Peter Ramm wrote:

[... big snip]

I explained my concerns to the Engineer (he was aware of my earlier
concerns). He explained that the rail was adequately bonded to earth,
as the rail was supplied by a conventional three wire cable (one of
which was earth) which terminated in a junction box. The earth from
the junction box was itself earth bonded to two independant "earthed
risers" in the hotel.

I disagreed and said that I thought that this was not sufficient and
was certainly not an in dependant earth bonding of the appliance.

He's probably right, you're probably wrong. It is perfectly in order
for an appliance like this to have the supplementary bonding connected
via the flexible supply cord. From the "junction box" you mention,
which is likely to be a fused connection unit, there should be a circuit
protective (earth) conductor going back to the point of supply (i.e. a
distribution board) and, if necessary, supplementary bonding conductors
to other accessible metalwork in the bathroom.

I asked him if the wiring of the appliance conformed to the relevant
IEEE regs.

IEE regs - aka BS 7671. Nothing to do with the IEEE!

1) What is the most appropriate group for my query?

In the UK this is as good as any, or you could try
sci.engr.electrical.compliance

2) Are my concerns justified?
Probably not.

3) Is the hotel actually breaking the law in any way?
Pass - but there's some evidence of (over enthusiastic) electrical
inspections taking place, so it looks as if there's some effort being
made to discharge their responsibilities under the Electricity at Work
Regulations.

4) To whom should I escalate?
No-one. Find something more important to worry about.

--
Andy