dodgy ebay buy

[JohnW2]

They are clearly electrically unsafe as delivered.

That particular specimen obviously was - but, as I said, that could just be a one-off issue due to inadequate tightening of the screw. That, in itself, surely cannot be taken to indicate that the CE marking is 'wrong'? In the case of anything which is legitimately CE-marked, there's always the possibility that individual products will have manufacturing or other defects.

The alleged existence of a test certificate from an organisation outside the EEA is not evidence of compliance. Who is the responsible person within the EEA? It is he or she who is responsible for the vailidity of the CE marking, and who must sign the EC Declaration of Conformity.

I don't know exactly how the system works, bureacratically but, as plugwash has said, one weak point about CE marking is that it is an essentially unpoliced (unless/until a 'complaint is made) self-certification system. I certainly see products which have been CE-marked on the basis of 'certification of compliance with relevant Directives and Standards' by a non-EU company or body. What the 'responsible person within the EU' has to do in order to satisfy themselves that the compliance is genuine, I don't know.

Anyway, that's not really what I was talking about. Everyone seems to be assuming that the product (not the particular sample, which clearly had a defect) is not compliant with the relevant Standards (hence not qualifying for legitimate CE marking) - and I was merely questioning (before people go running off to Trading Standards) whether we really know for sure that such is the case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The profile for the seller dailysource states his ( or her ) location as China.

http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/dailysources?_trksid=p2047675.l2559[/QUOTE]
OK - sorry, I didn't bother to look.

 

[stillp]

Everyone seems to be assuming that the product (not the particular sample, which clearly had a defect) is not compliant with the relevant Standards (hence not qualifying for legitimate CE marking) - and I was merely questioning (before people go running off to Trading Standards) whether we really know for sure that such is the case.

The product doesn't have to comply with any standards in order to be CE marked. The CE mark shows that a responsible person within the EEA has taken responsibility for the product's compliance with the requirements af oll the applicable EC Directives.

Yes, the system is often abused and also misunderstood. That's partly because people don't report bearches to the relevant authorities.

The faulty item should not have got throught the system - it was inadequately manufactured and checked, and/or inadequatel packed for shipping.

 

[JohnW2]

The product doesn't have to comply with any standards in order to be CE marked. The CE mark shows that a responsible person within the EEA has taken responsibility for the product's compliance with the requirements af oll the applicable EC Directives.

The certificates we are looking at claim that testing for compliance with the stated Standards has been used to demonstrate compliance with the EMC and LVD Directives. Whether that is a valid approach, and whether those two constitute 'all the applicable Directives', I don't know. Nor do I know what the 'responsible person in the EEA' is expected to do to confirm that the certificates (claiming compliance with the Directives) is correct (or whetherthey have done it).

The faulty item should not have got throught the system - it was inadequately manufactured and checked, and/or inadequatel packed for shipping.

That's obviously true of that particular faulty item. However, as I've said, I don't think that, in itself, indicates that the CE marking was 'misleading misuse'. I do think that there has been some 'jumping to (possibly, but not necessarily, correct) conclusions' going on in this discussion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Nor do I know what the 'responsible person in the EEA' is expected to do to confirm that the certificates (claiming compliance with the Directives) is correct (or whetherthey have done it).

They have to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the product is fully compliant with all the Directives., and to ensure that they can supply the Technical File to the relevant enforcing authority when required. This will include the measures (e.g. QA system) to ensure that all products produced are compliant, as well as any test results. I'm not sure what the penalties for non-compliance with the LVD are, for the Machinery Directive they include a fine of up to £25k, and imprisonment for up to 5 years. Personally, I wouldn't risk that on the basis of those certificates!
A product that has arrived in an unsafe condition due to damage is clearly unsuitable.

 

[JohnW2]

Nor do I know what the 'responsible person in the EEA' is expected to do to confirm that the certificates (claiming compliance with the Directives) is correct (or whetherthey have done it).

They have to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the product is fully compliant with all the Directives., and to ensure that they can supply the Technical File to the relevant enforcing authority when required. This will include the measures (e.g. QA system) to ensure that all products produced are compliant, as well as any test results.

That sounds very reasonable in comparison with what I've seen going on in fields I'm associated with. What I usually see is (not necessarily product-specific) audit of the systems (QC/QA etc.) of the manufacturer and any other company/organisation involved in 'testing/certification' - although, in practice, the need for that is often at least partially 'waived' by the companies/organisations concerned having fairly recently been inspected/audited by some official agency/body.

However, I return to my point. Whilst we all have our suspicions, do we actually have any concrete reason to believe that, in this case the 'person responsible in the EEA' did not do the 'whatever is necessary...'?

A product that has arrived in an unsafe condition due to damage is clearly unsuitable.

Indeed - but a defect in one specimen, in itself, presumably falls far short of indicating that the product ws incorrectly CE marked? Do you think that the relevant bodies would pursue an accusation of 'improper CE marking' on the basis of one item with what maybe just one minor fault?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Is there any indication that the earth eyelet was ever fixed the the casing ?

