Argument with builders over kitchen electrics . . . . .

[TheSalad]

We moved in to our new build home 3 years ago. We recently had a need to defrost the fridge freezer (integrated by the way) to discover that the plug was in a socket directly behind the appliance, inaccessible from either top or bottom. We checked the other kitchen appliances to find the dish washer was exactly the same set up. All this despite two double plug sockets installed under the sink for exactly this purpose.

We raised the issue with the builder. They raised concern initially but then wrote to us with the response :

“The NICEIC state that isolators above worktops which isolate sockets below that appliances are plugged in to, such as washing machines, dryers, fridges, etc, are not required. They have now been installed for maintenance purposes only which is a preference rather than a regulation.

However this is not to be confused with a cooker switch which is required to be within a certain distance from the appliance, visible and not obstructed.

There is no current regulation stating you have to install them now or ever before. I hope this clarifies things”

My argument is not about isolators or regulation but about common sense. Why on earth would you install an integrated appliance fitting the plug in a completely inaccessible place? Especially when the manufacturers booklets for the appliances state :

Zanussi Refrigerator-Freezer ZI 920/9 KA Instruction Booklet : “Important. It must be possible to disconnect the appliance from the mains supply; the plug must therefore be easily accessible after installation.”

Zanussi Electrolux ZDT 6053 Dishwasher User Manual : “Warning! The plug must be accessible after the appliance has been installed.”

It strikes me as either laziness or incompetence.

Any thoughts?

Ps We know we can defrost the fridge freezer by turning down the thermostat.

 

[ricicle]

In the sense of isolation the consumer unit main switch or individual circuit breakers could count as isolation, but as the manufacturers instructions have advised that the plugs must remain accessible then I think they have contravened Regulation 134.1.1 of BS7671:2008

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We moved in to our new build home 3 years ago.

BS 7671:2008 would almost certainly not have applied, and there was no equivalent of 134.1.1 in the previous edition of the regulations.

BUT - there was 133-01-01: "Good workmanship and proper materials shall be used." and it's hard to see how a flagrant breach of the manufacturer's instructions qualified as "good workmanship".

Also the sockets constitute a screwed joint which the regulations (both 17th and 16th) say must be accessible.

IMO the EIC the builder issued was false, and he is guilty therefore of fraud. He told you that the property you bought conformed, in part, to a particular British Standard when that was untrue.

Go back to the builder, and NICIEC, and ask them to explain how ignoring what the equipment manufacturer said was consistent with "good workmanship", and ask them how the sockets being placed where they are makes them accessible as required by 526.3 (or 526-04 as was in the previous edition of the Wiring Regulations).

Check which version they worked to (it'll be on the EIC) and make sure you quote the right regulations in the right format. '-' separates the numbers in BS 7671:2001 (the 16th Edition), and '.' in :2008 (the 17th).

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I believe their bizarre interpretation of 'suitably placed for ready operation' means anywhere in the building.

So what would you consider a non-bizarre location to be for a device to isolate a final circuit?

This guy has got a real and specific problem to sort out, and he is not going to be helped by you banging on in your typical nonsensical way about what is needed where for isolation.

 

[bernardgreen]

“The NICEIC state that isolators above worktops which isolate sockets below that appliances are plugged in to, such as washing machines, dryers, fridges, etc, are not required. They have now been installed for maintenance purposes only which is a preference rather than a regulation.

However this is not to be confused with a cooker switch which is required to be within a certain distance from the appliance, visible and not obstructed.

You could try asking the NICEIC why it is necessary ( in their opinion ) to be able to isolate a cooker quickly and easily without disrupting other supplies in the house. If they say it is to be able to remove power from an appliance that is in a dangerous state you can then ask them to assure you that washing machines do not become dangerous enough to require quick and easy isolation without removing power from the rest of the kitchen. Would they accept that a defective washing machine means one cannot have the use of a kettle, toaster etc until the washing machine has been moved.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Suitably placed for ready operation.

OK - so where do you think that a device to isolate a final circuit should be placed so that it is suitably placed for ready operation?

I'm not banging on about anything, I'm quoting two regs that are applicable to his problem.

Really?

131.10 Disconnecting devices shall be provided so as to permit switching and/or isolation of the electrical installation, circuits or individual items of equipment as required for operation, inspection, fault detection, testing, maintenance and repair.

Well they have complied with that, according to you, because 537-02-10 (as was, which is in the version they probably worked to) and Table 53.2 in the current version both allow a plug & socket to be used for isolation and functional switching.

And you do say that the sockets are accessible ¹, so no problem.

There you have it, TheSalad - if you believe holmslaw ² what they did was OK.

131.14 Effective means, suitably placed for ready operation, shall be provided so that all voltage may be cut off from every installation, from every circuit thereof and from all equipment, as may be necessary to prevent or remove danger.

And they've done that too, as they've provided a CU.

Whereas you are saying;

1. Fraud has been committed, are you suggesting he reports this to the police.

He could try, but probably wouldn't get very far. But if someone falsifies documentation describing something he is selling then it is fraud.

2. That the sockets are inaccessible, they are not.

¹ Really?

So here you say that a switch in a cupboard does not qualify as "accessible", but in this topic you say that a socket behind a built-in appliance is accessible?

Then we have this:

Need for accessible isolator switches for sockets behind fixed/heavy appliances.

why would you say that if you thought that sockets behind fixed/heavy appliances were accessible, given that a socket is acceptable as a means of isolation?


Then we have this (with my emphasis):

Check where the sockets are located in the cupboard, if they are behind the appliances ie inaccessable, then you "comply".

But in this topic you say that a socket behind a built-in appliance is accessible?



² TheSalad - I suggest you read through some of these:

//search.diynot.com/forum_sear...y&author=holmslaw&search=Search+Forum&stype=0

before deciding whether to believe that holmslaw is being helpful, or whether he's not.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Taylortwocities]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was'nt very clear in my first post. What I was trying to say was the only viable argument is that the builder has not followed manufacturers instructions.

No - there's more than that.

There are a number of regs that are clearly writteh but deliberately misinterpreted by bodies like the NICEIC.

Such as the clearly written regulations on good workmanship and accessibility of screwed joints.

Both of which the builder contravened, and then said he hadn't on the EIC, which was either a lie, or evidence of incompetence.

 

[securespark]

That's not a dummy, it's LaLa.

 

[securespark]

Oh, and it's not a pram, it's a pushchair.

 

[ELZ4742]

followed by po, if im not mistaken...