Not at all as previously stated our Code interpretation is the same as BS7671 and it is rare to be asked to rectify Code 3 issues although it does happen. We Code 3 plastic consumer units stating it does not require rectification although we rarely touch the domestic market.
Thats the way of it at the moment too many people with no competence or experience with some sort of testing qualification and using Guide books to compensate for their lack of understanding. Back in the early 90s when I got heavily involved with testing testers were pretty light on the ground people just avoided it but now it's a free for all aided in part by the YouTube monkeys.
That's a good question as I feel the current definition is a bit non-committal. There are many things you can plonk into Code 3 as they are not going to cause an imminent danger and probably never will. I have just finished a Report with several C3s one being the main protective bond to the water service is cable-tied to the pipework. To me this is a departure from the Regulations so it shouldn't be a recommendation you should be required to rectify it and I could cite many others. I preferred the old Catergory system and to me Code 1 and 2 are too akin to each other, there is little difference.
There is no Requirement to state a Regulation number as it means nothing to the client generally but the departure should have an accurate definition in the Report.
No I agree some things are never going to cause a danger but unfortunately we don't have crystal balls.
tbh, i dont care about your personal opinion. your coding against / working to BS7671, not what you want
I Code with reference to the Regulations in BS7671 using an engineering judgement, as for the Report format I can device any format I wish but having said that our format is close to the suggested one in the Appendix.
Bit dramatic isn't it. If you are referring to me then I have never suggested I have changed the C3 definition nor implied people should have unnecessary works carried out.
