On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:19:55 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
09:43:32 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Espen Koht remarked:
That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

The museum might, but not every tradesman I suspect.

But we've got agreement that it's not PL, which is the main thing.

Actually you haven't got agreement, particularly from my broker.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:00:36 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:54:23 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Fill in the questionnaire and Hiscox recommends:

Main Risks:

You make a mistake - Professional Indemnity

As in fail to fulfill the contract.

Unless it's negligence (in the legal sense) you wouldn't be able to
claim. If you simply failed to turn up, that's something to be handled
by a normal contract dispute.

Injury to Visitors - Public liability
Damage or loss of office equipment - Office insurance
Injury to you or staff - Personal accident

Other risks to consider:

Legal costs - Legal expenses
Hackers and Viruses - E-risks
Business disruption - Business Interruption

To suggest the "Public Liability" insurance more than scratches the
surface of what's required, is frankly very poor advice.

That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

Perhaps they don't offer that?

You can ask them, every other insurance policy I've had does.

In message , at 12:24:37 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Injury to Visitors - Public liability
Damage or loss of office equipment - Office insurance
Injury to you or staff - Personal accident

Other risks to consider:

Legal costs - Legal expenses
Hackers and Viruses - E-risks
Business disruption - Business Interruption

To suggest the "Public Liability" insurance more than scratches the
surface of what's required, is frankly very poor advice.

That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

Perhaps they don't offer that?

You can ask them, every other insurance policy I've had does.

Every other *what* policy? It's not covered in a mobile phone theft
policy, for example.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:23:23 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

The museum might, but not every tradesman I suspect.

But we've got agreement that it's not PL, which is the main thing.

Actually you haven't got agreement, particularly from my broker.

Any ideas why he's the odd one out?
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:45:37 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:23:23 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI
presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

The museum might, but not every tradesman I suspect.

But we've got agreement that it's not PL, which is the main thing.

Actually you haven't got agreement, particularly from my broker.

Any ideas why he's the odd one out?

He's not, you seem to be. Plus he does actually do this & has never sold a
PLI insurance that include damage.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:44:19 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:24:37 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
Injury to Visitors - Public liability
Damage or loss of office equipment - Office insurance
Injury to you or staff - Personal accident

Other risks to consider:

Legal costs - Legal expenses
Hackers and Viruses - E-risks
Business disruption - Business Interruption

To suggest the "Public Liability" insurance more than scratches the
surface of what's required, is frankly very poor advice.

That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

Perhaps they don't offer that?

You can ask them, every other insurance policy I've had does.

Every other *what* policy? It's not covered in a mobile phone theft
policy, for example.

Every other Public Liability Insurance Policy. At no point have we been
discussing mobile phone theft insurance. Where have you got a policy from
that excludes damage (never mind why one would take out such a policy)?

In message , at 12:52:29 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

Perhaps they don't offer that?

You can ask them, every other insurance policy I've had does.

Every other *what* policy? It's not covered in a mobile phone theft
policy, for example.

Every other Public Liability Insurance Policy. At no point have we been
discussing mobile phone theft insurance. Where have you got a policy
from that excludes damage (never mind why one would take out such a
policy)?

I'm sure you'll find that the policies cover damaging the *public's*
property, but not your clients'. That's the issue we are debating.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:49:57 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI
presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

The museum might, but not every tradesman I suspect.

But we've got agreement that it's not PL, which is the main thing.

Actually you haven't got agreement, particularly from my broker.

Any ideas why he's the odd one out?

He's not, you seem to be. Plus he does actually do this & has never
sold a PLI insurance that include damage.

uh? He's never sold one that did include damage??

FAOD, I've been arguing that such policies *don't* cover damage to your
clients' property, because they aren't the public.

It should cover damage to the public's property, no doubt with various
exclusions and excesses.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:54:55 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:52:29 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
That list doesn't mention damaging other peoples property.

Perhaps they don't offer that?

You can ask them, every other insurance policy I've had does.

Every other *what* policy? It's not covered in a mobile phone theft
policy, for example.

Every other Public Liability Insurance Policy. At no point have we been
discussing mobile phone theft insurance. Where have you got a policy
from that excludes damage (never mind why one would take out such a
policy)?

