Cooker repair certification

[john4703]

A friend has asked me if I will replace a faulty element in her electric oven. I am sure I can do it, but I am unsure what regulations I need to follow.

If I replace an element, do I need to test the whole cooker and issue any sort of certificate? I don’t have the test gear to do this.

I don’t want to do a repair and then find that I am legally responsible for anything.

Any advice is welcome.

 

[ericmark]

In service inspection of in service electrical equipment, often called PAT testing, in the main consists of 4 tests.
1) Does it work.
2) Is the insulation good enough.
3) Is the earth connected.
4) Are there any visible problems.
We should use a 250 or 500 volts tester for the insulation, and a 250 mA tester for the earth connection, but if insulation faulty it will trip the RCD, and although we should not use a standard multimeter, even a 12 volt light bulb and battery could test earth is connected.

As long as there is RCD protection, doing something which is likely to cause death, and get HSE involved is extremely low. So personally, I would not worry, and I would just do it. However, clearly there are risks, and to say no problem go ahead would be wrong.

 

[RandomGrinch]

Just to note...

1) Does it work.
2) Is the insulation good enough.
3) Is the earth connected.
4) Are there any visible problems.

Yes, but your test priorities are backwards - a visual inspection should be first - we want to make sure an appliance is safe to touch before we plug it into a tester and subject it to any tests.
And 'Does it work', is arguably not a requirement of a PAT - an item may be inoperable, but is perfectly electrically safe and could pass a PAT.
Or an appliance (i.e. a class 4 laser), may be too dangerous for an inexperienced tester to carry out a functional test on.

and a 250 mA tester for the earth connection,

The test current used for the test relates to the in-service power rating.
In the case of an oven, the earth bond test would likely be 25A.

So personally, I would not worry, and I would just do it. However, clearly there are risks, and to say no problem go ahead would be wrong.

I agree, and some of this depends on the relationship between the OP and friend, and the OPs level of confidence/competence.
But ideally, the appliance should have a PAT, and this should be performed by someone experienced enough to correctly interpret the results.

 

[john4703]

Just to note...

Yes, but your test priorities are backwards - a visual inspection should be first - we want to make sure an appliance is safe to touch before we plug it into a tester and subject it to any tests.
And 'Does it work', is arguably not a requirement of a PAT - an item may be inoperable, but is perfectly electrically safe and could pass a PAT.
Or an appliance (i.e. a class 4 laser), may be too dangerous for an inexperienced tester to carry out a functional test on.

The test current used for the test relates to the in-service power rating.
In the case of an oven, the earth bond test would likely be 25A.

I agree, and some of this depends on the relationship between the OP and friend, and the OPs level of confidence/competence.
But ideally, the appliance should have a PAT, and this should be performed by someone experienced enough to correctly interpret the results.

Thanks for all that. I suspected that a PAT test would be needed and I don't have the correct equiptment. My friend lives in rented accomodation so needs to push her landlord to fix this.

 

[ericmark]

Rented changes a lot, under English law, equipment which is not portable, needs testing as part of the EICR. Portable is defined by weight and if it has wheels.

I don't agree with the way the law is written, as it does not follow the traditional split between the installation, and an appliance.

Both need testing, but down to who tests them. And also who is responsible to get it done.

I would keep well out of anything to do with rented property.

 

[old duffer]

In service inspection of in service electrical equipment, often called PAT testing, in the main consists of 4 tests.
1) Does it work.
2) Is the insulation good enough.
3) Is the earth connected.
4) Are there any visible problems.
We should use a 250 or 500 volts tester for the insulation, and a 250 mA tester for the earth connection, but if insulation faulty it will trip the RCD, and although we should not use a standard multimeter, even a 12 volt light bulb and battery could test earth is connected.

As long as there is RCD protection, doing something which is likely to cause death, and get HSE involved is extremely low. So personally, I would not worry, and I would just do it. However, clearly there are risks, and to say no problem go ahead would be wrong.

but its not a thing that is required. HSE don't get involved in domestic properties...all "registration bodies" are private, for profit companies that have zero regulatory powers. BC is the closest you get but they don't care and anyway, after 12 months, all BC related issues disappear

 

[Mottie]

I thought PAT testing was on for portable equipment? Isn’t that what the 'P' stands for in PAT? Is a cooker portable?

 

[RandomGrinch]

I thought PAT testing was on for portable equipment? Isn’t that what the 'P' stands for in PAT? Is a cooker portable?

'P' does stand for portable, but it doesn't necessarily mean the appliance has to be portable - it's a convenient misnomer for 'In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment'.
In my workplace - PAT means testing anything with a plug, which means testing some very un-portable appliances.
Hard wired appliances are tested by contractors along with the fixed wiring inspection.
No matter what the name is, an appliance test will be similar whether the appliance is plugged in, or hard wired (as with an oven); at the most basic, it would comprise a visual inspection, an earth-bond test and an insulation resistance test.

 

[ericmark]

I thought PAT testing was on for portable equipment? Isn’t that what the 'P' stands for in PAT? Is a cooker portable?

Portable appliance testing and to be portable either under 14 kg or on wheels, so the batching plants I worked on were portable, it may have required 14 tractor units to move them, but still portable. So, although often called PAT testing, the correct name is the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment.

All electrical stuff needs testing, but some items need a specialist to test them, be it simply as being locked, as with a vending machine, or because it involves some non-electrical danger as with a boiler. So the PAT testing is split into two, the management and the actual testing, and the exam also split. So the person keeping the records may not be the same person as the one testing.

But the installation only involves the wires, and distribution system, traditionally this includes lights, even if a bulb is technically current using equipment. And the standard form to record PAT testing is very different to the forms used to record the state of the installation, so the two are separate. At least that was the case, until the English landlord law on EICR came in.

