dingbat said:
Until recently I would have agreed with you, Bas. Indeed I have done it myself. But, as I said, you could have a hard time convincing an assessor from any of the schemes that this is acceptable. I have heard of three assessments recently (with three different scheme providers) where the provision of non-RCD ground floor sockets was hotly argued.
That's just the assessors being bolshie and trying to demonstrate that they are more knowledgeable. Also, don't forget that for many assessors if they fail someone they get paid more.
One of them was a dedicated non-RCD socket for the freezer, mounted in a cupboard and labelled accordingly. You would actually have to reach behind the freezer to get to it. It was reluctantly accepted provided the double socket was changed to a single, but it was only because the assessee, in his argument, demonstrated a thorough understanding of the regulations, that he passed.
There you are then, once the peon showed that he would not be browbeaten, the case for the prosecution collapsed.
Can occupants of houses be trusted to act 'reasonably'?
They can, and they must, and if you think about the meaning of the word "reasonably" then there is absolutely no need to behave in a way which assumes anything else.
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in all areas of daily life. Labels get lost, certificates and accompanying notes do not get read. (Some people, cant actually read)
If they can't read then they face all manner of risks that it would not be reasonable to try and prevent because they can't read. Look in the cupboard under the sink and in your shed for examples of all manner of products which could be dangerous or even lethal if misused or mis-combined. Should the sale of them be banned because some people may not be able to read the warning labels?
In the workplace it would, indeed, be reasonable to expect people to follow health and safety guidance, but at home there is no such certainty. People will happily do whatever suits them at the time.
That's down to them. As soon as they act unreasonably then
they have put themselves at risk, nobody else.
There are countless examples in every day life of products and environments where it is plainly assumed that people using the products or operating in the environment will behave reasonably.
In this thread, as the freezer is in the garage, the socket that feeds it is a prime candidate for powering outdoor kit. I like the idea of using a safety plug, but how long before the strimmer/lawnmower/hedge trimmer/power washer acquired its own 'safety' plug?
Show me such a product which does not come with advice to use an RCD. Ignoring that advice is unreasonable.
Should an incident and subsequent inquiry call for me to defend my design rationale, I would be in a far better position if I had made every effort to prevent the householder from making his own decisions about what constituted safe practice, than if I had trusted him to act 'reasonably'.
As you can see, I disagree entirely. If you really felt that you could not trust someone to behave reasonably you wouldn't give him an electrical supply in the first place.
Or a gas supply.
Or anything sharp.
Or stairs.
Or any household cleaning agents.
Or any garden chemicals.
Or any plants that are poisonous.
Or...
Or...
Or...
You are not responsible for what happens if someone acts unreasonably.
Your job is to ensure the safety of the system when used reasonably.
