Table Lamp PAT Test advice.

[EFLImpudence]

O - - - - K, but that is not really satisfactory is it? Just words.

An item originally manufactured to Class II which has been altered/broken so that it is no longer has the Class II requirements, yet sticker/marking remains.

It is similar to MF - as in equally silly.

How would filling off the embossed MF of a junction box alter its suitability for the purpose - or conversely...?

 

[oldbutnotdead]

I'm inclined to disagree, and suggest that it probably is the marking that matters.

It would seem that the default is that everything has to be regarded as Class I, with the dispensation is that it may be regarded and treated as Type II IF it bears the appropriate marking (which obviously implies that it qualifies for that marking).

Is it not similar to the situation with "MF" joints/JBs? One could make a JB identical to (or 'at least as good as') an MF-marked JB but, at least as far as BS7671 is concerned, would not be allowed to use it in a non-accessible situation unless it had "MF" marking.

It therefore seems that, in both cases, the issue is not about whether or not an item would qualify (electrically) for the appropriate ("Class II" or "MF") marking but, rather, whether or not it is so marked (in which case, I'm rather surprised that 'stick on labels' are regarded as acceptable). In other words, in the absence of such a marking, one has to regard the item as ('the default') Class I or non-MF.

Kind Regards, John

Exactly the way we were taught on the C & G PAT courses.

 

[RandomGrinch]

I'm inclined to disagree, and suggest that it probably is the marking that matters.

It would seem that the default is that everything has to be regarded as Class I, with the dispensation is that it may be regarded and treated as Type II IF it bears the appropriate marking (which obviously implies that it qualifies for that marking).

...and I'm afraid I would disagree!

Again (disregarding any other 'standards'), PAT law only requires:

And the 'Guidance', states 'if you can not see the symbol, you should 'assume' that....is a class 1 appliance'.

But, as the tests performed and frequencies are completely up to the tester, based on the RA, we can still test and pass an appliance, if it is safe!

...and we have imported an entire laboratory from the USA (happens more often than you may think!).
No CE marking, no BS standards.
Is it safe to use? (Apart from dodgy laser interlocking standards ), yes!
Does it need PA Testing, yes!

 

[RandomGrinch]

Exactly the way we were taught on the C & G PAT courses.

I have a feeling that may be pre 2013, when HSE moved to an RA based approach.
I think they understood that people were testing too much, and possibly damaging equipment with unneeded flash and insulation tests on class 2 items.

 

[JohnW2]

O - - - - K, but that is not really satisfactory is it? Just words. .... An item originally manufactured to Class II which has been altered/broken so that it is no longer has the Class II requirements, yet sticker/marking remains. ... It is similar to MF - as in equally silly. .... How would filling off the embossed MF of a junction box alter its suitability for the purpose - or conversely...?

I essentially agree with all that. It is, in some senses, silly, but I'm hesitant to say that in the absence of being able to make any particularly constructive suggestions regarding alternatives.

If one does not have a system reliant on 'markings', then the only alternative which comes immediately to mind would be to leave it to the discretion/judgement of a user to determine whether something qualified as (and could be treated as) "Class II" or "MF" (or whatever) - and that would surely be even worse?

It's not that unusual for us to rely upon 'markings' - whether relating IP, voltage, current or whatever 'ratings'. In all of those cases, one could 'file off' the marking, without making it any less suitable for the intended use, or make something which was (electrically) suitable but did not bear the marking.

Do you have any 'better alternative' in mind?

Kind Regards, John

 

[oldbutnotdead]

O - - - - K, but that is not really satisfactory is it? Just words.

An item originally manufactured to Class II which has been altered/broken so that it is no longer has the Class II requirements, yet sticker/marking remains.

It is similar to MF - as in equally silly.

How would filling off the embossed MF of a junction box alter its suitability for the purpose - or conversely...?

Class 2 appliances mostly fail on visual inspection (holes in the casings, inner insulation visible on the power lead, other physical damage). There's a lot more to PAT than just plugging it into the meter....
Yes there are times when I've had rows with the adults for rejecting items that are obviously Class 2 by design, are in perfect condition but because of that missing mark they do not comply with the workplace risk assessments put in place by those very same adults.
Same with ladders- again I've rejected ladders that are obviously Class 3 (for workplace use) simply because that label is missing- same reason as above. Elf and Safety gone mad?- maybe. But my a*se is covered if someone further up the food chain (or down) decides to use it and has an incident of some sort with it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you have any 'better alternative' in mind?

No, but the sticker/marking can only be information when new.

 

[JohnW2]

...and I'm afraid I would disagree!

Why are you disagreeing with me, given that you go on to write ...

