UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > General Vintage Technology > General Vintage Technology Discussions

Notices

General Vintage Technology Discussions For general discussions about vintage radio and other vintage electronics etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 28th May 2018, 4:51 pm   #61
GrimJosef
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,310
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler View Post
Legend has it that the individual with the poodle and the microwave cooker won her lawsuit.
Fortunately it's a legend https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-microwaved-pet/. The one about the lady who sued McDonalds over a coffee burn is the nearest that any of these legends gets to something that actually happened. But she genuinely was badly burnt, McDonalds' coffee genuinely was way hotter than everyone else's and there genuinely had been a long history of it injuring customers. Lesson to be learned - try not to make your product unusually dangerous and try to learn from mistakes. Despite what people sometimes think, the legal system isn't daft. But when there are hard rules it's important not to break them.

Cheers,

GJ
__________________
http://www.ampregen.com
GrimJosef is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 6:13 pm   #62
kalee20
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lynton, N. Devon, UK.
Posts: 7,059
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'LIVEWIRE?' View Post
Am I correct that if, when performing a chargeable repair, the item(s) being serviced are fitted with the old-style (Red, Black, & Green) mains cable, and/or the old type 13 Amp Plugs with uninsulated L & N Pins, it is a Legal Requirement to replace these with modern type approved equivalents.
I'd say - as a pragmatic engineer not a lawyer - that if the task is to repair it (ie make it work), as opposed to bring it up to current safety standards, then provided the leads and everything is in good order, then no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler View Post
If disclaimers are null and void, then how about written confirmation that the owner has been warned that the item is not safe for use?
Sounds ideal (or, rather, that the item does not meet, and was never designed to meet, modern safety requirements) - and as a chargeable repair, the ideal place to put this is on the invoice.

Then, the piece of evidence that you have taken the job on 'by way of trade' also contains you get-out-of-jail-free statement. Though naturally we're hoping it doesn't come to that!
kalee20 is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 8:02 pm   #63
Bazz4CQJ
Dekatron
 
Bazz4CQJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,923
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseymo1 View Post
Surely all that's required is a PAT 'fail' sticker (based on visual inspection - no need to test further), and to keep a record of its having been issued.
I guess that the person doing the fail have to be "competent" (i.e. qualified) to do PAT?

~20 years ago, I was sent on a series of day-long Health and Safety training courses. We spent a good deal of time on one day when the instructor would explain in great detail, the circumstances of an incident which got someone in to a H&S court case, and he then asked us all what we thought the judgment had been reached. Needless to say, "the dice were loaded"; he had deliberately picked cases where the judgements appeared to defy any degree of 'common sense' rationale, and he would then go on to explain the entangled "legal logic" behind the decision. That instructor did his job well, as I still recall those examples and the fact that the law can be an ass!

B
__________________
Saturn V had 6 million pounds of fuel. It would take thirty thousand strong men to lift it an inch.
Bazz4CQJ is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 9:08 pm   #64
dseymo1
Retired Dormant Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK.
Posts: 3,051
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

HSE suggest that a 'sensible' member of staff may be able to carry out visual checks in a low-risk environment. That's why I indicated that no further testing need be done, which probably would require evidence of competence.
Realistically, competence might be called into question over a dubious 'pass', but hardly over a 'fail' where a reasonable rationale could readily be given.
dseymo1 is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 9:48 pm   #65
John10b
Nonode
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Aberaeron, Ceredigion, Wales, UK.
Posts: 2,869
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

I find the subject of what makes a person Competent very interesting.
In terms of PAT you do not have to have any formal electrical qualifications.
You must also maintain your competency and be able to demonstrate this.
On a cold Monday morning in a court of law you certainly need to have your documentation up to date. No good saying he or she has been doing this for years and must be competent!
A very interesting topic which i have debated at length with my former colleagues.
Cheers
John
John10b is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 9:48 pm   #66
MotorBikeLes
Nonode
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Kirk Michael, Isle of Man
Posts: 2,346
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

