periodic inspection

[albi]

I have just done a periodic for a landlord and found a few problems but 1 problem I have is the cooker control unit, double socket and switch fuse spur and there location. Some spark has been in and moved then up from the original position but they still directly above the oven hob. The closest I can get to is 537.3.1.1 or is it just bad practice what code would you give it 2 or 4

 

[patricklondon]

if there is a cooking fire can you safely reach the switch to isolate... doesnt look like it.
i know this is the idea of the reg but dont recall where it is and actually this late i'm far to lazy to look

 

[nrbspark]

There are a couple of issues here for me, firstly to isolate the cooker or something plugged into the socket or simply switch the SFS you need to reach over a potentially hazardous area due to the heat or steam with a severe risk of burns (particularly for infants or vertically restricted people). Then secondly the flexes hanging will be subject to heat damage.

So to be honest I would personally give them a recommendation code 1 as I feel the risk or burns deserves it, I think code 2 is not strong enough because of the H&S risk element, and I don't think you can consider code 4 because not only is it not to regs but there is a definite safety issue.

Hope this helps

 

[albi]

i would agree but the current code of practic is

Code 1 (Requires urgent attention)
This code is to be used to indicate that danger exists, requiring urgent remedial action. The persons using the installation are at risk. The person ordering the report should be advised to take action without delay to remedy the observed deficiency in the installation, or to take other appropriate action (such as switching off and isolating the affected parts of the installation) to remove the danger. The inspector should not wait for the full report to be issued before giving this advice. As previously indicated, some certification, registration and membership bodies make available ‘Dangerous Condition’ notification forms to enable inspectors to record, and then to communicate
immediately to the person ordering the report, any dangerous condition discovered.


there for items such as

Exposed live parts that are accessible to touch,
such as where
a fuse carrier or circuit-breaker is omitted from a consumer unit and a blanking piece is not fitted in its place

terminations or connections have no (or damaged) barriers or enclosures, such as those belonging to a consumer unit

live conductors have no (or damaged) insulation

an accessory is damaged.

Conductive parts that have become live as the result of a fault

Absence of an effective means of earthing for the installation

The main RCD or voltage-operated earthleakage circuit-breaker on a TT system fails to operate when tested with an instrument or integral test button



but there is nothing about the risk or burns due to heat from a oven ?? so i still think a code 2

Code 2 (Requires improvement)
This code is to be used to indicate that the observed deficiency requires action to remove potential danger. The person ordering the report should be advised that, whilst the safety of those using the installation may not be at immediate risk, remedial action should be taken as soon as possible to improve the safety of the installation.​

 

[slocm3105]

i would agree but the current code of practic is

Code 1 (Requires urgent attention)
This code is to be used to indicate that danger exists, requiring urgent remedial action. The persons using the installation are at risk. The person ordering the report should be advised to take action without delay to remedy the observed deficiency in the installation, or to take other appropriate action (such as switching off and isolating the affected parts of the installation) to remove the danger. The inspector should not wait for the full report to be issued before giving this advice. As previously indicated, some certification, registration and membership bodies make available ‘Dangerous Condition’ notification forms to enable inspectors to record, and then to communicate
immediately to the person ordering the report, any dangerous condition discovered.


there for items such as

Exposed live parts that are accessible to touch,
such as where
a fuse carrier or circuit-breaker is omitted from a consumer unit and a blanking piece is not fitted in its place

terminations or connections have no (or damaged) barriers or enclosures, such as those belonging to a consumer unit

live conductors have no (or damaged) insulation

an accessory is damaged.

Conductive parts that have become live as the result of a fault

Absence of an effective means of earthing for the installation

The main RCD or voltage-operated earthleakage circuit-breaker on a TT system fails to operate when tested with an instrument or integral test button



but there is nothing about the risk or burns due to heat from a oven ?? so i still think a code 2

Code 2 (Requires improvement)
This code is to be used to indicate that the observed deficiency requires action to remove potential danger. The person ordering the report should be advised that, whilst the safety of those using the installation may not be at immediate risk, remedial action should be taken as soon as possible to improve the safety of the installation.​

Although you are right in saying that the risk of fire or burns is not in the code 1 recommendation list you must remember that it is a "recommendation" and therefore it should be used as an aid to give a code for each prolem found. In this situation I would also give it a code one as safely isolating anything running from either of these outlets could cause danger to the person if the appliance is under fault conditions or there are hot rings on the hob etc, damage to the equipment could also arise if a pan fire started.

Feel free to disagree with me if you can prove me wrong, learning everyday .

Cheers

 

[Des 56]

The cooker switch is a means of isolation not an emergency switch

In an emergency the cooker can by isolated and danger removed by switching off its breaker or the main switch on the consumer unit,so although it is not situated where it would be made better use of,accessability may not be main issue

It is not suitable to have the isolator cooking away above the appliance and could have a coding to reflect that it is not suitable for the environment,but accessability due to a cooker fire I dont think it applies