Counterfeit and Illegal Plugs and Leads

[JohnW2]

OK - fine - we won't put a stop to the sales of dodgy items.

It would be more correct to say we can't put a stop to the sales of dodgy items.

But we can, and as engineers should, try!

I think you have failed to notice the context of the above-quoted comments. Whilst I agree that it should be possible to do a lot about (although certainly not eliminate) sale of the 'very bad counterfeit' products we've been discussing in this thread, BAS introduced the concept of draconian measures in an attempt to stamp out sales of all fake, stolen, copyright-infringing goods in general - which is clearly an unattainable Utopia, not to mention the unrealistic nature of BAS's suggested approach.

We are making some progress, with the help of my local Trading Standards department. All but two of the illegal listings on ebay which were originally published at www.bs1363.org.uk have been deleted! ...

I have to say that I seriously doubt that attempting to attack this problem through intermediaries like eBay and Amazon is the answer. Judging by their feedback scores, most of the eBay sellers of these products are 'commercial', and I really don't think that stopping them selling them via eBay or Amazon (or any other intermediary), even if that were achieved, will stop them selling them - it merely would push the problem a little bit out of view. If Trading Standards want to achieve anything meaningful, they need to deal it with it at the level of suppliers, rather than 'the messenger' - and, indeed, eliminating such offers of sale from eBay could well make it much more difficult for Trading Standards to identify the sellers concerned; at least at present, a lot of them can be 'found in one place'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And would this "absolute offence" also result in FedEx, DHL, etc. - and even Royal Mail - being closed down due to being a party involved in the delivering of counterfeit or other illegal goods?

If one is going to hold eBay, Amazon, and similar parties responsible for the legality and legitimacy of goods which are supplied by some other party, then why not hold the courier or postal service equally responsible?

Why not indeed.

Maybe we could also extend it to PayPal, banks and credit card companies who facilitate payments.

Then this "absolute offence" could also be applied to any ISP which has allowed access to a website from which counterfeit goods can be ordered. Then BT/OpenReach can be put out of business as well for providing the lines over which a connection was provided to the ISP in order to order the goods. Where are you going to draw the line?

You're a bit behind the times on the "absolute offence", but as for ISPs, then why not? There is precedent for it - BT have been ordered to block access to Newzbin2.

Ultimately, none of these parties is directly responsible for selling counterfeit or other illegal goods, since they are merely acting as agents, in good faith, to facilitate trade.

Newzbin2 is not doing anything illegal either - it too is merely a "facilitator".

But, of course, there's serious money at stake with film piracy.

Not much at stake for a few individual fires caused by dodgy plugs and cables, so we don't care enough about them to be "draconian".

Expecting Amazon and eBay to act upon official complaints received about a company selling counterfeit goods is one thing, but to apply a "one strike you're out" rule over goods supplied by another party would be draconian.

Possibly, but it wouldn't half focus their attention.

We have other absolute offences, but in an unsurprisingly pernicious reversal, they only punish individuals.

So - we can have draconian measures to protect corporations but not punish them, and draconian measures to punish individuals but not protect them.

 

[Paul_C]

Why not indeed.

Maybe we could also extend it to PayPal, banks and credit card companies who facilitate payments.

That's just the point: Once you go beyond the original perpetrator, at which point do you want to draw the line with all the other innocent parties involved in facilitating the transaction? If the banks, credit companies, PayPal and so on are to be included in this wide-ranging scope for who is considered guilty, then does that also mean that if somebody pays cash for counterfeit goods at a market stall then the Bank of England is also guilty for providing the banknotes used in the transaction? Then what if the buyer gets on a bus to take his purchase home? Is the bus company liable for providing transportation for the counterfeit goods to the place they'll be used?

To me, such things would be as ridiculous as holding the Post Office liable for somebody sending illegal material through the mail or deeming BT to be responsible for a bank robbery just because two of the robbers used the phone to make their arrangements.

We have other absolute offences, but in an unsurprisingly pernicious reversal, they only punish individuals.

And they are not morally right either. For example, take the case where an auto insurance company cancels a policy without giving any sort of adequate notice. Because the system regards the "crime" of uninsured driving as being absolute, it will penalize the completely innocent driver even though he had done everything within reason to comply with the statutory requirements and could have had no idea that his insurance had been canceled until it was too late.

 

[Spark123]

I have just bought an item off ebay. It came with an IEC computer lead with a sleeved earth pin on the plug.
The PSU which the IEC cable came with also feels very light for my liking.
I'm tempted to have a whinge and send it back, but then again it is useful as a training aid.
I'm also tempted to open up the PSU (destructively) to see what is actually inside, maybe just run it through a PAT and see what happens.
The item only cost about £10 inc postage so no great loss.
Either way I'll be notifying the seller that there is an issue and to stop selling the item - wether or not they take any notice is another matter.

