'Open Element' Electric Fires

[ericmark]

I have been considering the wording of Code 1 V Code 2 and I can see why RF Lighting changed from Code 1 to Code 2 as originally it was not identified as a school and depending on where mounted yes I can see that school children with dangling necklace type jewellery could if the fire is mounted under 2.5 meters could get it tangled within the appliance so depending on how mounted yes I can see why he changed his mind but I would not have been quite so strong as saying don’t be so stupid as it would depend how they were mounted as to if there is a danger.
To me where two actions are required to have danger i.e. Knurled screws instead of ones needing a tool would allow a cover to be recovered then there would be danger than it is “Potential Danger” if however no action is required before one could be injured then “danger exists” so reading the BPG4 document again you are quite right “danger exists” therefore Code 1.
I apologise to RF Lighting for suggesting Code 2 although I do not agree it was a “Stupid” mistake I would consider it a very easy mistake to make.
Eric

 

[ericmark]

Oh I see you have changed your mind again. Can you explain either it presents danger or it has potential danger.
If a RCD does not work that is potentially dangerous. i.e. something else must also go wrong. But if you have access to live wires surely this is dangerous?
So if we were to put a live 600 volt rail at ground level with no gates that’s dangerous but add level crossing gates it’s only potentially dangerous!
God knows how we would class the electric chair.
Eric

 

[GaryMo]

Maybe I'm missing something here but at no time did RF suggest a code 1, his only suggestion was possibly a code 3 so I can't see how he's changed his mind.

 

[Spark123]

I'm confused as to who has meant to have said what!
I wouldn't start handing out codes on a PIR for appliances which are built to their own standard unless there is something wrong with the installation of it or it is damaged.
There is nothing stopping you addressing the risk in another way i.e. by means of notifying the responsible person of the risk and backing it up in writing. My only concern when starting going on about things with holes bigger than IP4X requirements for installed apparatus is where do you stop? My Sky box has holes bigger than that in the top!
Oh - and BS7671 doesn't apply to railway traction engines
Don't know what BS you'd build a leccy chair to!

 

[ericmark]

“Code 1?

Don't be so stupid”

I thought this was saying (not to be stupid it’s code 1) seems I miss read his meaning a little like the “Beware of man eating haggis” sign on way to Scotland.

I remember as a kid getting the new elements for our ring from Woolworths and wrapping it around the porcelain former and when it burnt out it would often pop up and touch base of the pan and one hopes blow the fuse. We don’t have these any more because they were dangerous or were they potentially dangerous?

But they were designed that way and it complied with the 12th or 13th edition which was in force at that time.

Until I had miss read the Code 1 statement I would have said Code 2 but after re-reading what the Electrical Safety Council say in their guidance note I am not so sure.

Yes I was being silly about railway track but even a live wire sticking out of the wall could be referred to as being “Potentially Dangerous” but we all know would be Code 1 not Code 2 and my point is there must be something where we can say if its “Potentially Dangerous” or “Dangerous”.

I have re-read the BPG4_8 document and it states a blank missing from a consumer unit is “Dangerous” which is really same fault! The other meaning is “Requires improvement” and if something can only be corrected by replacement it can hardly be requiring improvement!

Yes I know only the most serious should get a Code 1 but the heating system would need Urgent Attention if isolated in this weather so would be Code 1. If the same PIR was done in the Summer, where it could be isolated with no Urgent repairs required then would it be Code 2?

The whole system seems flawed. What is the point of a regulation which if not complied with does not mean the installation is unsafe yet it says just this on page 4 and again on page 10. Yet 120.1 says the whole point is for safety and proper functioning so if the regulation is not about proper functioning it must then be about safety.

So if the regulations were to require for example that where wires are buried in a wall under 50mm a RCD is used. This clearly is nothing to do with proper functioning and is to do with safety so no compliance should be Code 2 but I and I would think most other people would class this as Code 4.

In the same way although reading to the letter of BPG4_8 maybe this heater fault should be Code 1 but if one Codes loads of faults as Code 1 then the really bad faults may get delayed before anyone gets around to rectify them so I would I think even though to the letter of BPG4_8 this is a Code 1 I would still enter it as a Code 2.

We are suppose to tell people the casing on the consumer unit is smashed and not you need a new consumer unit, but in real terms most people want to know what they need to do to put things right, not just what is wrong.
Eric

 

[GaryMo]

And I would Class it as Code 2 as you have to do something silly to cause danger i.e. use a 100mm long 1mm thick piece of wire. But with school children and the fact that this is no new regulation and they must have failed to correct it at last PIR maybe a Code 1 is warranted?