.... And the 'Guidance', states 'if you can not see the symbol, you should 'assume' that....is a class 1 appliance'.

... which seems to be identical to what I wrote, and the point I was making.

Are you perhaps merely quibbling about the fact that the 'Guidance' is not law (in the same way that BS7671 isn't)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

No, but the sticker/marking can only be information when new.

Of course - just as is the case with any marking/specification of any product - given that there is no telling how it may be used (or even modified) after manufacture/sale.

However, I still have to ask you about 'alternatives'. Would you really favour a system in which the user (who could be 'anyone') had to make his/her own decisions/judgement as to whether an item was Class I or Class II, or whether it was "MF" or "non-MF"?

In any situation, I have absolutely no problem with people questioning/criticising the status quo (I do it all the time ), but to do so is really meaningless unless one has some constructive suggestions as to a better alternative!

Kind Regards, John

 

[RandomGrinch]

However, I still have to ask you about 'alternatives'. Would you really favour a system in which the user (who could be 'anyone') had to make his/her own decisions/judgement as to whether an item was Class I or Class II, or whether it was "MF" or "non-MF"?

Not down to the user, but a well trained and competent PA Tester, would definitely be a good halfway house.
After all, this isn't a common occurrence.

 

[RandomGrinch]

Class 2 appliances mostly fail on visual inspection (holes in the casings, inner insulation visible on the power lead, other physical damage). There's a lot more to PAT than just plugging it into the meter....

I totally agree
95% of all our failures are caught by a visual inspection and maybe the 'rattle test'!

 

[RandomGrinch]

Why are you disagreeing with me, given that you go on to write ...
... which seems to be identical to what I wrote, and the point I was making.

Are you perhaps merely quibbling about the fact that the 'Guidance' is not law (in the same way that BS7671 isn't)?

Kind Regards, John

I'm sorry, may be my misinterpretation!
I read it as it is 'only' the marking that matters.

My point is, that given the freedom we have to make our own judgements (under the HSE guidance), we can still legitimately pass a class 2 item that has lost its label.

 

[JohnW2]

Not down to the user, but a well trained and competent PA Tester, would definitely be a good halfway house. After all, this isn't a common occurrence.

Even in relation to items subject to PA testing, I see some potential difficulties with that. For example, are you suggesting that a PA tester should be able, at their discretion/judgement, to over-ride a manufacturer's indication (in MIs and/or 'markings) that an item either did, or did not, need to be earthed?

As for the MF JB's, this consideration is obviously not relevant. For a start, such things are not 'PA tested', and it's the person who installs them who has to decide whether a particular JB may, or may not, be installed in a 'non-accessible location'. As I asked EFLI, are you really suggesting that the installer (who might be a DIYer) should be able to decide this according to their personal judgment, rather than the current situation in which BS7671 says that it can only be non-accessible if appropriately 'marked'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

However, I still have to ask you about 'alternatives'. Would you really favour a system in which the user (who could be 'anyone') had to make his/her own decisions/judgement as to whether an item was Class I or Class II, or whether it was "MF" or "non-MF"?

I have no alternative; I am just saying the situation is unsatisfactory - but if your 'anyone' is relying on a sticker/marking as gospel then it is itself dangerous.

We quite often get people asking about Class II lights, for example, who, because of the UK loop at light method, have too many wires and intend to fit normal connectors inside the new supposedly Class II metal ceiling bracket fitting; thus rendering it not Class II.


Just a semantic question: if someone earths the metal casing of a Class II product, is it still Class II?

Definition:
"Class II equipment. Equipment in which protection against electric shock does not rely on basic insulation only, but in which additional safety precautions such as supplementary insulation are provided, there being no provision for the connection of exposed metalwork of the equipment to a protective conductor, and no reliance upon precautions to be taken in the fixed wiring of the installation."

Surely all that still applies.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sorry, may be my misinterpretation! .... I read it as it is 'only' the marking that matters.

Well, up to a point, that is what I was saying - given that, as we have both said, the absence of a Class II marking means that the item must be consider (and inspected/tested) as Class I.

... My point is, that given the freedom we have to make our own judgements (under the HSE guidance), we can still legitimately pass a class 2 item that has lost its label.

That's really a pretty 'special case'. If one truly believes (and has good reason to believe) that a Class II item has 'lost it's label', then it would seem perfectly reasonable to use discretion to accept that it was a Class II item, and inspect/test it accordingly. However, if one has no particular reason to believe that it ever did have a Class II marking, then I would question whether it would be appropriate for a PA tester (or anyone else) to decide (by personal judgement) that it could be considered (and inspected/tested) as a Class II item.

Kind Regards, John