 

[Monkeh]

We demand details!

PAT it and then gut it. Must see the cheap chinese crap.

Don't forget to try operating it at its max rating and see how long it takes to go poof.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Six deaths in the tragic fire in Neasden last weekend reminds us of the possible consequences of an electrical fire, and why legislation such as the Plugs and Sockets Regulations is so important.

eBay has been a bit slow in reacting to reports in the past few weeks, but Amazon takes the biscuit for lack of response.

The worst example (so far) is on http://www.amazon.co.uk/Volex-Cloverleaf-Computer-Power-Lead/dp/B0011YNM90/ . On that one listing they have 31 suppliers, I have test bought from several of these, some have been legal (including Volex ones), others not. The cables supplied through Amazon by “Star e-shop”, and “eBlink” have to be seen to be believed, this is what I found:

• Counterfeit fuse ( a very crude imitation with no approval marks, no sand filling, loose end caps)
• The fuse was cosmetic and not connected to anything, the line wire is connected directly to the line pin
• Partially sleeved earth pin (resulting in intermittent or no connection to socket earth)
• All pins are the wrong size (and one sample has severely misaligned pins)
• The moulding of the plug/cable assembly has taken place with the fuse carrier and fuse in place, with nothing to prevent the moulding material flowing into the fuse chamber, one of the samples was almost entirely filled in this way completely sealing in one end of the fuse.
• The plug is marked: “ KING CORO”, “APProved bY BSI” and “Licence No 41231” with a counterfeit Kitemark
• The C5 connector is wired in reverse
• The flex cable is marked “CCC YF 227 IEC 53(RVV) 3x0.75mm2 300/500V GB5023.5-1997 MADE IN CHINA”
• The resistance between plug and C5 connector is unusually high, suggesting that the conductors are far smaller than the 0.75mm2 claimed – confirmed by inspection. The actual conductor cross section is less than 10% of the rated value!
• The outer covering of the cable is so weak (approximately the consistency of liquorice) that it can be easily peeled off using the force of finger nails only.
• The colour coding of the wires is not in conformance with any known standard, the current carrying conductors are slate grey, and the earth is slate grey with a stripe of greenish white.
• The insulation on the conductors is of a similar consistency to the outer covering, very easy to pull off with the fingers.

I find it difficult to express just how bad these cables are!

Some extracts from customer reviews on the Amazon site confirm that the fire danger is very real, and has been reported to them for over one year:

“After only a couple of weeks use, the cable started to burn and melted through while it was being used by my daughter, thankfully no harm came to her or the house!”

“The cable started sparking then caught fire and burned a hole in the carpet. It was only the sound of the sparking that alerted me as I was not in the room. Very cheap but extremely dangerous. If the house had been empty this could have been a disaster. The thick cable is deceptive, it looks like good quality but the wires inside it are very thin, a bit like fuse-wire. This product should be taken off the market. I am reporting this hazard to Amazon and trading standards.”

“Cheap yes but as I type I can smell a distinct burning smell coming from my powerpack.”

“After two weeks it started to spark and strong burning smell came from it. Wouldn't advise buying. Tried it once more just to make sure and it exploded with a large bang and now has a small hole in the connector.”

 

[Adam_151]

FF, Have you looked at any samples of mains powered LED christmas lights from amazon or ebay?

I have seen several examples which have originated in the east which I would not consider as safe to use!

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[FatallyFlawed]

How do you know it was an electrical fire?

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15070760
BBC news report: "A chest freezer may have caused a fire in a north-west London home in which a mother and her five children were killed, London Fire Brigade (LFB) said."

And if it was an electrical fire why does it make 'Plugs and Sockets Regulations so important'

If you need that to be explained, you should not be here!

 

[ericmark]

Although not impossible it is unlikely a lead will cause a fire. More fires are caused by an appliance which has gone faulty. A freezer stuck on de-frost cycle or a washing machine/tumble drier full of fluff.

Yes we can make the appliance safer in the same way as we include a safety cut out with a immersion heater will can also include one with a freezer, washing machine or tumble drier in fact my tumble drier has got one and when the tube blocks up it does trip.

But this involves a cost to the consumer and many are unwilling to pay for a better quality unit. Also of course unless there are flammable items near the appliances it is unlikely they will in them selves cause the deaths it would also mean a lack of smoke detectors and other safety items like being left unattended.

