Is extractor fan tested under periodic inspection report?

[Adaptor]

As routine, is a bathroom extractor fan tested for safety as part of a periodic inspection report?

Or do you have to ask sparky for another test to make sure its safe?

Is it easy to do for the sparky?

How often should they be tested in a commercial situation (ie office toilets)

Thanks

 

[ricicle]

The fan itself won't be tested as such, but any obvious defects with it such as cracked/broken casing will be noted as well as suitability for location.
The wiring up to the fan terminals should be tested as part of the fixed wiring.

A seperate test may be required for it's continuing efficiency with regard to air movement.

 

[riveralt]

The Periodic Inspection Report is not an official document. It results from a private contract between the property owner and the electrician - that contract will stipulate what will be inspected (10% sockets say), how it will be inspected (visual only or remove and inspect and test) and what limits will be placed upon the PIR (no lifting of floorboards or removing cable from conduit). The extent of the inspection will also be helped or hampered by the availability of wiring diagrams, previous inspections and or machinery log books.

The scope of the inspection is often determined by a third party - such as a letting agent or even the property's insurer and will often be run together with Portable appliance testing. Clearly more that is inspected the more it will cost to complete.

So for the issue you raise the answer will depend upon the agreement between the electrician and the property owner - some may want the visual inspection only - others may want the circuit tested and other may want the fan itself tested. How often a particular item is checked will depend on how often it is used and sometimes how critical it is to work flow. At the end of the day it all comes down to money.

 

[ericmark]

riveralt has given a good reply.
Many times I have seen where items have escaped testing because of what the electricians have seen as their remit.

"Inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment" will cover items like extractor fan and hand drier. The "periodic inspection report" or "Electrical installation condition report" would normally only cover fixed wiring not the items connected to the installation.

Where the problem arises is where semi-skilled people are used to do the "Inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment" and often this is called "PAT testing" PAT means "Portable appliance testing" which has a weight limit 28 pounds I think and must be as the name suggests portable. In real terms the semi-skilled tester is limited to testing items under 3kW and with a plug which will fit in his tester.

There are items for example a frost free freezer which can't really be fully tested without some dismantalling as the heaters for the de-frost are only activated as set times. However likely it would be better to do a continuity test for earth than nothing. But if one wanted to be correct then these odd items which don't fall into the PAT testing should be placed on a maintenance contract.

As to an extractor fan what one must ask is what would be tested? In most cases they are class II so there is no earth so the only real test would be to inspect (i.e. look at it). And since it would only need a glance to see if it's damaged and 2 seconds to see if it works it would take longer to write out label than to do the work. One could in theroy check what power it uses but likely more damage would be caused checking than by just giving it a quick look.

 

[Adaptor]

Thanks for posts

It found it very helpful regarding the suggestion to consider specifying the scope of a PIR.

I naturally assumed that there was a pre-set routine.

TBH I could set a specification, but would i know if it had been fulfilled to my wishes or they had still gone their own merry way.

I have to hire another sparky to check it (daft) to be sure!

 

[EFLImpudence]

TBH I could set a specification, but would i know if it had been fulfilled to my wishes or they had still gone their own merry way.

That's a really silly question to ask.
What could anyone possibly reply that would satisfy you.

I have to hire another sparky to check it (daft) to be sure!

Maybe it would be the second one who was no good.

 

[Adaptor]

TBH I could set a specification, but would i know if it had been fulfilled to my wishes or they had still gone their own merry way.

That's a really silly question to ask.
What could anyone possibly reply that would satisfy you.

I have to hire another sparky to check it (daft) to be sure!

Maybe it would be the second one who was no good.

Its not a question, its an observation, which anyone is free to comment on, or not.

My point is the consumer can be at a disadvantage; the blinding effect of science if you will, which in theory can be abused by a minority of sparkys wanting to take a shortcut or two.

An example: some electricians, ( the ones who are not part P registered) can take advantage of consumers who do not know about part P. A friend of mine had a shower installed by a 'recommended' sparky, who later turns out not to be part P registered. Now the law says SHE now is responsible to get it checked by building control at a ridiculous price. Of course the sparky didn't tell her what the proper thing to do would be before (or after) he started the work. The law should make the person doing the physical work reponsible that building control is complied with, not the consumer.

That this is not the case is what I call 'silly'.