I was briefly a trades union representative for out Scientific and Managerial staffs union (Clive Jenkins' lot, remember him). Anyway, a new training college was opened, and we were the very first group to attend. All the equipment was new, including the pyrex coffee pots which sat on the new hotplates. Being very new, no deposits had yet accumulated on the inner surfaces, so the coffee attained a good few degrees above boiling point without doing what it should. I held out my mug, the jug was brought forward and tipped, whereupon it simply boiled out onto my hand. I went immediately to a cold tap, and kept it there quite a while. I was lucky, only a big red mark which gradually disappeared, over a few weeks I think.
Yes, coffee can scald!
Les.
MotorBikeLes is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 11:16 pm   #67
philthespark
Pentode
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, UK.
Posts: 158
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

This is just the sort of scenario that really boils me pee! Almost weekly I'm met with people who have had massive amounts of work done that didn't need doing, often because the person carrying out the testing or inspection had no idea, about either the regs, or the test procedure.
When working on a piece of kit, you check the lead and plug, visually, then again with either a pat tester or if you know how to do it, you can use a megger. Although it is very unlikely that you would find a 50-year-old piece of rubber covered cable that was still useable, if you were to visually inspect a piece, and find it free from cracks, splits, rot, general degradation etc, AND, it was to pass an insulation test from core to core, and core to sheath, at 500vDC, then it would be deemed "good for continued service" and unless replacement is requested by the customer, it should be left alone.
Whilst there are many regulations covering the electrical industry, they are for guidance only, and not enforceable by law! So when for example you hear someone say "you can't do that, it's illegal under the wiring regs, it's certain that the person advising you hasn't a clue what they are talking about.
When you start talking about the EAWR,or PUWR, or ESCQR, then these are covered by statute, and do have legal weight. However the likes of the IEE wiring regs are not statute, and you cannot be taken to court for deviating from them, indeed in my 37 years as an Electrician, there are a number times when work I have done was not to the letter of the regs, but in the spirit of them.
The thing with the IEE regs is this, if you deviate from them, and you can show a legitimate reason why, and by deviating you have not made the installation unsafe, then there is not a problem, providing you feel confident that you could, if needed, stand in front of a judge and justify why you did what you did, then fine.
Far more likely to end up in court, are the many cowboy electricians, who, having been called to an older property, to say, replace a socket, then try to bully the homeowner into spending many hundreds of pound on a new consumer unit, because the one that is in doesn't comply with the current regs, and is therefore illegal!
Yes a consumer unit from the 80's, with BS3036 rewireable fuses, may not be state of the art, and yes if it were in my home I'd probably replace it with a modern one, but it is in no way illegal, and if it complied with the regs in force at the time it was fitted, and doesn't show any signs of damage, or overheating,or anything else likely to affect it's electrical safety, then it is good for continued service.That isn't to say replacing it wouldn't add to the overall safety of the installation, but, I can see very soon there are going to be a lot of people getting done for falsely selling people unneeded, consumer unit swaps, and rewires.I know one very large company who are currently trying this, in fact a friend of mine was dismissed after telling a frightened customer, who'd had a visit from another "engineer" that his house wasn't in fact going to explode in a ball of flame, and that the company were just out to make money.
there are unfortunately at the moment, a lot of stupid things going on within my industry, a lot of stuff being done to protect the idiots who, having done a short course, quite often with no previous electrical experience, sit an in my opinion worthless, NVQ exam and are let loose on an unsuspecting public to practice their "skills". I had one of these jokers, recently tell me that the internet is wonderful, if he doesn't know what he's doing, he simply googles a forum and asks! Would you trust someone like that to work in your home?
A totally pointless, and in my experience dangerous reg, is referred to in GS38,stating that the test probes of all test equipment should have no more than 3mm of exposed metal at the tip! 3mm! there's no way you can be sure you are reaching deep enough into certain terminals with that amount, plus if you can't safely handle 8-10 mm of exposed probe, should you really be working on the equipmnt anyway, I don't think so.
Anyway appologies for the rant, it's just been a rather trying few weeks, unfortunately dealing with idiots at work who don't know there bottom from their elbow.lol
philthespark is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 11:36 pm   #68
philthespark
Pentode
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, UK.
Posts: 158
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John10b View Post
I find the subject of what makes a person Competent very interesting.
In terms of PAT you do not have to have any formal electrical qualifications.
You must also maintain your competency and be able to demonstrate this.
On a cold Monday morning in a court of law you certainly need to have your documentation up to date. No good saying he or she has been doing this for years and must be competent!
A very interesting topic which i have debated at length with my former colleagues.
John, you make a very sensible point, in law a competent person is defined as "someone who is familiar with the procedure they are carrying out, it's risk's and hazards, and how to prevent or mitigate those risk's/hazards".
Recently my daughter in law, was having some work carried out by the landlords staff, during the course of this work, they lost all electrical power, she rang me and I went around to see what I could do as they were unsure if they could get one of their people around that day.
The house had recently had a new main isolator fitted, shortly after it had had an electrical safety inspection.
The cause of the power failure was a main cable 25mm had fallen from it's terminal due to incorrect fitting!What I found more disturbing than the poor installation work, was the guy who carried out the electrical safety inspection, had not found it either, despite there being a section on the paperwork he'd signed, stating the security of all connections had been checked.
I rang the landlords to inform them of this, and was rather annoyed when it was intimated to me that if I had the latest qualification, they'd have given me a job, what use is a bit of paper if you cannot physically carry out the job, none whatsoever in my opinion. He further compounded the issue by saying that all the staff had been issued torque screwdrivers, so it wouldn't happen again, obviously he'd never heard of "copper creep", which was the reason the cable came out in the first place.
It annoys both me and a workmate immensely when we get told by certain people that we are not qualified because we haven't done a "level 3 NVQ", no we didn't, and we have no need to, because we both did 5-year apprenticeships, and back then you were taught properly, by an experienced bloke, and if you failed you failed, end of.
philthespark is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 11:51 pm   #69
Bazz4CQJ
Dekatron
 