The walking around the show room then ordering from internet mentality is reducing the high street outlets and giving the internet an unfair advantage. We all have to accept the risks of internet buying and this includes safety as well as the loss of out high street stores. It comes down to risk assessment and I think we rely too much on the government doing it for us and we all need to accept the risks we are taking and not just shout when it goes wrong.

Just as re-starting an old thread on a forum with already loads of replies is likely to be ignored by many.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Although not impossible it is unlikely a lead will cause a fire. More fires are caused by an appliance which has gone faulty. A freezer stuck on de-frost cycle or a washing machine/tumble drier full of fluff.

This is a very confused post which seems to completely ignore the facts. (And, by the way, I do not think that a fire caused by a build up of fluff constitutes an electrical fire!). Suggesting that it is unlikely that a lead will cause a fire when there are a number of reports to the contrary about this one particular lead is simply putting your head in the sand.

Yes we can make the appliance safer in the same way as we include a safety cut out with a immersion heater will can also include one with a freezer, washing machine or tumble drier in fact my tumble drier has got one and when the tube blocks up it does trip.

But this involves a cost to the consumer and many are unwilling to pay for a better quality unit. Also of course unless there are flammable items near the appliances it is unlikely they will in them selves cause the deaths it would also mean a lack of smoke detectors and other safety items like being left unattended.

That is missing the point in a spectacular way! The law requires that plugs, fuses and cables conform to the regulations, the issue is about major retail suppliers who choose to ignore the law.

As for not leaving cables unattended, is it realistic to believe that people will never charge their laptop except when they are in the room with it? If the laptop is daily work use then it will almost certainly be left on charge overnight, and there is usually plenty of paper in the area of a laptop, sensible people would avoid placing their charger on paper, but how likely is it that someone would avoid the cable passing across paper? Also, common medical equipment (CPAP, which is required to be used while sleeping) uses the same cables as laptop chargers, and is only used beside the bed. Just two of many examples of what should be perfectly reasonable use.

We have BS 1363 and the Plugs and Sockets regulations for very good reason, but they must be enforced.

We all have to accept the risks of internet buying and this includes safety as well as the loss of out high street stores. It comes down to risk assessment and I think we rely too much on the government doing it for us and we all need to accept the risks we are taking and not just shout when it goes wrong.

This is simply the ravings of an anarchist.

 

[flameport]

The cables supplied through Amazon by “Star e-shop”, and “eBlink” have to be seen to be believed

Star e-shop also have an illegal returns policy and the only method of contact is a mobile phone number.

 

[JohnW2]

We all have to accept the risks of internet buying and this includes safety as well as the loss of out high street stores. It comes down to risk assessment and I think we rely too much on the government doing it for us and we all need to accept the risks we are taking and not just shout when it goes wrong.

This is simply the ravings of an anarchist.

I think that's uncalled for. One doesn't have to be an anarchist to have reservations as to how far our freedoms should be eroded by what some would call progressive movement in the direction of a 'Nanny State'. Government clearly has to impose some degree of regulation, but one doesn't have to look far to see downsides (on many different levels) of taking it too far.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[NewOrder]

I am still seeing this, a competitor is selling cheap power supplies for computers, one was a laptop transformer, and it burst into flames in a customers house.

Cheap PSUs are cheap for a reason, they cut too many corners, a decent computer power supply should cost £30+. The main problem with cheap PSUs is the specs lie. They may say they can handle 20amps on the 12v rail, but the reality is even ten amps is enough to make it explode.

I always test the resistance of mains cables I supply after a cable I supplied burst into flames. This was the first time I was aware of just how wide spread the problem was, it was a CIT hard drive caddy.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Amazon continue to sell these dangerous cables, they clearly believe themselves to be above the law!

Since last posting I have ordered and received a further three of the "KING CORO" models described earlier, and have now also received, from an Amazon seller in Hong Kong, another type with a counterfeit fuse.

You can see a photograph of the plug on the website www.bs1363.org.uk – (the picture is on the homepage and is the one shown against a blue background). The sample just received was of an even lower quality than the previous sample evaluated, it has very bad plating on the pins (looking somewhat like lumpy solder tinning) and the moulded material had been allowed to flow over all four sides of the red plastic fuse carrier, thus it was impossible to remove the carrier until that excess material had been cut away! Other features of this lead are:

• Counterfeit fuse ( a crude imitation, impossible to remove due to having been sealed into the fuse chamber by excess moulding material)
• The fuse was cosmetic and not connected to anything, the line wire is connected directly to the line pin
• Partially sleeved earth pin (resulting in intermittent or no connection to socket earth)
• All pins are the wrong size
• The C5 connector is wrongly labelled "10A", the C5 standard rating is 2.5A
• The plug is branded: “guida”, with a counterfeit ASTA approval mark.