Omission Of Tests On Inaccessible Kitchen Appliances

[JK-Electrical]

Other than the testing of the usual kitchen appliances that landlords supply as part of the tenancy agreement, I very rarely do any other PA testing. I will be carrying-out an EICR later this week on a property that will soon be made available to let. All appliances bar one are enclosed within fitted cupboards. With the sole exception of the oven, no isolating switches or FCUs have been installed for any of the appliances and they are all fed via sockets that are located at the back of each appliance. Short of physically removing the fridge, freezer, washing machine and dishwasher from their cabinets, I cannot otherwise gain access to the plugs for any of these appliances. So unless the letting agent or the property owner arranges for a kitchen fitter or joiner to remove each individual appliance, the appliances will not be tested. I will, of course, make a note of this on the test certificate, clearly stating my reasons for omitting the tests.

I'm sure I'm not the only tester who has encountered the problem of not being able to test kitchen appliances because of their inaccessibility. I'm curious as to whether or not the letting agent or property owner have any legal requirement to ensure that appliances supplied as part of a tenancy agreement are tested even if it means facilitating access to inaccessible appliances at their own expense, or whether the omission of the tests under the circumstances is permissible. I'm based in Scotland, and up here portable appliance testing is mandatory for private lettings as is an EICR. Any suggestions or advice anyone?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Never had that problem, as when I carry out EICRs, I carry them out in accordance with BS7671 so only test the fixed wiring.

 

[Wilko]

I've not had to do this, but if the appliance can't be accessed maybe test it as part of the whole circuit? Wander lead for any exposed conductive parts connection to the MET.

 

[Pete999]

Never had that problem, as when I carry out EICRs, I carry them out in accordance with BS7671 so only test the fixed wiring.

What he said^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[DC-backfrom the past]

hi, the guidance for rented properties in Scotland is here
Electrical installations and appliances in private rented properties: guidance - gov.scot - https://beta.gov.scot/publications/electrical-installations-and-appliances-private-rented-properties/
as the op stated the PAT testing has to include the landlords equipment but not the tenants,
apologies don't know how to add the pdf contained in the link,

 

[polo1]

Not appliance testing related, but I always note as a limitation on EICRs that the circuit serving an electric hob and/oven is only tested to the main switch (i.e not to the outlet) where appliances would have to be removed to provide access.
You don’t often come across pull out electric cookers anymore!

 

[pirate]

I have encountered this problem many times. There are two issues as I see it:
1. I don't like hauling out heavy appliances! Plus, you have to be careful not to do any damage.
2. If you can't access the plug then of course proper testing is impossible (in a PA sense) because you can't complete the FVI, check the fuse etc nor, in most cases can you inspect the full length of the flex/cable.

Many built-in appliances are quite easy to access, such as microwave ovens and ordinary ovens, and often they can be slid out after undoing a couple of screws, however other than that, the FVI is compromised. Even if, say, the hob is merely plugged into a socket or extension lead behind the plinth (thanks Kevin, much appreciated!) the full length of the flex can't be checked. I test what I can, and annotate the report appropriately.
These massive fridge-freezers are a nightmare...but to be fair, they don't need an annual check unless the circumstances suggest this is imperative...they are virtually "fixed". I try to persude landlords to plug them into a new extension lead, looped up to the top of the units, so you can easily access the appliance plug for testing. The FVI of the supply cable isn't possible, but unless there is evidence of rodents, it is extremely unlikely that the supply cord will have been damaged between one inspection and the next, as it will not have moved or been subject to abrasion etc.
If I simply cannot get at the back of a washine machine, but it is plugged into a socket at the back and is thereafter fed via a FCU I isolate it and disconnect it there and test as if it were plugged in, using a safe connection block.
Whatever, if it can't be moved, it's probably less likely to be defective...but I report accordingly, wherever I can't complete the job fully.
I could, of course, just sticker everything! (Joke!)...there are plenty who do, but there are such cowboys everywhere and probably that's why I don't get as much work...they are much cheaper...

 

[uksrevivor]

I can pretty much guarantee that most PAT testing companies who employ people will have passed the item on a visual test and thus adding to his/her test results

 

[JK-Electrical]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

For the same reasons that Pirate has cited, removing the fitted appliances myself isn't an option. If the letting agent or property owner doesn't arrange for the appliances to be made accessible for testing, then the tests won't be done. As the appliances are connected direct to sockets located at the rear, I can't inspect the flex, plug and fuse. While I could check the earth continuity via a wander lead connected to the MET, I won't be able to test the insulation.

I think it was a bit short-sighted to not install FCUs or grid switches above the worktops to provide local isolation for these appliances.​

 

[gutterball]

I usually do an earth bond to a socket using a kewtec adaptor, if plug or fcu not accessible. then LIM the other tests.