Bazz4CQJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,923
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Well, nearly 70 posts on the thread now. Not sure about anyone else but I don't feel like we are very close to having reached a sound conclusion in response to the OP ?

B
__________________
Saturn V had 6 million pounds of fuel. It would take thirty thousand strong men to lift it an inch.
Bazz4CQJ is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 5:35 am   #70
philthespark
Pentode
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, UK.
Posts: 158
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

People keep talking about Portable Appliance Testing being a legal requirement, it isn't! it wasn't ever a requirement, and as far as I am aware at the moment, there are no plans within the HSE to make it so, this was a rumour spread many years ago by unscrupulous people to extort money from ill-informed business owners. I once had the great pleasure of taking to task an operative from a local authority, who, on visiting a certain premises, took great delight in informing the owner that they were operating illegally as they had no PAT tags on their equipment.

Providing the equipment is inspected and tested before first use, usually by the manufacturer, and is regularly inspected by the owner, for things like loose connections, frayed or damaged flexes, or damage to the construction, then there is no requirement whatsoever in law for PAT!

In actual fact, there are very few people who actually understand the reasons behind testing, and more worryingly how to do it. I remember one rather stupid person, very high up, I may add, who advocated flash testing at every test, now even the manufacturer will tell you that wacking around 5Kv into a piece of kit at regular intervals is NOT a good idea, in fact it can and indeed does often cause more harm than good.