Since the stuff with a plug can be tested with an automated machine, so can be done by the semi-skilled (instructed person) it is common for firms to have all stuff with plugs on, tested by someone different to stuff hard-wired, but the forms used for current using equipment are not the same as the form for the installation, so although the inspector may test both equipment and the installation at the same time, he will use two different forms.

This has caused a problem with the landlord law, as it requires all non-portable equipment to be tested with the EICR, but the PAT testing forms do not use codes C1, C2, C3, FI etc. And in any case, often an electrician is not authorised to remove boiler covers. There is also a problem with missing equipment, if there is no smoke alarm, there is nothing to allow that to be reported, that's down to someone trained in fire prevention not the electrician. However, where I worked the electricians would go around with the smoke generator and test the smoke alarms, but again the record was independent to the EICR.

However, there is nothing to say an electrician must do the PAT testing while doing an EICR, that is down to the building manager, he has the equipment register, and he has to ensure all equipment is on the register, and he has a certificate of newness or an inspection report for all items on the register.

Odd, but one can write out a PAT test for all in a building, the items do not need to have labels on them, normally we will use a label, mainly as then it is the user's responsibly to ensure anything he uses has been tested. What one needs to remember is the testing is not restricted to just homes, or just businesses, so the rules need to cover all. Some Universities insist all electrical equipment used in their halls of residence is tested. And where I have worked when accommodation was provided as part of the job, often certain equipment is banned, like in the cup boilers.

So as an electrical engineer, I had to decide who does what. First PAT test I had done by an electrician, once he had done the first test, and recorded what needed testing, then they were in the main retested by semi-skilled. However, the death of Emma Shaw caused a rethink on that policy, the court case that followed made it clear that we can't use semi-skilled even when all he has to do, is plug in a tester, press a button, and write down what the tester says. So for the last 20 years, we have had to use skilled people to inspect and test.

 

[RandomGrinch]

Portable appliance testing and to be portable either under 14 kg or on wheels, so the batching plants I worked on were portable, it may have required 14 tractor units to move them, but still portable

Now you are conflating PAT and the definition of portable, which is where the confusion comes in.
Within Inspection and Testing (PAT), appliances are split into categories (typically), Hand-held, Portable (<18kg), Moveable (>18kg), Stationary and IT.
Apart from having implications regarding HSE and manual handling - the benefit of these categories, is that it allows me to alter the test frequency of an appliance depending on its risk.
I.e. a hand-held class 1 drill in a high risk, workshop environment, may have a 6 month testing frequency.
Whilst a very low risk movable appliance, in an office environment, may only require a visual inspection every 2 years, and a test every 4 to 5.
Utilising these categories and an appropriate risk assessment, can drastically cut the amount of testing performed every year.

So the PAT testing is split into two, the management and the actual testing, and the exam also split. So the person keeping the records may not be the same person as the one testing.

I don't know what you mean by this, there is no requirement to split the management of PAT away from the testing.
I managed and tested, with a database of around 16'000 assets.

And the standard form to record PAT testing is very different to the forms used to record the state of the installation, so the two are separate. At least that was the case, until the English landlord law on EICR came in.

but the forms used for current using equipment are not the same as the form for the installation, so although the inspector may test both equipment and the installation at the same time, he will use two different forms.

There isn't a requirement for any 'standard' forms in PAT - we don't have any forms at all; the records from the testers are uploaded straight into the database.
There isn't even a legal requirement for any results to be recorded.

This has caused a problem with the landlord law, as it requires all non-portable equipment to be tested with the EICR, but the PAT testing forms do not use codes C1, C2, C3, FI etc.

Yes, PAT is far simpler - Pass, or Fail.

So as an electrical engineer, I had to decide who does what. First PAT test I had done by an electrician, once he had done the first test, and recorded what needed testing, then they were in the main retested by semi-skilled. However, the death of Emma Shaw caused a rethink on that policy, the court case that followed made it clear that we can't use semi-skilled even when all he has to do, is plug in a tester, press a button, and write down what the tester says. So for the last 20 years, we have had to use skilled people to inspect and test.

Again there is no requirement for PAT testers to be skilled people.
That may be your choice as an electrical engineer, but we still use semi-skilled and summer helpers to assist and then perform PA Tests under supervision, when they have demonstrated a sufficient level of competence; after all, this ain't rocket science!

To quote the HSE...

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition. However, the Regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently (ie they don't make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually).

 

[ericmark]

Again there is no requirement for PAT testers to be skilled people.

The report on the Emma Shaw trial has been taken down, the report however did result in a much deduced use of semi-skilled labour. In my opinion, if the meter says OL (overload) or anything else other than what is expected, it is no great feat to simply write down what it says, had this been done, the foreman would have been alerted there was a problem, to go into the canteen and consult other workers, and then fudge up some results is not what any manager would expect to happen. So I would have blamed the electricians mate, however the court did not blame him at all, they blamed the foreman for using semi-skilled labour.

So this is now part of case law, so we can't use semi-skilled to do inspection and testing any more. Unless you know of a case reversing this decision?

 

[RandomGrinch]

So I would have blamed the electricians mate, however the court did not blame him at all, they blamed the foreman for using semi-skilled labour.

So this is now part of case law, so we can't use semi-skilled to do inspection and testing any more. Unless you know of a case reversing this decision?

No.
They blamed the supervisor for not supervising and performing the checks he should have done.
Big difference.

The Supervisor did not supervise, he signed to say he had checked the certification of the flat together with the other 41 unseen flats. The Electrical Certificate had multiple errors, with fatal consequences. He was fined £1000 for failing to supervise, and not checking the certification, an outcome that was even more deplorable.