I've been thinking about this for a while, but just how useful are the codes used on a periodic inspection report -- really?
The decision as to which code to apply to a given "problem" comes down very much to personal opinion in a lot of cases, and there are wide variations. Even the IEE and NICEIC committees cannot agree.
For the benefit of those outside the U.K., let's explain what's involved here. Anything which shows up on an inspection is coded with one of four numbers to indicate its seriousness:
Code 1 = Requires immediate attention.
Code 2 = Requires improvement.
Code 3 = Requires further investigation.
Code 4 = Does not comply with current Regs., but did in the past.
Code 3 is rarely used, at least in domestic work, and would be applied where it's impossible to determine if there's a problem or not without a lot more time to investigate (e.g. a cable which is connected to something but can't be traced).
Certain things are clearly code 1, such as a 9kW shower wired on 2.5 mm cable, or broken housings exposing live parts.
But there seems to be huge disagreement over many items and whether they warrant a code 1 vs. a code 2, or whether something should be code 2 vs. code 4, even code 1 vs. code 4.
Some examples:
Current Regs. (16th) say that any outlet likely to be used to feed equipment outdoors should be RCD protected. That in itself prompts a lot of argument over which outlets are covered, but let's assume a socket right by the door which is not RCD protected. Which code?
Some say code 2, requires improvement. Some say code 4, because whether you consider the RCD desirable or not, it does comply with earlier editions of the Regs. I've even seen some claim this should be code 1 as being "immediately dangerous" (can't agree with that).
Then there's the classic lighting circuit with no earth, allowed under the 13th edition (pre-1966) so long as all-insulated fittings were used. So as long as nobody has come along later and changed fittings to class 1 types, that should be code 4, right?
Some people say no, it must be code 2 because it requires improvement in case somebody comes along later and changes the switches/lights. Some say that this warrants a code 1 even if no unearthed fittings have been added.
Given this sort of wide disparity in assigning codes, just how valuable are they, bearing in mind that they are supposed to be for the general public to assess what needs doing to an installation?
When John Doe can see a code 4 noted on one PIR when exactly the same thing on a PIR carried out by another person is down as code 1, isn't he going to feel that the whole system is quite ridiculous? And doesn't he have a point?
