Range Oven Isolator Position Deemed Code 1 on a PIR ???

[Paul.M]

Going back to the question I would not code it. Reg 537.1.4 for location of isolation "shall be provided as near practicable". So location is fine, its accessible and the user/homeowner knows where it is and can tell anyone else that may use it. It's not in a locked cupboard and for emergency cut off the mcb at the c/u can be used. At worst I would make a note on the cert just incase they sell the house without telling the new owners how to turn on the cooker.

 

[flukey]

ive been away far too long, miss a good old difference of opinion like this one

 

[Deleted member 9648]

You can make all the excuses you can think of or dream up, to make this situation seem acceptable, your only fooling yourselves, and the gullible, ..no-one else!!!

Commonsense, ...huh , that's got to be a laugh!! ...Right??

God help us if it turns out to be fed from a remote CU as well

 

[baldsparkies]

Everyone has there opinion on this, and thats good for debate.
I would never condone anything that isnt deemed electrically safe.
But getting back to the real question ie should this warrent a code 1 ie the user is in immediate danger from the install.
I would say definately not. Will give the niceic a ring in the morning and talk to there tech dept. The guy giving a code 1 is a service engineer and I have since found that he is not a registered sparks.
Another sparks has also looked at the job and he agreed with my opinion in that it would be a code 4 at most.
The service guy was refusing to look at a dishwasher because it was plugged into a socket behind. Didnt want to move it whilst still switched on ????
Sorry but I will never be of any opinion other than this guy is a jobsworth at best, and a lazy so and so at worst who will find any reason to get out of doing the job.
I have come across them before and will come across them again.
As said will check with the nic in the morning.

 

[flukey]

As said will check with the nic in the morning.

be good to hear what they have to say on the matter

 

[Engineer54]

baldsparkies,

I take it this installation has nothing to do with you, and was designed and installed by others, Correct??
The fact of the matter is, as an installation it has being badly designed, even if it is electrically safe. Socket outlets supplying floor standing appliances should be controlled/isolated from above worktop locations via switched FCU. The rear socket outlet then just becomes a means of connection to the appliance, ...doesn't even matter if the socket outlet is in an adjacent cabinet.

Seems the problem is often down to the home owners not wanting to see these electrical accessories above the worktop. They however have no concept of safety, they just want things to look good!! Many actually regret having all these electrical accessories hidden, for more reasons than one, and especially when a fault occurs, and all there cupboards have to be cleared out to gain access to these hidden accessories.

Now i have no idea about these codes that your all talking about, or what they mean. As stated before, at this stage it's not a question of pulling the installation apart, it's just not economical, or warranted. That doesn't however make it right, and what i can't make out, is the amount of electricians willing to comment that nothing is wrong with this installation, when it's clear as daylight that the design/layout is Wrong!!!

 

[flukey]

Now i have no idea about these codes that your all talking about, or what they mean. As stated before, at this stage it's not a question of pulling the installation apart, it's just not economical, or warranted. That doesn't however make it right, and what i can't make out, is the amount of electricians willing to comment that nothing is wrong with this installation, when it's clear as daylight that the design/layout is Wrong!!!

think you are a bit off topic here, from what ive read noone has said its right, the op was whether the service engineer was right in issuing a code 1 for the location.
you will be well aware that the majority of kitchens have these isolators and the like installed in cupboards etc, something i dont agree with but have to live with because thats whats there!!
if op had designed the circuit then you would think he would have the isolator in a sensible place.
he didnt design it and from what i have read i alos wouldnt feel the need to code it, just comment on it

 

[baldsparkies]

Thanks for your concern Engineer, I appreciate you are unsure about codings and there rellevance on a pir, but this is what the post is really concerned with ie the correct application of a code in relation to what its being applied to. Code 1 relates to an immediate danger being present, and thats really not the case. Code 4 on the other hand is a non compliance and the question has to be a non compliance with what ??
Below are official extracts from documents that I have researched and its quite an eye opener.
Its important that we are not so entranched in what we believe to be right that we are not hearing what others are saying.
We have to be practical and take each situation in its own merit.
Risk assesment by fire officers as well as electrical engineers within the iee are also important factors to be considered so please feel free to read on.

(Quote) !!!

In the event of a cooking related incident, the controls at the front of the cooking device could still be used to remove heat.


In the event of an electrical fault with an appliance, if installed properly, the CPD/s at the source of that circuit should be able to disconnect power due to ADS.

There is nothing to say you must have the isolator in clear view.

This is a misconception held by some electricians depending on their belief of the intended purpose of the isolator.
In domestic (not commercial/industrial) environments, the primary use of a cooker isolator is for maintenance.

Cooking starts more than half of accidental fires at home. Many kitchen fires happen when people are not paying attention or they leave things unattended.
If an electrical appliance catches fire, don’t throw water on it. If it is safe to do so, you may be able to put out the fire immediately by:

• pulling the appliance’s plug out
  [*]switching off the power at the fuse box
  

If the fire doesn’t go out, get out of the house, stay out and call 999.

 

[telectrix]

and start peeling potatoes to replace the chips you've set on fire.

 

[Engineer54]

As a final comment on this thread, from what you have explained, i would agree a code 4 would be the most appropriate coding.

Further, normally ''readily accessible'' is the term given to means of disconnection, eg...Isolators and the like!!
That has never meant located behind a closed door i'm afraid. I'm not an Electrician, i'm an Engineer that has to make decisions on a regular basis, concerning similar installations, in both commercial and domestic environments, so i'm under no misconceptions, i work to project specifications, which are generally based on Regulations and best practices...