 

[pirate]

I am re-thinking this, following JK's point...instead of trying to work round it, make the Landlord responsible for putting the appliance in a condition/location which allows full inspection. My view has been to do what I can with what's available, test and report appropriately, but maybe I should take the view that if I can't gain full access to an appliance, report it as such, and move on.
Kinda torn between doing the best job I can, and not doing the job cos of inaccessibility.
Tending towards the "do what you can" version, but JK's view is certainly simpler and more efficient. Maybe depends on the Landlord's attitude? On balance, I am still in favour of doing a "half-job" and reporting accordingly...but in defence of that, I don't have to make a living out of it, so the time involved is of less importance to me.
I guess that testing at the FCU at least shows that at the time of the test all seemed ok? (minus the FVI). Like the MOT, it's a snapshot in time...
but then, any PAT result is just that.
Oh well...next job, I'll decide! I'd just rather do something than nothing, as that "something" might just reveal a problem.
In passing, as a relatively new member here, I am extremely grateful for all the solid advice from all the experienced people on this forum. Yes, there are some brilliant jokes and comic lines, which I really enjoy...but I have learned so much, so thank you all for your contributions!

 

[Octopus]

This is PRECISELY why sockets for fixed appliances should ALWAYS be accessible without having to remove the appliance.

Another obvious failing of BS7671

 

[Taylortwocities]

BS7671 states that screwed terminals (I would include sockets and plugs) must be accessible.
So it is covered. its just that kitchen planners and installing electricians do not realise the implications.

 

[Octopus]

BS7671 states that screwed terminals (I would include sockets and plugs) must be accessible.
So it is covered. its just that kitchen planners and installing electricians do not realise the implications.

It needs to be explained better for the numpties.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but isn't a portable appliance only really a portable appliance if you can easily move it? I vaguely remember something about if the appliance is over a certain weight or permanently fixed into place with nails screws or the like then it is no longer portable and can be classed as fixed, no PA Testing to be done on it as it is included in the EICR?

 

[pirate]

I have some sympathy for that view. But a fixed appliance may appear "fixed" due simply to its "degree of annexation" to the supply. So, as previously mentioned, if you have, say, a heater which is hung on the wall and plugged in to a socket in one room, you might test that...but if in the next room an identical heater is wired into a FCU, should we ignore it?
I guess it's the difference between PAT and ISITEE...
Big heavy appliances, like washing machines and fridge/freezers?
Oh well, maybe it's a question of degree...and also of setting a realistic testing schedule...
I don't know.
I encourage my landlord clients to be very particular about what appliances they leave in the premises. Frankly, heavy use items like toasters and kettles are vulnerable, so leave them out. A cooker hood is often plugged in, but hardly portable, yet it is subject to a damp atmosphere and could be a risky item.
Frankly, it is up to the landlord to select the items and agree a testing schedule, but few will want more than the absolute minimum.

 

[DPG]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but isn't a portable appliance only really a portable appliance if you can easily move it? I vaguely remember something about if the appliance is over a certain weight or permanently fixed into place with nails screws or the like then it is no longer portable and can be classed as fixed, no PA Testing to be done on it as it is included in the EICR?

Best to read the current edition of the code of practice.

 

[Pete999]

Best to read the current edition of the code of practice.

Read it and understand it as well.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Best to read the current edition of the code of practice.

As I say vaguely as I’m sure the guy who took the course said something about it PAT is not something I do I think the last time I done it was about 3 years ago...

 

[Pete999]

As I say vaguely as I’m sure the guy who took the course said something about it PAT is not something I do I think the last time I done it was about 3 years ago...

In that case you shouldn't be doing it until you become competent, qualifications are not an issue Competency is the main thing.

 

[DPG]

Absolutely right Pete. The problem with testing appliances is that even if you have the test set up incorrectly, the appliance may still pass even if it us faulty. It's important to know exactly what you are testing and what parameters are acceptable.

 

[DPG]

Remember seeing someone testing figure 8 mains leads years ago. I asked him what tests he was doing. He didn't know, but just pressed 'Test' and waited for it to say 'pass'. I tried explaining how the IR test worked on his tester, but his face remained blank.

 

[bigspark17]

Not appliance testing related, but I always note as a limitation on EICRs that the circuit serving an electric hob and/oven is only tested to the main switch (i.e not to the outlet) where appliances would have to be removed to provide access.
You don’t often come across pull out electric cookers anymore!

Agree with testing eicr to isolator. But if pat testing i would test from the outgoing side of the isolator and wander for r2 continuity.

 

[MFS Electrical]

PAT is not something I do.

In that case you shouldn't be doing it until you become competent, qualifications are not an issue Competency is the main thing.

I couldn’t agree more that’s why I don’t do it

 

[oracle]

Visiting a friend in a council house she said someone would be coming to test her kitchen appliances.
There was nothing to show they had been tested before.

When the person arrived to do the PAT testing, the first thing he did was ring the bell, then disappeared behind the sheds to urinate.

He then came in with his tester and a roll of stickers and started putting his stickers on the appliances.

I asked why he wasn't testing anything and he replied "I'm doing a visual inspection, VISUAL Inspection", as though I was simple and needed the emphasis.

I told him that the equipment had never been tested and a visual inspection required more than just seeing it was there

He said he needed someone to make the equipment available for testing, so I said I'd bring them into the middle of the kitchen so he could access them all he wanted, but he declined.

He then left having been there for a few minutes and couldn't get out quickly enough. I believe he realised that he was out of his depth with me.

His interpretation of visual inspection was looking for somewhere to put his stickers on. That's all he did.