David Hansen
wibbled on Wednesday 03 February 2010 18:43

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:47:12 +0000 someone who may be Dave Osborne
wrote this:-

Section 20 of the Regs does not define shuttering and the word is not
indexed either, so unless someone can point to a regulation (or BS)
where shuttering is further defined, we would have to fall back on
regulation 120.3 and make the argument that interlocking is just as safe
as shuttering and may be implemented in lieu with impunity.

I would just list the sockets as an exception, something provided
for in the forms and regulations, and argue the case in court if it
came to that.




If you can show that you took sensible measures to justify an exception,
then I think you'd be on good ground:

It's a domestic premises, so shuttered sockets are normally prescribed.
The exception was made on the grounds that:
a) The socket is interlocked;
or
b) It's too high for kids to reach;
or
c) The workshop is dangerous anyway and is always kept locked.

c) Might be the most risky if either the person forgot to lock the shed or
the house was sold and the next occupier did not use the shed as a workshop,
and therefore did not keep it locked, but left the socket energised due to a
lack of understanding.

However, just arguing "Your honour, I made an exception 'cos I felt like it"
won't go down too well ;-

I would be very happy to do a) (in fact I plan to), then b) (I'll be doing
that too because it's convenient).

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.