I'm sure you'll find that the policies cover damaging the *public's*
property, but not your clients'. That's the issue we are debating.

You're claiming they're the norm, but you've yet to find a single one with
that exclusion.

In message , at 14:07:27 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
I'm sure you'll find that the policies cover damaging the *public's*
property, but not your clients'. That's the issue we are debating.

You're claiming they're the norm, but you've yet to find a single one
with that exclusion.

I haven't even looked for one, because that would be like looking for a
mobile phone theft policy with coverage for missed flights.

What you need to do is find one which *does* include it.

--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:58:08 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:49:57 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
That's right, so dropping a hammer on a vase at the museum that
contracted you to wire up some extra spotlights won't be covered,
because neither the museum nor the vase are "the public".

It won't be covered by the PLI, but someone asking for a PLI
presumably
does in the back of already having insurance to cover first-order
accidents like the one you describe.

The museum might, but not every tradesman I suspect.

But we've got agreement that it's not PL, which is the main thing.

Actually you haven't got agreement, particularly from my broker.

Any ideas why he's the odd one out?

He's not, you seem to be. Plus he does actually do this & has never
sold a PLI insurance that include damage.

uh? He's never sold one that did include damage??

FAOD, I've been arguing that such policies *don't* cover damage to your
clients' property, because they aren't the public.

It should cover damage to the public's property, no doubt with various
exclusions and excesses.

Sorry, didn't include damage, including to the clients property, equally
he's quite a good broker, so he'd probably not have bothered.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:11:31 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 14:07:27 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
I'm sure you'll find that the policies cover damaging the *public's*
property, but not your clients'. That's the issue we are debating.

You're claiming they're the norm, but you've yet to find a single one
with that exclusion.

I haven't even looked for one, because that would be like looking for a
mobile phone theft policy with coverage for missed flights.

What you need to do is find one which *does* include it.


Well AXA tradesmans incudes it, you've already had the link to that.

Duncan Wood wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:11:31 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 14:07:27 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
I'm sure you'll find that the policies cover damaging the *public's*
property, but not your clients'. That's the issue we are debating.

You're claiming they're the norm, but you've yet to find a single one
with that exclusion.

I haven't even looked for one, because that would be like looking for a
mobile phone theft policy with coverage for missed flights.

What you need to do is find one which *does* include it.


Well AXA tradesmans incudes it, you've already had the link to that.

Dont bother replying to the dork any more, he can never admit he may
have got something wrong, he'll be googling for hours now to find a
policy that excludes damage to a customers house.
That the vast majority do, will not be enough, he is so pedantic that
he'll be reading policies for the next week to find one that fits his
idea of what it should contain.

As an aside, my mate is high up in Hiscox Insurance, I asked him last
year if he could supply my PL and PI Insurance, he said no way could
they compete on cost, and their cover is no good for a small trader -
they are set to supply professionals (non-manual workers) and large
Companies, so finding one of their policies with a damage limitation is
not going to be that difficult, as it is not the market they are aiming
for.

Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

In message , at 15:21:11 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
What you need to do is find one which *does* include it.

Well AXA tradesmans incudes it, you've already had the link to that.

But that's a specific tradesman policy, not a generic "Public Liability"
one.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:55:10 on
Thu, 7 Jun 2012, A.Lee remarked:
Well AXA tradesmans incudes it, you've already had the link to that.

Dont bother replying to the dork any more, he can never admit he may
have got something wrong, he'll be googling for hours now to find a
policy that excludes damage to a customers house.

Personal abuse. Excellent.

ps. No need to be Googling Tradesmens policies to look at exclusions,
I've already pointed out that I'm talking about generic Public Liability
ones, not specialised Tradesmans policies.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:58:46 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 15:21:11 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
What you need to do is find one which *does* include it.

Well AXA tradesmans incudes it, you've already had the link to that.

But that's a specific tradesman policy, not a generic "Public Liability"
one.

Apart from that being a generic policy that covers all trades they then a
specific one for people who don't want to be called tradesman, the policy
for professionals
"Awards of damages cover
We will pay the amount of damages
for which you, or any of the additional
persons insured, are liable at law and
claim costs in respect of accidental
1 bodily injury to any person
2 loss of or damage to material property
3 obstruction, trespass, nuisance or
interference with any right of way, air,
light or water
4 wrongful arrest, detention,
imprisonment or eviction of any
person or invasion of the right of
privacy
occurring during the period of insurance
in connection with the business."

