in article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
charles wrote:

In article . com,
Dennis@home wrote:
On 24/03/2015 08:23, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 8:22:50 AM UTC,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:58:26 AM UTC, Chris J Dixon wrote:

I was once checking an office for PAT validity dates, and noticed
an untested plug-in air freshener. We were a little unsure exactly
what could or should have been done with it.

relabel it as an air polluter? New goods don't need PAT testing
AIUI.

but if PAT testing is done in bulk every so often, better to test
now so it won't exceed its test interval later.

By why PAT anyway? You don't need to do it at all. You should train
the users to give it a visual check before use if there is any chance
of damage being dangerous leaving it every year or two is going to be
against H&S laws. I get the idea that PAT is just an excuse for
inadequate training.

You obviously don't understand PAT testing

The visual part is actually the most important part. But to check that
the metalwork of an appliance is actually earthed you need a megger or a
device disguised as one.

But in the case of the air freshener, there was no metal, apart from that
which was energised.

so, it passed the visual test. What's the problem?

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18