• Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.

Plug top wiring.

What I thought was a bit of a con, though, was him charging once for the appliance and again for the lead. If the lead had been permanently fixed, there would have been only one charge

I was under the impression testing (charging for) removable leads separately was standard practice.

I'm assuming you got a sticker for the lead too? The lead is technically a separate piece of equipment

I don't know the regulations, but was told that last year the whole thing was treated as one appliance. Perhaps the rules have changed since. I can see the sense in what you say, though.
 
I too, have always been taught to test detachable mains leads as separate appliances, the theory being that the mains lead could be used with any appliance.
Certainly where I currently work, in a sound & lighting hire warehouse, it is standard practice to store the mains leads separately from the moving lights so that we can offer the customer a choice of 13A, 15A or 16A plugged leads to suit the application.
 
Been meaning to look this up, and the reasoning has already been given, but the IEE stance is

"the cordset should be labelled and then tested separately from the appliance as follows:
A 3-core set should be tested as a Class I appliance
A 2-core set should be tested as a Class II appliance

The reason that the cord set is inspected and tested separately from the appliance is that the cord set could be usied during the course of the next period to supply a different appliance. For example, if the cord set was 2-core and, during the year, was inadvertently used to supply a Class I appliance, the appliance would be unearthed and present a risk of electric shock.

A 2-core cord set should not be fitted with a 3-pole appliance coupler
"
 
Been meaning to look this up, and the reasoning has already been given, but the IEE stance is

"the cordset should be labelled and then tested separately from the appliance as follows:
A 3-core set should be tested as a Class I appliance
A 2-core set should be tested as a Class II appliance

The reason that the cord set is inspected and tested separately from the appliance is that the cord set could be usied during the course of the next period to supply a different appliance. For example, if the cord set was 2-core and, during the year, was inadvertently used to supply a Class I appliance, the appliance would be unearthed and present a risk of electric shock.

A 2-core cord set should not be fitted with a 3-pole appliance coupler
"

Well that statement about the reason why the cord set is inspected and tested seperately is useless!

If a 2 core cord was indeed used to supply a class I appliance, the fact that it had been pat tested or not makes no difference! the appliance would be dangerous regardless.
 
I learnt PAT testing in 1990, subsequent to the introduction of The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

They require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition, but do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently.

So, PAT testing is not law, but rather is one way to comply with the law.

Bit like the BGB. You could wire a house using another standard, but the BGB is one way to prove compliance.
 

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Back
Top