this passed a pat test

[thompsk]

Believe it or not this had been passed, I was reliably informed by the manageress that the tester pulled the plug out of the wall and tested it without doing anything else, it passed and he plugged it back in.....wtf ???? was he blind - stupid or just plain dumb

 

[Mickymoody]

And the problem is??

I can buy a PAT tester, and set myself up to test stuff, who is there to regulate what I test or pass? You have come across this, do i need an exam to buy a PAT tester? Does someone go in after me to test my work?

What is the procedure that you have found this shocking fault (literally!); can you trace the person that PAT tested this? Are there repercussions for that person?

I don't PAT test, but on occasion I'm asked to repair stuff, and see nails used as fuses, cut wires, reconnected with chocblocks, as in the picture, common sense says bad practice, and dangerous, but for a PAT tester to pass this? Hmm.

 

[yaleguy3]

No Pat tester would ever pass that.
I simply don't believe it was passed and can only assume the cable was altered after the test.
If it was passed then I would be approaching his employer.
The other question of course why the manageress should even be a manageress at all .
PAT testing is of course NOT a legal requirement just an insurance generated easy get out of jail card for dumb managers like this one who think using equipment like that is fine just as long as it gets failed or replaced by a pat tester once a year.
Oh and by the way I am a qualified PAT tester to 17th ed. Yes i have a certificate.
I don't PAT test though as the income available is laughable. Competition has brought prices down to 60p per test.

 

[1john]

More to the point, what numpty did that repair on the first place and why did no one else question it ??

 

[RMS]

He / She must have run out of insulation tape that day. tut tut!

 

[DIYDANDY]

Oh and by the way I am a qualified PAT tester to 17th ed

No such thing as a 17th edition Portable Appliance Tester.

 

[RMS]

Last time I checked the Code of Practice for the In-service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment was updated to it's third edition.

 

[Mickymoody]

Oh and by the way I am a qualified PAT tester to 17th ed

No such thing as a 17th edition Portable Appliance Tester.

I thought that, when I posted above, 'I could go and buy a PAT tester, and use it', maybe reworded, qualified to 17th edition, and experienced PAT tester? No offense.

 

[yaleguy3]

Sorry , to confuse.
When I did my PAT test training day we used the new 17th edition electrical handbook for relevent sections. The PAT testing itself as you say may only be on its third revision of practice.
When testing there is only a requirement to pass or fail equipment according to a reading on the test equipment. However we were encouraged to take the actual readings and record them so that if the values changed you could identify equipment that was beginning to fail.
There is actually no legal requirement to PAT test only a responsibility to provide suitable equipment for staff to use.
PAT testing comes about because HSE inspectors find it easier to accept that regulations are being adhered to if somewhere a box has been ticked rather than having a discussion about what precautions have been taken.

ie Someone opening a new factory for example may go out and buy a whole new set of power tools instead of using old ones.
He has complied with the regulations by getting new equipment and indeed if he then inspects this equipment himself for damage and replaces or renews when neccessary or when reported he would be within his duty of care.
The grey area emerges with older equipment. Although you can still visibly inspect you could not without equipment be able to see in all cases wether insulation had failed due to a hairline crack or heat related degradation.
However as in this case the manager has completely confused what the regulations mean and obviously thinks WRONGLY that a PAT test once a year will cover their responsibilities.
If the manager or some other member of staff has modified equipment as in this case and an accident occured wether equipment was PAT tested yearly or not the employer would be prosecuted.
I used to have staff using grinders. They used to catch the power leads regularly and scuff through the insulation sometimes partially and sometimes actually through and exposing the live wire. It was a regular job of mine to replug them by cutting the power flex back to before the scuff and replacing the plug until the flex became too short to use in which case a new long one would be fitted.
A PAT test for that equipment in that usage would have been wholly inadequate and was covered instead in staff training.
Staff were taught to report any instance where the flex was caught by the grinding disc. It was not a disciplinary to damage the flex as it simply was in the nature of the job , it was however a disciplinary offence not to report a damaged flex or to use a grinder with a damaged flex.