Code 1?

Don't be so stupid

Code 1, question mark. It's a direct reply to your post, he's questioning your opinion that a code 1 may be warranted.

He is of the opinion that it isn't a code 1 in a million years, hence he tells you not to be so stupid!

 

[nozspark]

Here you go, I'm going to be controversial...

CODE 4

as it complied with the regs at the time it was manufactured and installed.


However if you were doing a rewire and they wanted to keep it then I'd be binning it and replacing it with a fan heater!!

 

[Spark123]

If they are correctly installed and built to a british standard I don't think it is an issue for the wiring regs, so I wouldn't code it at all.
If I decide there may be risks from external sources such as youg children poking things then that is a health and safety issue as opposed to a wiring regs issue so it needs to be taken up from a H&S pov.
If a toaster with a resistive exposed element is plumbed into a FCU, is that an immediate failure? Or would it be a H&S issue to risk assess wether or not it is suitable for its environment?

 

[sm1thson]

^if you dont code it (fair enough under your reasoning) would you still make a note of it on the report? granted its not your place to do a H&S audit whist you are there, or put on your report other H&S issues you come across, but for the electrics the accepted way of trying to ensure safety is to get a PIR done on the installation and get portable appliances PAT tested, this would arguably fall out of both categories but if if i was the customer i would rather both the electrician doing a PAT test and one doing a PIR reported in rather than neither. and rather than reporting it as a separate issue (likely to get lost) as a customer the best place for such an issue would be on you report with the other electrical issues to be sorted.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[RF Lighting]

And I would Class it as Code 2 as you have to do something silly to cause danger i.e. use a 100mm long 1mm thick piece of wire. But with school children and the fact that this is no new regulation and they must have failed to correct it at last PIR maybe a Code 1 is warranted?

Code 1?

Don't be so stupid

Code 1, question mark. It's a direct reply to your post, he's questioning your opinion that a code 1 may be warranted.

He is of the opinion that it isn't a code 1 in a million years, hence he tells you not to be so stupid!

Nail on the head there.

Sorry I couldn't clarify things sooner, but at no point in my life have I ever considered this to warrant a code 1 on a periodic.

Code 1 is reserved for things which pose an IMMEDIATE danger. Things like missing earths, or open circuit CPCs. Maybe the odd fuse box which is on fire, that sort of thing.

If you see something and it makes you think "f--- me, thats baaad, no really bad. I've never seen such a dangerous installation in all my career. Infact, I must go get the camera and take a photo for DIYnot.", then by all means note it down as a code 1.

If you see an old heater and think to yourself "I wonder which code that is worthy of. I'm not entirely sure myself, so I'll ask some other folks for their opinion", then don't note it down as a code 1.

 

[Spark123]

^if you dont code it (fair enough under your reasoning) would you still make a note of it on the report?

Me - I work in a factory. We have a way of reporting safety concerns which goes to a daily meeting and the engineers/bosses can talk about it and have it sorted.

granted its not your place to do a H&S audit whist you are there, or put on your report other H&S issues you come across,

Sort of a conflict - I am saying that a PIR isn't the place to be reporting a piece of current using equipment which is built to a standard and installed correctly but you believe there to be a risk. Everyone at work has a duty of care to others hence any safety issues should be raised through the correct channels to the correct people.

but for the electrics the accepted way of trying to ensure safety is to get a PIR done on the installation and get portable appliances PAT tested,

You are now touching on the electricity at work regulations - they have a duty to maintain to prevent danger or injury. A pir and PAT testing are a couple of methods of showing a system is in place, as is the visual inspection of a tool before use. Would a toaster fail a PAT test on the grounds that it isn't IP4X to the top and has an exposed resistive element?

this would arguably fall out of both categories but if if i was the customer i would rather both the electrician doing a PAT test and one doing a PIR reported in rather than neither.

I agree that if there is a risk it should be assessed yes, but is a PIR to be used in place of a proper a risk assessment?

and rather than reporting it as a separate issue (likely to get lost) as a customer the best place for such an issue would be on you report with the other electrical issues to be sorted.

They should have a system in place where safety issues can be reported and assessed without being lost, hazard log books are one system I have seen in use, have also seen computerized systems.