From your last quote in your post '' pulling the appliance plug out'' as a first means of disconnection, doesn't really fit a range cooker However if you replaced the wording to ''Cooker control panel'' then it would be correctly identified as the first means of disconnection, and of course switching off of the CU, or MCB would be the second and last means of disconnection..

To be honest baldparkies, (and this has nothing to do with yourself) i've been more than a little dismayed at the lowering of general standards within the UK's electrical industry, and the overall acceptance of those lower standards. So please don't take anything stated in this thread by myself as being directed at you personally, it was never meant in that way.

 

[Guest123]

This is what the NIC will tell you as it's from an issue of their 'Connections' magazine......


Positioning.
The switch or control unit should be readily accessible. It should
not be positioned behind or above a cooking appliance such that
a person would have to reach over the appliance in order to
access the switch/control unit.
The horizontal distance between a cooker switch/control unit and
the appliance(s) it serves must be sufficiently short for the switch
to be under the control of persons relying on it for safety. This
requirement is likely to be met if the distance does not exceed
2m.
The height of a cooker switch or control unit in an installation in
a new dwelling should be suitable to facilitate access by persons
in wheelchairs and others whose reach is limited (as should the
heights of all wall-mounted switches and socket-outlets). Based
on the recommendations of Approved Document M, applicable
for new dwellings in England and Wales, the height of the switch
or control unit should not exceed 1.2 m above finished floor
level.
Installation of a cooker switch or control unit in a cupboard or
cabinet is not recommended. Potential users of the
switch/control unit may not be aware that it is there, or items
stored in the cupboard may obstruct access to the switch/control
unit. In any event, wiring and other electrical equipment should
generally not be fixed to a cupboard or cabinet, which may be
removed in the future; they should be fixed to the building fabric.
It is also not recommended to locate a cooker switch or control
unit in a central wall-mounted control panel together with other
switching devices, as this may result in the switch not being
under the control of persons relying on it for safety or otherwise
not being suitably accessible. Where a cooker switch or control
unit is positioned in such a central control panel, then, as for any
other item of switchgear or controlgear, a label or other suitable
means of identification must be provided to indicate the purpose
of a cooker switch/control unit, except where there is no
possibility of confusion (Regulation 514-01-01 refers).

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As previously stated,I dont think anyone on here was implying that it would be designed that way....just that in the situation described did it warrent a code,,,(1)?.....the fact is regulations do not appear to have been directly broken,so a code 1 or 2 would probably not be applicable. I'm not even sure a code 4 could be applied as it would be hard to point out the actual reg not complied with.

 

[baldsparkies]

Thanks for the information Lenny,

Reading through it looks like the local isolation is almost but not completely compliant. My logic as I see it is that;

1 Its installed within the fabric of the building.

2 Its readily accessible allbeit you have to open the door front, not difficult to do, and not difficult to switch off either.

3 It should not be positioned behind or above a cooking appliance such that a person would have to reach over the appliance in order to
access the switch/control unit.( Access is currently gained through an open back once said door is opened, so YOU DO NOT have to reach over the the appliance to gain access.

4 interestingly its around 500mm above floor level so although not new build, even this appears to comply.

Judging by the above the only non compliance I can see is that its not visible and or marked up. So if anything I would say a code 4 at the most.
From the other info I have read up on Its for servicing purposes which would also be fine.

Lenny, your opinions are much respected. I appreciate we all have differing views, but where would your thoughts be with regards to coding ??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I'm not sure that even a comment is warrented, let alone a code.
The only argument I can envision for a code, would be for emergency switching.
However, I am not sure that there is a need for emergency switching, or that any such switching would serve any real purpose.
The majority of cooker fires, are due to fat or oil ignighting. Whilst removing the source of ignition will be benefical (and can often be achived simply by using a control knob on the actual cooker), however doing such will not actually extinguish a fire.

 

[baldsparkies]

As a final comment on this thread, from what you have explained, i would agree a code 4 would be the most appropriate coding.

Further, normally ''readily accessible'' is the term given to means of disconnection, eg...Isolators and the like!!
That has never meant located behind a closed door i'm afraid. I'm not an Electrician, i'm an Engineer that has to make decisions on a regular basis, concerning similar installations, in both commercial and domestic environments, so i'm under no misconceptions, i work to project specifications, which are generally based on Regulations and best practices...

From your last quote in your post '' pulling the appliance plug out'' as a first means of disconnection, doesn't really fit a range cooker However if you replaced the wording to ''Cooker control panel'' then it would be correctly identified as the first means of disconnection, and of course switching off of the CU, or MCB would be the second and last means of disconnection..

To be honest baldparkies, (and this has nothing to do with yourself) i've been more than a little dismayed at the lowering of general standards within the UK's electrical industry, and the overall acceptance of those lower standards. So please don't take anything stated in this thread by myself as being directed at you personally, it was never meant in that way.

I agree completely with you Engineer, I was an electrical site manager for many years. Glad I run my own bussiness with a colleage of mine now (Far less stressfull)
Most of the time consultants were used and standards were thus very good. Especially Hospital installs and at power stations ect. The QS would always try to cut corners but then they always do.

Where kitchen fitting is concerned, I have often been dismayed by the lack of good practice where electrics are concerned, and I agree with you about standards slipping.
I hope you can take me at my word when I say that this particuler install has been signed off by the fitters in question and the standard of works completed is very good. I checked a few of there readings as per there paperwork and they were true to form.
Everything on the install is rcbo protected so nice discrimination good earth fault paths ect.
The isolation switch however is not in an ideal location and that is true but its not a code 1 and I am glad that you appear to agree with a code 4.
Thats really all I am trying to clarify with everyone, but the debate has been very enlighting.
Kind Regards to you my Friend.