- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: Dangerous part ll
It is not just the appliance technician/engineer who can make dangerous errors of judgement…
In the following case, a QUALIFIED electrician Pat Tested the socket only the month before.. At the time of the Pat Test, the severe crack existed in the front of the plate.. but behind it there was something more severe and dangerous going on.
Re: Dangerous part ll
Allsorts wrote:At the time of the Pat Test, the severe crack existed in the front of the plate..
Just curious to know how you were aware of the crack before the PAT test? Did you set up a ‘sting’ to catch out this PAT tester? Watchdog back room TV covert Rogue Trader set-up?
Re: Dangerous part ll
Why PAT test a socket? Earth loop impedance yup, but a socket is not part of the Portable Appliance Test criteria.
Re: Dangerous part ll
Test sticker was put on it.. Maybe as part of a Pat Test and Landlords Test sequence
Re: Dangerous part ll
now that’s just opened a can of wiggly worms! even though their is no requirement for PAT testing would it be agreed that a competent person would do tests at the end of a repair? i agree with your later with regards to scrutiny, the thing is here theirs different regs that require the repairer to comply that sort of overlap ie. electricity at work regs, health and safety, i’m no expert here but i was under the impression that the person working on an electrical appliance had to be ‘competent’ but no qualification was put in place as yet? and the IEE code of practice so that’s out the window in court? the health and safety executive would they not use this as ammunition? ok id be interested to know what the moral and legal view point would be if a repairer carried out a repair to an appliance lets say simply fitted a element and left and after a week or so the appliance caused some kind of harm? it was found it was not earthed, who’s at fault? the installer or the repairer?
Re: Dangerous part ll
HSE recently made its opinion clear regarding PAT tests being carried out yearly, in most situations it’s viewed as overly cautious, places such as construction sites frequent testing yes, but an office no its not required.
As for who is responsible after a repair, who’s to say the owner didn’t open up an appliance after a repair. Proving responsiblity is a minefield.Re: Dangerous part ll
simonb wrote:ok id be interested to know what the moral and legal view point would be if a repairer carried out a repair to an appliance lets say simply fitted a element and left and after a week or so the appliance caused some kind of harm? it was found it was not earthed, who’s at fault? the installer or the repairer?
Much covered subject on here over the years Simon. But rather than going over and over the subject in this thread have a good read of these many links….
Re: Dangerous part ll
that’s an interesting point Lee about proving responsibility, and thanks for the links Martin i will be taking a good look, you learn something every day i was always under the impression PAT test was as good as mandatory and results had to be recorded for inspection, iv learnt over the years to always test for a good earth as always one a month with no earth wire and the cabinet is live, some right clever installers around, and that reminds me, a friend of mine was having some plastering work done in this house and the electrician from the council called and taped up the wires once or twice round only! and left them like that for 2 weeks, when i called it caught my eye and his youngest child has already started to peeled off some of the tape, yes it was defo live as i tested it, and just by chance i was present when he returned, i asked him did he think that was safe and who would be liable if someone was hurt, he said it was company practice and the company would be and who ever peeled it was an idiot, so i told him bollo@@s.. that really got my back up for a qualified electrician to have complete disregard for safety, part p? load of bollo@@s they should have a test for common sense first….
Re: Dangerous part ll
All about proof most of the time. From my point of view it’s the peace of mind knowing I’ve left an appliance in a safe condition, seen too many things over the years that have made my blood boil
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.