I think the trouble with the UK is that we don't have clearly defined laws and standards, trying to find out any information usually results in coming across a load of people who seem to like playing secret squirrel. I remember one incident at work, our insurers sent someone round to see we were operating safely, and had all the necessary stuff taken care of. Firstly, she said we had no safety certificates for the electrics, even though she'd been handed a large file with "ELECTRICAL SAFETY CERTS" printed on the front of it. Then she said they were invalid, because I, the person doing the tests wasn't NICEIC registered, I pointed out that in law, there was no requirement for anyone doing testing to be registered with anyone, you simply need to be qualified, and experienced enough to know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what the outcomes mean, in actual fact, given enough technical experience and appropriate knowledge, you wouldn't even need to hold a qualification in testing.

She shook her head and said she'd been told by someone that it WAS a legal requirement for the tester to be registered with the NICEIC, I advised her to get her facts right, before, having a go at people who knew better than she did. She contacted us the following week, and rather grudgingly admitted that she had been mis-informed, there was no such law, and such my certificates were acceptable.

I just about managed to hold back from saying "I told you so" and laughing.
philthespark is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 5:54 am   #71
Radio Wrangler
Moderator
 
Radio Wrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fife, Scotland, UK.
Posts: 22,799
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

There are two worlds. The one with the equipment in it, and the one with all the paperwork in it. Connections (oops, pun, sorry) between them are tenuous. Some people live entirely in one world, some entirely in the other.

David (Chartered electrical engineer, says one piece of paper. But what's that worth?)
__________________
Can't afford the volcanic island yet, but the plans for my monorail and the goons' uniforms are done
Radio Wrangler is online now  
Old 29th May 2018, 10:16 am   #72
Lucien Nunes
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 2,508
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

There is a lot of wisdom and clear-headed thinking in this thread, but as mentioned, the difficulty is distilling it into standardised procedures that will protect the interests of both owners and repairers of vintage equipment.

My own standpoint is as follows:

* Electrical accidents are remarkably rare, even including those resulting from 'user stupidity', which can never be controlled. Real risk arising from use of vintage equipment, particularly in this age of RCD-protected supplies and interlinked smoke alarms, is therefore moderate. It does not matter that the severity of some types of possible accident is high - the risk (severity x probability) is still moderate. This is how risk is assessed and blame is awarded in litigation, distinct from how it is reported in newspapers. The HSE advocate focusing on high-risk scenarios and not wasting resources on dealing with low ones.

* There is no obligation to upgrade intact parts of equipment that is in for repair, although there may be a duty of care to inform owners clearly about the level of safety it provides (or doesn't) if they are not themselves expert. An information sheet, and a notice on the appliance (I use a cable tag) stating that the information must be read and understood before use, can avoid misunderstandings on the part of the owner / user about what level of safety they can expect.

* There is a duty of care to report to the owner, any defect (such as perished flex) that makes the item materially less safe than it was originally, and/or return the item as 'unsafe for use' unless they have agreed to have it rectified. I would replace like-for-like or modern-equivalent-for-like as appropriate, after consultation with the owner. I would never make significant or irreversible modifications, such as cutting out a chassis to fit an IEC inlet, nor recommend that this be done, without detailed discussion of the pros and cons.

* Returning intact items with blanket notices stating 'Not safe for use' or 'PAT Failed' in an attempt to disclaim liability resulting from use, is akin to 'crying wolf' and may increase risk overall, as it blurs the distinction between an item that does not meet modern standards and one that has a defect that makes it more dangerous than it normally would be. This is confusing for the non-technical owner, who may consider it scaremongering and lose faith in the experts' judgement, or ignore important future advice on this point, or spread misinformation amongst other non-technical people that old equipment is inherently unusable.

* Cutting off plugs or flexes with the same intention might be more dangerous, as it could result in incompetent and dangerous attempts to refit them. As an example, we once had to deal with the aftermath of a PAT provider cutting the original moulded plugs off a room-full of monitors that they deemed unsafe (which they were not; the pass limit applised for insulation was incorrect). The users fitted replacement plugs badly and caused a RIDDOR-reportable accident.