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:58:46 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 15:21:11 on Thu, 7
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
What you need to do is find one which *does* include it.

Well AXA tradesmans incudes it, you've already had the link to that.

But that's a specific tradesman policy, not a generic "Public Liability"
one.

Find a Public Liability one with the exclusion then. My broker was unaware
of any yesterday when I renewed my travel insurance.

In message , at 11:40:50 on Fri, 8
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
But that's a specific tradesman policy, not a generic "Public
Liability" one.

Find a Public Liability one with the exclusion then. My broker was
unaware of any yesterday when I renewed my travel insurance.

Apparently hunting such a thing with Google is regarded as a sign of
weakness. As a middle course, how about this exclusion in the AXA
policies you've mentioned previously:

"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract talks
about doing some works and making good, anything you broke (even
accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

--
Roland Perry

On Jun 3, 9:05*am, charles wrote:
In article , H. Neary

wrote:

[Snip]

A visual inspection finds virtually everything.

That depends on how thorough you are. *Do you open the plug top and check
the terminals?

A DMM will find the earth faults and insulation problems, the supply
breaker you plug into isn't too bad for leakage caused by none linear
conductors.
A PAT tester would possibly find a few problems that the DMM wouldn't,
but given a protected supply with an RCCD there is no risk.

A DMM does not provide 500v. You need that to check insulation.

I don;t think you can on all equipment, it's OK on leads but putting
500V into a lot of electronic
and scientific equipment isn't a good idea, particually computers or
so I was told.


That's
what used to come from an old fashioned "Megger". It's now part of a PAT
tester.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Jun 3, 11:05*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

...









In message , Rod Speed
writes

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , charles
writes
In article , H. Neary
wrote:

[Snip]

A visual inspection finds virtually everything.

That depends on how thorough you are. *Do you open the plug top and
check
the terminals?

I do open every plug and check the terminals, even on new, out of the
box, *equipment, which a lot of places accept as OK because it is new.

Fuses are normally correct.
The number I find that have not been tightened fully is low.
But there are a lot that have the wires incorrectly cut to length so
that in the event of the cable grip failing they will pull out in the
wrong *order. Frequently they are all cut to the same length which can
give the *effect of them pulling loose in the order of *E *N * L which
is totally *"A bout T"

Makes a lot more sense to not have fused plug tops so you
can use molded plug tops instead and just check that they
are wired correctly if you are that paranoid.
Where does paranoia come into it?

I don't believe that the percentage of molded cables that
don't have the correct wires on the correct plug pins is very
high at all with new cables.

True for new cables only. That;'s why new equipment doen;t need PAT
testing it's the assumption.
Anyone see all those dangerous toys on Fake Britain that have the CE
logo.




I certainly don't bother to measure them all before using one.

The user shouldn't need to that's why a compendent person should
inspect them.


We are talking about PAT and what needs to be checked.

I was actually talking about what makes sense instead.

Makes sense to who, the user, the inspector, the business or the
insurance company.


The correct assembly and safety of the plug is part of this.

Sure, but I'm not that anal and I certainly don't
bother to PAT test everything in my home.

It's not needed in teh home, althpough maybe it should be.


I doubt to many others in here do either.

Well I understand that it's a wise move to check electrical things for
safety.


Although I would agree that moulded plugs are a lot safer in so far as
they reduce the mistakes that "people" can make.

And last a lot longer too.

I also buy them cheaper than it cost some to PAT test them.


Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.

And I was saying that it makes more sense to not have fused plug tops at
all.

Why ?
Not every piece of equipment needs a 13 amp fuse .
In fact most of ours are 3 or 5 amps.


None of the rest of the world that matters does.

really ?

On Jun 3, 11:18*am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * "Brian Gaff" writes:

* * * * And please do not forget any trailing sockets and adaptors. also it
will
save you if you make sure no mains plugs are of the non shrouded pin types
first as these just get cut off as illegal it seems.
*The two way adaptor we used for over ten years suddenly became illegal this
yeear and now we have a trailing socket with wires for people to break their
necks over instead!

