Implications of outer sheath cable damage on household appliance

[ericmark]

I think the electricity at work act is valid for rented property as at some point employed people need to visit the property, be it a doctor, a plumber, or even the owners agent, at some point some one employed will need to visit, so yes all damaged equipment needs to be quarantined until repaired, there is also of course the danger to the rabbit to consider, the RSPCA would likely prosecute due to the danger the animal is put in, adults can do what they want, it seems suicide is no longer a crime, however putting children in danger is some thing else.

When I was considering renting my mothers house, I realised it would need rewiring first, it was not an option not to rewire. It was also a problem with a mother with alzheimer's as she was not responsible for her own actions, and had put an extension lead in a bucket of water as she thought the red neon was the sockets on fire.

There was a case of a lady renting out her house in Cornwell, where the faulty oil filled heater of the tenant, combined with a faulty earth in the house caused a death, it seems the land lady had engaged an electrician to correct the fault, and the tenant was well aware there was a fault as had a small shock earlier, which was why electrician was engaged, but electrician had not got around to doing the work, the land lady got a very large fine as a result, some leniency was given because of land ladies age.

The newspaper report did not say what the land lady should have done, it seemed to imply the tenants should have been removed from house until repairs were completed, but it did not say where the tenants would have lived while waiting for the repairs. Be it fire, or flood people are forced to leave their home due to danger in the home, I would assume it that case the land lords insurance would cover cost of alternative accommodation, but can't see that covering a sub-standard home?

I know to rent the house either I had to pass some land lords exam, or I had to use a renting agent to comply with the law, this was why I sold house rather than renting it, however either you should have done the course or the letting agent will have done the course and from what I believe this course tells you what needs to be done, at least in Wales, assume same for rest of UK. One would hope since damage was caused by tenants that one could simply evict them? But until the house electrics are up to standard you can't really allow them to remain in the house.

 

[ericmark]

I think the electricity at work act is valid for rented property as at some point employed people need to visit the property, be it a doctor, a plumber, or even the owners agent, at some point some one employed will need to visit, so yes all damaged equipment needs to be quarantined until repaired, there is also of course the danger to the rabbit to consider, the RSPCA would likely prosecute due to the danger the animal is put in, adults can do what they want, it seems suicide is no longer a crime, however putting children in danger is some thing else.

When I was considering renting my mothers house, I realised it would need rewiring first, it was not an option not to rewire. It was also a problem with a mother with alzheimer's as she was not responsible for her own actions, and had put an extension lead in a bucket of water as she thought the red neon was the sockets on fire.

There was a case of a lady renting out her house in Cornwell, where the faulty oil filled heater of the tenant, combined with a faulty earth in the house caused a death, it seems the land lady had engaged an electrician to correct the fault, and the tenant was well aware there was a fault as had a small shock earlier, which was why electrician was engaged, but electrician had not got around to doing the work, the land lady got a very large fine as a result, some leniency was given because of land ladies age.

The newspaper report did not say what the land lady should have done, it seemed to imply the tenants should have been removed from house until repairs were completed, but it did not say where the tenants would have lived while waiting for the repairs. Be it fire, or flood people are forced to leave their home due to danger in the home, I would assume it that case the land lords insurance would cover cost of alternative accommodation, but can't see that covering a sub-standard home?

I know to rent the house either I had to pass some land lords exam, or I had to use a renting agent to comply with the law, this was why I sold house rather than renting it, however either you should have done the course or the letting agent will have done the course and from what I believe this course tells you what needs to be done, at least in Wales, assume same for rest of UK. One would hope since damage was caused by tenants that one could simply evict them? But until the house electrics are up to standard you can't really allow them to remain in the house.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the electricity at work act is valid for rented property as at some point employed people need to visit the property, be it a doctor, a plumber, or even the owners agent, at some point some one employed will need to visit

How does an owner-occupied property differ from a rented one (other than in relation to "the owner's agent"!) in that respect?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is a dwelling therefore Part P applies because it is a dwelling.

 

[JohnW2]

It is a dwelling therefore Part P applies because it is a dwelling.

No argument with that. However, as I presume you understand, I was commenting on eric's seeming implication that having 'employed people', such as doctors and plumbers, entering a property was more likely when it was rented than when it was owner-occupied.

Indeed, I think I would seriously struggle to think of any sort of building, under any sort of ownership/occupancy/whatever, which did not sometimes have 'employed people' entering it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I was just meaning the EAWA does not apply because it is a dwelling, so the rent makes no difference.

 

[ericmark]

I was just meaning the EAWA does not apply because it is a dwelling, so the rent makes no difference.

Are you saying people are not employed when they enter a dwelling? I would say it does not matter what the building is, even St fagons where they are trying to emulate times gone by still have to consider the HSE rules, although some flexibility is clearly given.

And one does not need to be employed to be at work, when I volunteer at local Heritage railway I still need to follow same rules as some one employed, so if you put volunteers at risk still breaking the act. This was the comments when Part P came in, there was really no need for it, as all covered anyway, it just made prosecution easier.

And yes does not need to be rented, but more likely to take a landlord to court than a home owner.

 

[JohnW2]

I was just meaning the EAWA does not apply because it is a dwelling, so the rent makes no difference.

Ah, I see. Having never needed to pay significant attention to it, I don't know about the scope of the EAWA, in particular, how it defines 'at work' (or 'a workplace'). When there is actually a discrete physical workplace (like a factory), it's straightforward enough - but, as I think eric is talking about, I don't know what the situation is with those many people (particularly tradesmen) whose 'workplace' is always, or nearly always, a domestic dwelling.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I did copy Eric's 'EAWA' but it should be "EAWR' (regulations). They are not an act and start with the usual emphasis that that they are guidance.

They come under the Health and Safety at Work Act, so does that apply to dwellings for tradesmen?

I suspect it is as clear as other regulations and laws - to be interpreted when something goes wrong.


So, if your house electrocutes a doctor, who knows?

 

[JohnW2]

I did copy Eric's 'EAWA' but it should be "EAWR' (regulations).

... and, in turn, I copied you - however, as you say, it should be "EAWR".

They come under the Health and Safety at Work Act, so does that apply to dwellings for tradesmen?

Quite. It's because I don't know the answer to that question that I asked it!

So, if your house electrocutes a doctor, who knows?

Are there not far more general laws which deal with someone coming to harm as a result of one's 'negligence' (in not maintaining a safe environment for them to enter)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

I suspecct that your hope is in vain, I can't quite read everything on it, but it looks very much like an RCD with 25A switching capability, I cant see any trip curve indicated. I suspect that at the time that was made (early 90s) that a 25A RCBO would not have been an off the shelf item, 25A remains a bit of a strange rating for overcurrent devcies, rarely specificed and at the time very few RCBOs would ahve been installed, and the mjaority would have been for ring final circuits. Hell, If I wanted a 25A RCBO these days, I'd still probably be in for a few days wait!

My first instinct as soon as I saw that picture was to see if I could read the BS number. As you say, the lack of type information makes me strongly believe it’s going to be a BS4293 device, which is completely unsuitable for what it is supposed to be doing, and really not safe.

I think this is the same device as the one in the OP’s picture.

 

[JohnD]

perhaps 25A was intended for some other country.

 

[RF Lighting]

I have occasionally fitted a 25A breaker on a 2.5 radial when running things right on their limits.

 

[sparkwright]

You need to protect yourself in case something happens. People are quick to blame one another. At the end of the day, electricity must be respected and all damaged equipment must be repaired properly or replaced immediately.

 

[OwainDIYer]

The result of this lady's iron's chafed flex was her husband was electrocuted in the bath

http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/3061