Omission Of Tests On Inaccessible Kitchen Appliances

[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.

 

[DPG]

Unfortunately there's a lot of that goes on.

 

[Wilko]

When the person arrived to do the PAT testing ... 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 ... a visual inspection required more than just seeing it was there ... his interpretation of visual inspection was looking for somewhere to put his stickers ...

It would be funny if it wasn't potentially tragic. Maybe he thought you were foreign so yelling might work

 

[oracle]

I think he urinated to warm up for taking the p**s. He was arrogant and condescending.

 

[ferg]

Those things make me shiver.

I wonder why they are called widow maker leads.

 

[123]

You can isolate the supply all you like, if you leave that widow maker test lead behind on a job it could lead to serious injury or a fatality.