On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:21:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:17:55 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:43:44 on Thu, 13
Jul 2017, charles remarked:



However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything
useful.

If it includes looking up the serial number to see if it's on a recall
list, and then whether the repair has been done, that's a step in the
right direction.

Who's fault would it be if the person renting owns the appliance rather
than whoever rents the property. Also many fires are started from faulty
chargers etc... So if such a test revealed that a person has dangerous
chargers would they be taken away, would the owner have to buy new
complient ones who'd ensure this? Is it teh job of teh govenrment the
person renting or the landlord ?



Much earlier in the thread there were plausible examples given of how
in effect PAT-testing criteria would catch a lot of risky equipment
before it actually burst into flames.

In most cases it wouldn't, a visual check would be more likely to find
serious faults.

but, a visual check is part of the PAT procedure.

Doesn't matter, if I see a damaged cable or whatever I don't need to be a PAT tester to be able to say it shouldn't be used.
In fact I have about 50 or so items out in the lab which I've labled not to be used.