Unshrouded pins are not illegal, and not directly a cause for PAT
failure. They would indicate a plug which is 40 or more years old,
and that might well have other things wrong with it, just from wear
and tear.

The one case where they are illegal is on any appliance being sold
(even in a car boot sale), so if the PAT test was specifically for
verifying something was safe to sell, then that would cause a failure.

Of course, an organisation arranging PAT testing for itself can lay
down any additional rules they want, including a ban on unshrouded
pins.

yes we do that here at universoty we also won;t allow those 2 pin
adapters to be used.
Typically they are used with laptops amd have been know to trip our
MCBs.
We also have a rle regrading not connecting two 'appliences' to the
same plug
but we've pretty much ignored that 'ruling'
But then again these 'rules' are made by those that have little
knowledge
of the subject.




--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Jun 3, 10:58*am, H. Neary wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:32:11 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"

wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:57:04 +0100, Bill wrote:

Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.

And still have to be checked that the L pin is connected to the L of
the equipment etc. It's not unknown for moulded leads to be "cross
wired".

Interesting!

Worms and tin comes to mind. An IEC lead is simple enough to check for
the appropriate connections, but what about the appliance it connects
to?

How would you know for instance if the kettle wiring to the element
was correct without stripping the kettle down or risking life & limb
and switching on?

That's what the little "passed elec test" sticker that's on the
kettle is meant to indicate. :-)
The lead/cable should have it''s own sticker, which means lots of
things may need two PAT tests not one.


HN

On Jun 3, 10:25*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
charles wrote

* Rod Speed wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Bill wrote
Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.
And still have to be checked that the L pin is
connected to the L of the equipment etc. It's not
unknown for moulded leads to be "cross wired".
And only the most anal do a full PAT test on everything
they buy when the RCD will trip if its dangerous.
Not if the earth wire doesn't connect to
the metalwork of the item in question.

There isnt any metalwork on most we buy now.

Not sure that's true but I guess it depends on what you buy.
I know ny iPad has a metal back, and my ipods.
My aluminiumn iMac too. Even plastic kettles have a metal element
(how do they make kettles for under a fiver)




Most of its double insulated so its just not worth
doing a full PAT test of everything you buy.

It's not worth the average consumer PAT testing anything as anything
brought new should be safe.
As defined by the CE logo... which of course can be faked
Unless you choose to buy dodgey gear from car boot sales.


Or even of everything that isnt double insulated either.

That's why we have RCDs.
you may have RCDs, but a great many premises do not.

Anyone who is that anal about doing a full PAT test
of everything they buy should do tho, because even
a full PAT test every year and of everything they buy
wont protect them as well as an RCD does.

PAT testing isnl;t meant to protect you any more than a MOT is.
I don;t know anyone who thinks a MOT protects them from having an
accident,
and in case you're wondering insurance doesnlt protect you either...
maybe the equivalant of an air bag is what you're thinking of, but I
don;t think they exist
for electrical faults, that;s what the fuse is for I guess.



My local authority did bring in a requirement for licenced premises
to have RCDs "on stage lighting circuits" over 20 years ago. *Of
course, they meant "stage power outlets" - but got it wrong.

And anyone with a clue does what makes sense, not what any authority
requires.

WRONG, you do what you need to to do the job effectively and
efficintly.
I let my PAT tester throw away two of my 24V soldering irons because
he said they failed the test,
but I know nothing under 50V needs PAT testing, I couldn;t care less I
just replaced them.

In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:05 am, charles wrote:
In article , H. Neary

wrote:

[Snip]

A visual inspection finds virtually everything.

That depends on how thorough you are. Do you open the plug top and
check the terminals?

A DMM will find the earth faults and insulation problems, the supply
breaker you plug into isn't too bad for leakage caused by none linear
conductors.
A PAT tester would possibly find a few problems that the DMM wouldn't,
but given a protected supply with an RCCD there is no risk.

A DMM does not provide 500v. You need that to check insulation.

