Socket for dryer behind oven - allowed by regs ?

[SimonH2]

Apart from the vertical cables not being in a safe zone, does this comply with regs ?

It's in Mum's new house, they initially put a double socket behind the oven - for electric oven and ignition on gas hob. They've since added another single socket and cut a hole (about 2" diameter) in the side of the unit for plugging in a tumble drier.
I've had a look, and plugging in without removing the oven ... good luck with that

The vendor pointed out how you just have to take a couple of screws out to remove the oven. Given that washing machines and driers top the list of fire raising white goods, it doesn't seem a good idea to have a drier where you can't switch off it's supply without getting out a screwdriver and removing the oven.
I'd have put the socket in the cupboard to the left - but of course, this would have meant the electrician doing something other than the minimum of work The whole installation, and indeed house fit-out, is done on a "cut any more corners and you'd have a circle" basis - including not putting in a cooker circuit

But does it breach any regs ?

Of course there's already a false declaration of compliance for the installation - they signed it off a while ago, but the meter tails absolutely don't comply (buried in plaster <50mm deep, not RCD protected, not otherwise protected).

 

[JohnW2]

Apart from the vertical cables not being in a safe zone, does this comply with regs ?

It's obviously not very 'clever' at all but, unless you invoke one of the catch-all regs ('poor workmanship etc.), I can't actually think of any specific regulation which is violated.

Don't forget that, desirable though it may be, there is (as far as I am aware) no regulatory requirement for any appliance to have a local switch or isolator - I think it could just be hard-wired into an unswitched FCU, with the only means of 'killing' it being in the CU.

Others may have other views!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I'm tempted to simply replace the single socket that is already in the cupboard to the left (though at the far end) with a double. Sadly the "developer" doesn't know what he's doing (he owns the site, used to be a mechanic) and it's clear that the trades are taking him for a ride - I'm sure he should have put a hitching rail outside for them to tie their horses to

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's obviously not very 'clever' at all but, unless you invoke one of the catch-all regs ('poor workmanship etc.), I can't actually think of any specific regulation which is violated.

Depends on how you define "accessible". IMO behind a fixed appliance which requires tools (and possibly two people) to remove it is not "accessible". Also I am assuming that the socket does not have MF connectors.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course there's already a false declaration of compliance for the installation - they signed it off a while ago, but the meter tails absolutely don't comply (buried in plaster <50mm deep, not RCD protected, not otherwise protected).

And things like that will continue to happen until:

1) Customers and regulators become extraordinarily aggressive in a zero tolerance of fraud.

2) The penalties are eye watering.

Yeah - I can hear you all saying "there he goes again".

Think on this: someone, somewhere has lied. They did so because they knew two things:

1) The chance of anything happening to them as a result is vanishingly small.
2) Even if something did happen it would be a trivial "punishment".

Fixing (1) is expensive. Fixing (2) by making the liar fully aware that no matter how slim the chance, if he gets caught then he will spend decades in prison and he will lose every single asset he has (including the family home) would most surely focus his mind on not making false declarations in the first place.

 

[JohnW2]

Depends on how you define "accessible". IMO behind a fixed appliance which requires tools (and possibly two people) to remove it is not "accessible". Also I am assuming that the socket does not have MF connectors.

Good point - I was not thinking of it as a 'joint'.

Having said that, a substantial proportion of large appliances are connected via an accessory (with 'joints') behind them - be that a socket, outlet plate or whatever. Are you suggesting that they are all non-complaint?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well if the cap fits....

 

[ericmark]

The is a general warranty of skill for any work being done, however law wise we use previous cases, it is called case law, in general it only gets to court is some one dies, and even when that happens the courts seem to have some odd thoughts as to whom was responsible.

As to accessible isolation this seems to be limited to where there are motors over a set size and not fitted into equipment which has some other regulation covering it. So most the white goods will not be covered.

I think there is something in the spec for plugs and sockets as to be mounted in free air, same for flex, i.e. should not be covered with a carpet, but in real terms something like a built in oven has a cooling fan so having a socket where it is cooled by that fan is not really a problem, until is comes to doing an EICR.

If one wants to look for loop holes in laws and regulations one can normally find them, when my mothers house was rewired there were many items I did not like, for the blatant ones I called them back, twin and earth overhead to garage for example they returned and corrected, however most I did my self, in the main quicker and easier to DIY than call in some one to do the job.

