Surface sockets on skirting boards

[Lioned]

In an old house,Maybe about 4" off the floor,would they fail a PIR on the basis of possible 'mechanical damage' or just be an advisory (requires improvement/doesnt commply) ?
Thanks.

 

[i=p/u]

code 4 because isnt to 17th regs i think....

 

[Paul.M]

Socket outlet fixed in such a position to arise to damage of the plug, socket or flex = code 4 as per PIR best practice guide. Well done Ipu.

 

[nickblake]

this is one of those aquard ones yes its a code 4 but its also a code 2 because it requires improvment

 

[Paul.M]

this is one of those aquard ones yes its a code 4 but its also a code 2 because it requires improvment

Nick I agree before an argument kicks off like last week. (not you)

It's one of those that you have to look at yourself. Going by the description and by best practice guide it could be a 2 or a 4 but still needs improving.

 

[Adam W]

Sorry to throw a cat among the pigeons but IMO it's fine provided the flexes of the plugs plugged into said sockets aren't ordinarily unduly strained by the floor. There is no requirement to raise sockets to retrospectively comply with part M in a domestic property; commercial properties are still fine even for new builds (skirting trunking, floor boxes etc).

Not to 17th maybe, so code 4 if any.

 

[malcolmsanford]

ESC PIR guide ........................is just that a guide. I'm with Novus if the 4" height is not contravening regulation 553.1.6 then no code at all.

 

[mogga]

If plugs fit without bending flex why code it ? Assuming its a pre 2008 installation
Possibly note but no code.

 

[telectrix]

think there should be a code 5 introduced.----- Code 5: Ask Malcolm. LOL.

 

[malcolmsanford]

think there should be a code 5 introduced.----- Code 5: Ask Malcolm. LOL.

It's IQ who should be that mate, as he moves in exhalted circles at the ministry of Magic know as IET

 

[3000gt ant]

If you are worried you could just buy surface skirting relocation boxes and resolve the problem there and then.

cheers
Ant

 

[IQ Electrical]

It's IQ who should be that mate, as he moves in exhalted circles at the ministry of Magic know as IET

Ha, code 5? we say 'goodbye' to code 4 in a few months!

If it were my report, I'd look at the evidence, you said it's an old house, are the outlets damaged/cracked from forced entry etc?

If there is damage, I'd code it a 2 for the damaged accessory and a code 2 for 'selection and erection'.

If there is no sign of damage, I'd code it a 4 for 553.1.6

 

[Lioned]

Thanks for that,If the consensus is code 4 then can you sign of the PIR as 'Satisfactory' with that caveat noted ?


and anyone got a link for these ? "surface skirting relocation boxes"

sorry but thats new to me.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Code 4 is a satisfactory test. Code 1 and 2 would be unsatisfactory.

 

[nickblake]

its going to be intresting when the new forms come in as there is alot more to fill in , i think the codings should be more customer friendly like requires improvment , like the cooker switch above the hob could be a code 4 but still requires improvement , sparks have knowlage of the regs so code 4 we understand but mrs jones up the road hasnt a clue why its doesnt comply with the regs , but could understand , needs immediate attention , requires improvement , and requires further investigation ,those codes tell the customer that the installation needs attention code 4 tells the spark , and it all boils down to the use and risks of the installation ,we have to improve the installations to make them safer i know im waffling and ill get shot down again but in general the PIR is for customers to understand as well as sparks

think the smelly stuff on its way lol