It is good practice to use a star washer between eyelet ring and the case to improve the reliablility of the connection. If the screw had come loose there would be some marks on case and eyelet, possible a star washer loose in the packing.

 

[JohnW2]

Is there any indication that the earth eyelet was ever fixed the the casing ?

One will obviously never know for sure. However, the lose wire/eyelet/screw are so obvious in their present state that it seems fairly unlikely that fixing it would have been overlooked.

It is good practice to use a star washer between eyelet ring and the case to improve the reliablility of the connection. If the screw had come loose there would be some marks on case and eyelet, possible a star washer loose in the packing.

True, and it's obviously not possible to tell that from the picture - but may be possible 'in person'. Furthermore, failure to include an (intended) washer (a quite possible manufacturing 'oversight') could have been a reason for it becoming detached during transit.

However, none of this necessarily represents a reason for the CE marking not being correct/appropriate. Many individual specimens of correctly CE-marked products have defects.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

FWIW, the company that has seemingly certified that the products complied with the Directives necessary to support CE marking (( here ) appears (give or take the English, albeit a lot better than my Chinese!), on the basis of its website, to be a pretty serious oganisation - which (I think!) is claiming to be accredited by numerous agencies, including a number or 'western' ones (e.g. FDA). I realis that what's on their website 'proves nothing', but it's interesting.

Kind Regards

 

[stillp]

FWIW, the company that has seemingly certified that the products complied with the Directives necessary to support CE marking (( here ) appears (give or take the English, albeit a lot better than my Chinese!), on the basis of its website, to be a pretty serious oganisation - which (I think!) is claiming to be accredited by numerous agencies, including a number or 'western' ones (e.g. FDA). I realis that what's on their website 'proves nothing', but it's interesting.

Kind Regards

Well, they are clearly trying to give the impression of a "pretty serious organisation". However, that's not the point. They are not in the EEA and are not responsible for the product, so cannot sign it's D of C. They are however purporting to be able to do so. That seems pretty fraudulent to me.
The test certificates shown are at best only the results of testing to harmonised standards. The responsible person in the EEA (if there is one) could use those in his Technical File, to support his D of C, but they cannot take the place of that D of C.

 

[stillp]

A product that has arrived in an unsafe condition due to damage is clearly unsuitable.

Indeed - but a defect in one specimen, in itself, presumably falls far short of indicating that the product ws incorrectly CE marked? Do you think that the relevant bodies would pursue an accusation of 'improper CE marking' on the basis of one item with what maybe just one minor fault?

Kind Regards, John

Well, 100% of the samples we have seen have an obvious safety-related defect. At least that warrants further investigation.

 

[JohnW2]

They are not in the EEA and are not responsible for the product, so cannot sign it's D of C. They are however purporting to be able to do so. That seems pretty fraudulent to me.
The test certificates shown are at best only the results of testing to harmonised standards. The responsible person in the EEA (if there is one) could use those in his Technical File, to support his D of C, but they cannot take the place of that D of C.

They do seem to talk about things like 'factory inspections' as well as testing. However, as I've said, I don't know the details of how this is meant to work. All I know is that I have seen many instances of CE-marked products for which, to the best of my knowledge', the 'responsible person in the EEA' has satisfied themselves enough to issue a 'D of C' on the basis of testing and auditing/inspection etc. undertaken outside of the EEA by non-EEA organisations/companies. How they 'satisfied themselves' as to the acceptability of what they were being told by those organisations/companies, I don't know - but, as I wrote earlier, audits of the company's systems and/or reliance on inspections/ audits/ accreditations by official agencies often seems to be part of that process.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

I recall from several years ago a UK manufacturer un-happy with the quality of modules being manufactured for him in China tried to arrange a surpise inspection visit to the factory. By the time the paper work for the visit was completed any mal-practise could have been covered up. He was fairly certain that the modules were no longer manufactured in the impressive factory he had been shown when setting up the contract but were put out to kitchen table sub contractors.

 

[stillp]

That's quite common Bernard. In fact it's normal practice that Western purchasers don't realist that the goods they are buying are made in several differnt factories with variable quality.
Unfortunately and unlike some other EU countries, the UK is very lax about enforcing the CE marking regulations, so many market traders and other low-cost sellers really believe that they can import anything as long as it has a CE mark.

I once contacted the importer of some Eastern products intended for a safety application. The products were clearly unsafe, so I asked to see a copy of the Declaration of Conformity. He didn't know what I was talking about, so I gave a brief explanation. Almost by return, he faxed me a document that stated "We hereby declare that all our products meet all the standards and regulations now and in the future in all countries"!
Trading Standards closed him down, but probably not for long.

 

[bernardgreen]

i have just opened up a failed mobile phone charger to see if it was repairable.

I smashed it with a hammer before putting it the scrap bin. Dangerous design with in-adequate spacial separation ( < 2mm ) between mains side and output side of the transformer which I doubt would pass a 1000 volt flash test.

No brand and the owner cannot remember where it was bought so no way to follow it up.