And this is the big question, even if you can prove they got it wrong, is it worth the effort getting it put right? It is a grey area so ask nice if answer is now get some one else to do it.

 

[SimonH2]

If you think about it, just about all sockets (and light switches, and ...) require tools to access the terminals - but I don't think I've heard anyone suggest that they should be considered inaccessible wrt to having maintenance free terminals. Removing the oven isn't a big job - 4 screws (or 2 where "someone" CBA to [re]fit them all) and it just slides & lifts out (small oven, not heavy).

And as for what they charged the guy to come back and do this bodge in all 6 houses, those horses must be expensive to keep

Trouble is, I'm in a bit of a "rock and hard place" situation here. Mum is expecting to move in around a month or so - it's already been "won't be long now" since last year such has been the constant delays finishing the house (the guy lurches from one "I didn't know about that" delay to the next). If I really put my foot down, there's the potential for more delays to make the electrics compliant (and reinstate the decor) - and even longer delays if they had to rip the stairs out and re-do them. We're also looking to move, and if Mum gets delayed, then so would we

As it is, there's already a list of things for us to rip out and do properly - Mum's given up on getting them to install a sensible sink in the bathrooms so we're just going to wait till she owns it and sort out what we can of the plumbing bodges.
I am really tempted to call whichever scheme they are in and ask why they have not expelled the contractor for fraudulently claiming compliance with BS7671. But then I don't want to upset Mum - she's stressed enough as it is, and I know this would upset her.

I really couldn't buy a new build, not unless I got in at (or before) the first "watertight shell" stage and had them do everything right. But that's a side effect of the shortage of housing - it doesn't just put prices up, it means developers can throw up crap that meets BR minima (if that) and people will buy it.

 

[securespark]

Fixing (2) by making the liar fully aware that no matter how slim the chance, if he gets caught then he will spend decades in prison and he will lose every single asset he has (including the family home) would most surely focus his mind on not making false declarations in the first place.

That will never happen. Even if the authorities responsible start prosecuting these people, the penalty handed down will never be that severe.

Think about someone deliberately being a dick in a car and killing someone as a result.

Were they jailed for a full life term?

 

[securespark]

so we're just going to wait till she owns it and sort out what we can of the plumbing bodges.

Won't the place come with an NHBC cert? I know this is not what it appears to be, but it should allow you to get work flagged up as not to standard redone.
Kick up a stink about the completion cert too. I know you and your Mum can do without the stress, but what about stress and worries once these incorrectly installed things start going wrong?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That will never happen. Even if the authorities responsible start prosecuting these people, the penalty handed down will never be that severe.

It would be if the laws were changed to increase the minimum. That's the point.

Think about someone deliberately being a dick in a car and killing someone as a result.

Were they jailed for a full life term?

No, they weren't.

And recently there was this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ng-cyclist-north-london-justine-henshaw-bryan

For some unaccountable reason motorists are often given an easy ride. If I were to attack someone with a selection of blunt, heavy and sharp implements ways which I knew were known to kill people, resulting in them being in intensive care, with a serious liver injury, a broken hand and a punctured lung, how likely would I be to be charged with wounding with intent, and on conviction get a damn sight longer than 3 years?

 

[333rocky333]

It would be if the laws were changed to increase the minimum. That's the point.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/filthy-rio-slum-flats-rented-10262576

"He also fined her £2,000 for the illegal extension with three months to pay or face 30 days in jail - as well as pay £11,649 in costs"

Only 2000 pound of the fine was for the ilegal building work

 

[SimonH2]

Won't the place come with an NHBC cert? I know this is not what it appears to be, but it should allow you to get work flagged up as not to standard redone.

Actually it'll be LABC Warranty, but I bet they won't fix something just because it's 'not to standard'.

I've tried contacting them about one issue but got no reply. In their technical manual which AFAICT is intended to be the requirements for a build to qualify for the warranty, it specifies that a minimum 32A supply should be provided adjacent to the cooker location. Guess what they left out to knock a trivial amount off the build cost I did mention lack of cooker supply the first time I looked round the place, to get the answer "it's gas" as if no-one would want to use electric when gas is available.