socket outlet 50mm from edge of hobb but 350 mm high?

[newbie111]

Is this permissable or could steam form on the socket face plate or on a cable plugged into the socket and run down to say the kettle or a toaster?
I believe the regs recomend a min 300mm? The installation is split load and rcd protected.
many thanks

 

[Octopus]

Not sure there is a minimum from the edge of a hob.

If my memory serves me correctly the 300mm is from the edge of a sink (and IMHO should be 600mm)

Are you doing an install or a PIR?

 

[newbie111]

Hi murdoch, just connecting up cooker hobb. just concerned about the steam as external influence. could blank the socket of,but will not leave many sockets in the kitchen if i do.
Is the 300 mm from edge of drainer too, less likely to be splashed from that side?

 

[Octopus]

My regs books are in my vehicle. Do you have a copy of the Electricians Guide to the Building regs? I think its shown in there clearly (I seem to recall).

 

[ackbarthestar]

Its not in the BS7671 as far as I remember. but is mentioned in the EGTBR.
I personally think that 50mm to the hob is far too close, the affects of steam and heat will certainly be on the cards and will probably damage any appliance cable sooner or later.
There's two ways to look at it.
1/ Apply a form of 'common sense' and look at what the customer is likely to do ... risky if they sell to a bunch of head bangers
2/ Apply the lowest common denominator and remove it. ...... not always practical if there is not enough socket outlets

Its your call and if the worst happens you will definitely be the centre of attention when it comes to compensation.

 

[newbie111]

Your right, i will remove the socket .There are another four doubles in the kitchen which is quite small , 2 on each side of the room. What code would be applicable for a PIR ,a code 4?

 

[ackbarthestar]

Your right, i will remove the socket .There are another four doubles in the kitchen which is quite small , 2 on each side of the room. What code would be applicable for a PIR ,a code 4?

I would be a little more harsh and say code '2' although others would probably say differently .... and who would blame them ! But then that's my opinion and would stick by it if I had to. :ciappa: However, I might not be so harsh by the new amendment and probably code it as C3 (in need of improvement)

 

[MarkieSparkie]

I disagree with coding the poor placement of this socket. On a Periodic Inspection Report only observations that can be supported by one or more regulations in the current issue of BS7671 should be recorded and coded. Observations based solely on personal preference or "custom and practice" should not be recorded. The minimum distance of 300mm for an accessory from the edge of a hob is the guidance given in EGBR and is not a current electrical (or building) regulation. Items relating to electrical safety, not supported by BS7671, I usually append as appropriate notes in an appendix to the PIR, these notes are not given codes eg. the absence of a fire detection and alarm system; the absence of an emergency lighting system; infringements of the Building Regulations or the guidance of EGBR; ect, where appropriate.

 

[ackbarthestar]

I suspect that it is poor placement of the cooker hood rather than socket. The electrics should have been adjusted before the kitchen was refurbished.
IMO the importance of a PIR is to establish whether or not an installation is safe for continued use. The regulations are guidance to that effect 131.1 (ii) and 510.1
You might to look at 515.1, 522.2.1 and possibly 528.3
Then there is 134.1.1 and 134.1.2,

 

[MarkieSparkie]

I suspect that it is poor placement of the cooker hood rather than socket. The electrics should have been adjusted before the kitchen was refurbished.
IMO the importance of a PIR is to establish whether or not an installation is safe for continued use. The regulations are guidance to that effect 131.1 (ii) and 510.1
You might to look at 515.1, 522.2.1 and possibly 528.3
Then there is 134.1.1 and 134.1.2,

Nice one ackbarthestar, I forgot 522.2.1 (ii). I've been using software that automatically does the coding for you and it dulls the brain. The socket could be PIR Code 2 or EICR C2 (potential danger) with this regulation, because although socket is mounted 350mm high and may not be at risk itself, any appliance plugged into it would potentially put the connecting flexible cord dangerously close to the hob heat source.

 

[mogga]

Nice one ackbarthestar, I forgot 522.2.1 (ii). I've been using software that automatically does the coding for you and it dulls the brain. The socket could be PIR Code 2 or EICR C2 (potential danger) with this regulation, because although socket is mounted 350mm high and may not be at risk itself, any appliance plugged into it would potentially put the connecting flexible cord dangerously close to the hob heat source.

Software that codes faults should be banned as the software isnt doing the PIR YOU are as the competant person
Imagine going to court n saying "the computer did it"
I use Amtek at work and it does a warning if Zss are high and CAN be set to put this on page 2
the validate ASSISTS but doesnt

 

[nickblake]

for the info as i couldnt see it from a hob the distance is as a sink 300mm but it just says reccomendations so realistically you should stick to that as for coding it should be C3 improvement reccomended , even if the socket was installed at that position to older versions of the regs when carrying out a PIR its done to the current regs and not older versions

 

[newbie111]

The offending socket has been removed, thanks for all your replies.