerous), then it probably should (in terms of current regs) have been given a C2. That's not necessarily 'sensible', but it seems (to me) to be 'correct' in terms of what the regs currently say.

I don't really have anything new or different to say!

 

[pete01]

I think we'll have to!

I think that (in the absence of anything useful from the regs) it really comes down to how one interprets 'potentially dangerous' since, in terms of my personal interpretation of it, if it is not "potentially dangerous', it can't be 'improved' (in relation to safety), so does not really require a code. On the other hand, if it's given a C3 because it is believed that 'improvement' would make it 'safer' (less 'potentially dangerous), then it probably should (in terms of current regs) have been given a C2. That's not necessarily 'sensible', but it seems (to me) to be 'correct' in terms of what the regs currently say.

I don't really have anything new or different to say!

I would love to hear what EFLI would say about this.....hopefully he comes back and puts us right

 

[JohnW2]

I would love to hear what EFLI would say about this.....hopefully he comes back and puts us right

So would I - but I very much fear that that will not be happening! I obviously hope that I'm wrong.

 

[ebee]

I think that probably the slight change to the coding system was an attempt to clear things up that was a very widely used interpretation that often existed (or was deliberately used by some to save money and not in the best intrests of safety ) . "We fix the code ones very quickly and the fix the code twos next as soon as we can reasonably afford it and when it is more convenient" I often argued that this was the wrong approach and was of an opinion like "Fix the code ones yesterday or the day before (rapid rapid rapid) and the fix the code twos today" sort of order of urgency. Basically fix all but applying a greater urgency to the ones.
But, in practice at the time the real was that the code ones might get fixed but often the code two never were.
The idea was to prevent harm to Persons, Livestock and Property.

There is nothing to stop any PIR/EICR having with it a list of advisory items too which are over and above the model form of the report - I sometimes used a seperate sheet or made comments on the standard model etc.
So long as it is made absolutely clear that it is additional advice.

I know quite a few who made their advice as "part of the regs" that must be complied with.
If they were good and useful recommendations then nothing wrong with making them as a good/helpful suggestion but should never pretend they were actually regs that must be complied with to attract a pass/fail sort of situation, the regs is the minimum line for "good/reasonable practice" which can be built upon if needed.