* We are dealing with collectibles, not commodities. Rules made to catch substandard grey-import phone chargers sold for £1.50 were not written with vintage radios in mind. We, as technical experts, are better placed to develop a safe working practice applicable to each individual vintage device, there being vast differences in constructional standard and inherent safety between outwardly similar sets, than the committee tasked with making rules for new phone chargers.

It would be very constructive to draw up a standardised information sheet that could be shared across the vintage electronic restoration domain for the benefit of all those outside it. This would minimise conflicting information from different providers of repair / restoration services, add weight to such advice and help eliminate existing misunderstandings. I'm not sure how one would share the responsibility for accuracy and adequacy for the purpose though.

Last edited by Lucien Nunes; 29th May 2018 at 10:35 am.
Lucien Nunes is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 11:12 am   #73
David Simpson
Nonode
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Aberdeen, UK.
Posts: 2,838
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

philthespark states that the IEE Regulations are not legally binding. Maybe not in England, but they are in Scotland - as per "The Buildings Scotland Act 1972". Also in Scotland, all Electricians who submit Building Warrant Completion Certificates, or do any repair work, must be registered with local authorities. They must also be NICEIC Registered, and their Test Equipment must hold current calibration certificates.
If folk chose to ignore IEE, HSE, etc., regulations then they are acting dangerously, and not decent trustworthy tradesmen in my book.

Regards, David
David Simpson is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 11:33 am   #74
Lucien Nunes
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 2,508
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

I suggest we avoid discussing the fixed wiring installations of buildings, and the regulations covering those, in this thread. They are significantly different to those covering portable appliances such as radios, as it the route by which the applicable non-statutory standards and regulations are upheld by legislation.
Lucien Nunes is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 11:49 am   #75
GrimJosef
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 4,310
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philthespark View Post
... I think the trouble with the UK is that we don't have clearly defined laws and standards, trying to find out any information usually results in coming across a load of people who seem to like playing secret squirrel...
You make a good point, but there are two sides to this coin. Clearly defined laws and standards are fine as long as they're the laws and standards which suit us. But if, for example, we have a piece of vintage kit operating at a voltage which is near the bottom of a particular range for creepage distance then we might know full well, on the basis of real world experience, that it is perfectly fine even though the distances inside the kit don't quite meet the standard for the voltage range that it's in. If we were constrained by a clearly defined standard then that would be that. The kit would fail the standard and have to be taken out of service, almost certainly permanently since it can be very hard to increase creepage distance on existing components (connectors, say).

The alternative approach, where there are guidelines but we're allowed to do something different if we can demonstrate that it's still safe, gets us out of this fix. Now we can use our experience and the details of the particular case to solve an otherwise intractable problem. The thing is that now we really have to know what we're doing. If we are in fact incompetent (but don't realise it) then we can convince ourselves that it's OK to fit cladding which isn't rated to the normal specs to a tower block because we think it'll still be safe.

Treading the line safely between, on the one hand, wasting money and junking kit to satisfy unnecessarily high standards and, on the other hand, blurring those standards to the point where accidents happen requires a good deal of skill.

