Am I allowed to disconect/connect a cooker in someone house?

[ban-all-sheds]

b-a-s,
We see things different,

All I'm asking for is a logical and consistent explanation of your position.

Of course I don't check polarity and fuse ratings of plug tops and the health of the circuit prior to putting the kettles or toasters on.

I'm not talking about putting them on - my question was if you'd unplugged one of those because you'd had to move it, would you plug it back in without carrying out those checks, and without testing the socket circuit for integrity.

Simple Q - would you or wouldn't you?

It seems you trying to validate your views by trivial comments.

I've not made any trivial comments.

If I'd been in a house and needed to uncouple a gas hob to make access to an electrical point or termination. I would not then after completion of my work tighten the coupler back up and assume it was safe, would you?
Oh yes I would turn the gas fire on and off, if it had not been disconnected to keep warm and may toast some bread on it as the toaster not safe to use

Nor have I mentioned gas.

Please stop trying to introduce diversions and answer the questions about plugging in appliances after you'd unplugged them to move them temporarily.

 

[scarypants]

Good Morning b-a-s what sort of mood are you this fine/not so fine morning.
This is where I stand on the debate
My opinions has not wavered any.
I would only plug the appliance in if I believed it to be safe, no I would not be getting out my screwdriver and meters to give the appliance and circuit the onces over. I'd assume providing no one has had the opportunity to be dismantling the equipment it was safe.
I think it's a little bit different to disconnecting a fixed appliance, surely that's what the cooker is, regardless of whether you can move it about a bit?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Good Morning b-a-s what sort of mood are you this fine/not so fine morning.

As splendid as ever.

This is where I stand on the debate
My opinions has not wavered any.

So why do you think it's OK to base your actions on an illogical and inconsistent set of "rules"?

I would only plug the appliance in if I believed it to be safe, no I would not be getting out my screwdriver and meters to give the appliance and circuit the onces over. I'd assume providing no one has had the opportunity to be dismantling the equipment it was safe.

How many times do I have to point out that this has nothing to do with the appliance, and is only to do with the suggestion that if the appliance connects to the circuit via an outlet plate that the circuit has to be checked before it can be reconnected?

I think it's a little bit different to disconnecting a fixed appliance, surely that's what the cooker is, regardless of whether you can move it about a bit?

No - a freestanding cooker is not a fixed appliance.

Let's try this, as it's a real example (or will be).

I'm getting a new cooker, soon-ish, and I plan to connect it to the circuit via a 32A IEC60309. If you unplugged it and moved it for some reason, would you plug it back in without checking that the circuit was properly designed and installed, and that the plug on the end of the cord from the cooker was properly wired?

 

[scarypants]

So why do you think it's OK to base your actions on an illogical and inconsistent set of "rules"?


I'm getting a new cooker, soon-ish, and I plan to connect it to the circuit via a 32A IEC60309. If you unplugged it and moved it for some reason, would you plug it back in without checking that the circuit was properly designed and installed, and that the plug on the end of the cord from the cooker was properly wired?

No, providing the installation had not been messed with in between.
Maybe I'm illogical, why do we test circuit is dead then re-prove the V indicator

But we are talking about a cooker that needs to be reconnected via terminal points! Not a plug in

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you unplugged it and moved it for some reason, would you plug it back in without checking that the circuit was properly designed and installed, and that the plug on the end of the cord from the cooker was properly wired?

No,

Did you mean yes, you would plug it back in?

providing the installation had not been messed with in between.

It hasn't - all you've done is to disconnect an appliance from it, and then reconnect it.

Maybe I'm illogical, why do we test circuit is dead then re-prove the V indicator

Not relevant to this.

But we are talking about a cooker that needs to be reconnected via terminal points! Not a plug in

So what is the difference between the two methods of connection REGARDING THE FIXED WIRING BETWEEN THE CONNECTION POINT AND THE CU?

Sorry to shout, but I'm beginning to wonder if you understand anything of what this is about.

You have a circuit, originating at a CU, from an MCB of a particular rating, wired with cable of a particular size, following some route or other to an outlet in another room.

You have a non-fixed appliance to connect to that circuit.

You are saying that if it plugs into a socket outlet you can just plug it in and assume that everything from the rear of the outlet back to the CU is OK, but if the appliance cord conductors screw into terminals on an outlet plate you can't assume anything from the rear of the outlet back to the CU is OK, and it all has to be tested and verified.

WHY?

What is the difference in the fixed installation cable and MCB etc between a circuit with a socket outlet and a circuit with a flex connection plate?

 

[ColJack]

time to invent a slimline 45A plug for cookers then BAS?
View media item 12996

 

[securespark]

The cooker is not fixed equipment unless it is secured in a particular location. As gas cooker would be, if it was chained to the wall.

The cooker is most probably stationary equipment, if weighing 18kg or more.

 

[scarypants]

The building regulation state that you can exchange electrical accessories and equipment like for like without notification.
So if you was disconnecting any appliance then reconnecting to the same connection (that's without relocating/moving the original connection point). In theory okay.

But as stated before "has the previous installer, installed correct protective device for cable size and output values"

That's taken from my original reply to posted question, which bas has a problem with.
Nothing illogical or inconsistent about it, as a responsible person I don't have a problem assuring this circuit is safe before reconnecting the cooker. I'm going to give it a dead test anyway(sorry meant test circuit was dead, edited this). So a little look in the CU ain't going to hinder me any.
Regardless that the circuit in princible is constructed the same as that of a radial socket circuit but with an outlet-plate rather than a socket-outlet does not change my views or actions.

 

[ColJack]

but how are you leaving it any worse?
if you simply pulled the cooker out and put it back ( if the cable was long enough for example ) then if it was bad when you got there, it's still bad when you leave.
same thing if you have to disconnect it..
providing that you put the wires back in the same holes you got them from, and tightened the screws properly then it's no worse off than when you got there.

where does your responsibility end?
check the circuit back to the fuseboard?
is the supply to the house ok?
what about the 11KV lines that feed the substation?

for your part you're not changing anything, just putting back something that you have to take out to put the flooring under it.

 

[scarypants]

but how are you leaving it any worse?
if you simply pulled the cooker out and put it back ( if the cable was long enough for example ) then if it was bad when you got there, it's still bad when you leave.
same thing if you have to disconnect it..
providing that you put the wires back in the same holes you got them from, and tightened the screws properly then it's no worse off than when you got there.

where does your responsibility end?
check the circuit back to the fuseboard?
is the supply to the house ok?
what about the 11KV lines that feed the substation?

for your part you're not changing anything, just putting back something that you have to take out to put the flooring under it.

I never said I would change anything just assure the circuit was as it should be, if it wasn't. I'd inform the householder/customer and take it from there. Can't be leaving someone without their yorkshires

 

[ColJack]

but if it worked fine when you got there, and you put it back exactly how it was, doesn't it follow that it will work when you leave?

there's no need for a floor fitter to test everything, nor would the homeowner expect them to..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The building regulation state that you can exchange electrical accessories and equipment like for like without notification.
So if you was disconnecting any appliance then reconnecting to the same connection (that's without relocating/moving the original connection point). In theory okay.

But as stated before "has the previous installer, installed correct protective device for cable size and output values"

That's taken from my original reply to posted question, which bas has a problem with.

Yes - I have a problem with the last sentence, because your answer is "don't know, and if it's a socket it's OK for me to carry on and reconnect the appliance without knowing, but if it's an outlet plate I must not reconnect the appliance without knowing.

Nothing illogical or inconsistent about it, as a responsible person I don't have a problem assuring this circuit is safe before reconnecting the cooker. I'm going to give it a dead test anyway.

You're going to test that if the appliance plugs in?

You want to do it on a 32A circuit supplying a cooker via an outlet plate - do you also want to do it for a 32A circuit supplying appliances via sockets? If not, why not - don't just keep on saying "because", or "that's the way I work" - answer the question - why not?

Regardless that the circuit in princible is constructed the same as that of a radial socket circuit but with an outlet-plate rather than a socket-outlet does not change my views or actions.

It's not "in principle", said as if in reality there will be differences, it is "in practice". It is identical.

Actually - I'm going to stop asking you to explain your ridiculous position, as I, you, and everybody else reading this realises that you cannot provide an explanation. You just won't admit it.

You are inconsistent and illogical, and you do things without giving any thought as to why you do them. As a result you do things that are unnecessary and therefore put your customers to unnecessary cost and inconvenience - not the actions of a competent and trustworthy professional.

 

[scarypants]

Hooray
and thanks for the nice polite epilogue.
I do a lot of my work as a volunteer and for good causes.
I don't think you would, you'd spend to much time trying to make a point over a trivial matter and as an outcome the job would take longer and the customer would not only be penalised financially but would also have to put up with your ego!
Principle also means code,law,fact
I don't have to justify what i'd do to a person like you, I respect your knowledge but what terrible unfriendly attitude

 

[scarypants]

First signs of logic
Cooker isolated prior to disconnection,
whilst isolating yeh breaker looks okay for cooker output and cable right size.
Proved circuit is dead and disconnected cooker from outlet point.
Removed the cooker as an obstruction did what ever needed to be done.
Cooker back conductors terminated and back to the board.
Yeh breaker still as was happy days.
I'm now going to charge the customer for the vast amount of time I spent assuring the circuit was fit for purpose.
That was so unnessecary spending all time doing that I should have worn a blindfold or poked myself in the eyes before going anywhere near that CU. How dare I look at stuff

 

[ColJack]

I believe there has been some miscommunitcation here..

when I read

"I'm going to give it a dead test anyway. So a little look in the CU ain't going to hinder me any. "

from you, I assumed you were talking about proper dead tests (R1+R2 and IR) and a grope around inside the CU with the covers off..

however, after reading

Cooker isolated prior to disconnection,
whilst isolating yeh breaker looks okay for cooker output and cable right size.
Proved circuit is dead and disconnected cooker from outlet point.
Removed the cooker as an obstruction did what ever needed to be done.
Cooker back conductors terminated and back to the board.
Yeh breaker still as was happy days.

, I now think you didn't mean it that way..
no actual testing just a visual inspection.?