Cheers,

GJ
__________________
http://www.ampregen.com

Last edited by GrimJosef; 29th May 2018 at 11:55 am.
GrimJosef is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 4:01 pm   #76
philthespark
Pentode
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, UK.
Posts: 158
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Simpson View Post
philthespark states that the IEE Regulations are not legally binding. Maybe not in England, but they are in Scotland - as per "The Buildings Scotland Act 1972". Also in Scotland, all Electricians who submit Building Warrant Completion Certificates, or do any repair work, must be registered with local authorities. They must also be NICEIC Registered, and their Test Equipment must hold current calibration certificates.
If folk chose to ignore IEE, HSE, etc., regulations then they are acting dangerously, and not decent trustworthy tradesmen in my book.
As I said earlier, acts are enforceable in a law court, NOT regulations, all my test equipment is calibrated annually, and check referenced monthly. I don't know how you can say people who ignore certain regulations are not trustworthy. Maybe if you actually had some experience of working in the industry you'd have chosen your words more carefully. The regs are based on a perfect world environment, where everything goes to plan, there is nothing that cannot be moved, replaced, disposed of. In reality, we have to deal with a lot of issues that can often mean that adhering to the regs 100% is nigh on impossible, and that is when the experienced tradesman comes into his own. While your short course NICEIC registered "electrician" is telling you it can't possibly be done, then your time served spark is already on with it, working around the problem, and yes I do issue the relevant paperwork to each job, so they are all fully accountable if there should be an incident, but then again, that's nothing special, its just part of being a conscientious professional electrician.
philthespark is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 5:04 pm   #77
ms660
Dekatron
 
ms660's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cornwall, UK.
Posts: 13,454
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

I'm glad I didn't have to be an electrician to replace mains leads....

Lawrence.
ms660 is offline  
Old 31st May 2018, 11:03 am   #78
David Simpson
Nonode
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Aberdeen, UK.
Posts: 2,838
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Forum folk shouldn't have to justify their standpoint on safety matters under discussion, nor be expected to clarify their own qualifications. However, Phil might like to know(but its in my profile anyway), prior to retirement I was an Electrical Inspector with Scottish Hydro-Electric. Just like in MANWEB, inspectors were duty bound to INSPECT work done by electricians, sparkies, or whatever. Both domestic & commercial. And we had to be fully conversant with the current IEE(IET) Regulations. And we had to attend regular NICEIC seminars/lectures at Aberdeen University. In addition, I had earlier on been trained & certified to undertake PTW(Permit to Work) repairs & switching up to 33KV. In other words, safety-wise, I was kept on my toes for many years, and was duty bound to ensure that electricians kept on theirs. Not to mention an earlier military career in the RAF. No one, and I mean no one, was permitted to stray even slightly from draconian safety regulations. Court Marshall, dismissal, or reduced to the ranks, awaited anyone who perpetrated a serious safety offence. Yes - it was a legal military offence ! Obviously, having reached the heady heights of Sgt Electronics Instructor, I never erred from the straight & narrow, safety-wise. Therefore ended up teaching, at times, safety, cabling regulations, etc. to avionics & electrical technician apprentices.
Oh yes, and I've been, and still am, an accredited & paid up member of the IET for quite a few years.
Now I'm just a retired, easy-going chap, who enjoys vintage radio/electronics pursuits as a retirement pastime. Note - pastime - not heavy internet wheeling/dealing or in any sort of business.

Regards, David

Last edited by David Simpson; 31st May 2018 at 11:07 am. Reason: Spelling
David Simpson is offline  
Old 31st May 2018, 11:22 am   #79
'LIVEWIRE?'
Rest in Peace
 
'LIVEWIRE?''s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: N.W. Oxfordshire(Chipping Norton)
Posts: 7,306
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

I almost wish I hadn't started this thread, because, although it has cleared up a few points of which I wasn't sure, particularly in regard to PAT , it also seems to have opened up a whole 'can of worms'.
'LIVEWIRE?' is offline  
Old 31st May 2018, 2:54 pm   #80
Radio_Dave
Nonode
 
Radio_Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Posts: 2,543
Default Re: Mains lead (flex) replacement. Legal implications.

Fitting a new mains lead and BS1363 plug per se isn't necessarily the problem (as long as it's done correctly). It's what your fitting it to that is .

You have to be certain, to the best of your knowledge, that the equipment you've attached a mains lead and plug to is safe.

PAT testing may not be a legal requirement but I'm certain it will be a requirement of any 3rd party insurance policy.

I've found a relatively easy to follow document here from Oxfordshire County Council.


David

Last edited by Radio_Dave; 31st May 2018 at 3:13 pm.
Radio_Dave is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 1:14 pm.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.