I don;t think you can on all equipment, it's OK on leads but putting
500V into a lot of electronic
and scientific equipment isn't a good idea, particually computers or
so I was told.

agreed. 240v is usual for them. but again you don't get that from a DMM.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Jun 3, 10:33*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Bill wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Bill wrote
Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.
And still have to be checked that the L pin is *connected to the L of he
equipment etc. It's not *unknown for moulded leads to be "cross wired".
And only the most anal do a full PAT test on everything
they buy when the RCD will trip if its dangerous.
That's why we have RCDs.
remember that the OP was asking in relation to commercial activities and
not domestic.

And I chose to move on to discussing the downsides with
fused plug tops instead of modern molded fuseless plug tops.

If you want to risk your life that is fair enough,

I don't risk my life when I don't do a full PAT test of everything
I buy, because I know that other things like the RCD will protect
me in the unlikely event that the manufacturer has ****ed up.

if you are not capable of realising the dangers then fair enough.

That's dishonest.

But why keep putting down, insulting *and belittling people

Everyone can see for themselves that there is nothing of that in the
quoting.

that are trying to have a serious discussion about a serious subject?

I chose to point out the real downside of fused plug tops.

They are much easier to **** up than modern unfused molded plug tops.

I';ve not seen these in use, I know of moulded ones but they are still
fused
and you get at those fuses via a screwdriver but you don;t have to
remove a top
just a little bit of plastic between the L & N pins .

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:24:43 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:40:50 on Fri, 8
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
But that's a specific tradesman policy, not a generic "Public
Liability" one.

Find a Public Liability one with the exclusion then. My broker was
unaware of any yesterday when I renewed my travel insurance.

Apparently hunting such a thing with Google is regarded as a sign of
weakness. As a middle course, how about this exclusion in the AXA
policies you've mentioned previously:

"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract talks
about doing some works and making good, anything you broke (even
accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.


That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

On Jun 4, 7:18*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Rod Speed" considered Mon, 4 Jun 2012
13:54:52 +1000 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .
"Rod Speed" considered Mon, 4 Jun 2012
07:06:02 +1000 the perfect time to commit some cobblers to Usenet:

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" considered Sun, 3 Jun 2012
20:05:23 +1000 the perfect time to write:

"Bill" wrote in message
. ..
In message , Rod Speed
writes

"Bill" wrote in message
. ..
In message , charles
writes
In article , H. Neary
wrote:

[Snip]

A visual inspection finds virtually everything.

That depends on how thorough you are. *Do you open the plug top and
check
the terminals?

I do open every plug and check the terminals, even on new, out of
the
box, *equipment, which a lot of places accept as OK because it is
new.

Fuses are normally correct.
The number I find that have not been tightened fully is low.
But there are a lot that have the wires incorrectly cut to length so
that in the event of the cable grip failing they will pull out in
the
wrong *order. Frequently they are all cut to the same length which
can
give the *effect of them pulling loose in the order of *E *N * L
which
is totally *"A bout T"

Makes a lot more sense to not have fused plug tops so you
can use molded plug tops instead and just check that they
are wired correctly if you are that paranoid.

Where does paranoia come into it?

I don't believe that the percentage of molded cables that
don't have the correct wires on the correct plug pins is very
high at all with new cables.

I certainly don't bother to measure them all before using one.

We are talking about PAT and what needs to be checked.

I was actually talking about what makes sense instead.

The correct assembly and safety of the plug is part of this.

Sure, but I'm not that anal and I certainly don't
bother to PAT test everything in my home.

I doubt to many others in here do either.

Although I would agree that moulded plugs are a lot safer in so far as
they reduce the mistakes that "people" can make.

And last a lot longer too.

Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.

And I was saying that it makes more sense to not have fused plug tops at
all.

None of the rest of the world that matters does.

So we should descent to the lowest standards?

Nope, you should move to the most viable
standard, *plug tops that arent fused.

Why throw away the capability of a standard fuse fitment?

Essentially because the fuse adds nothing useful *now.

You've never had a fuse blow?
OH no, of course you haven't - you'd rather bypass them so that you
melt a cable instead.

Now you've done it, he thought the fuse was rated to protect the user
rather than the cable.



Almost any design of plug can be ****ed up at that level.

Nope, molded plugs cant.

Yes they can - examples abound.
Seehttp://www.bs1363.org.uk/for just a few examples.

I've had to throw a few a couple were where a soldrering iron had been
rested on them, another
the Earth pin had broken off, if this was un-moulded I could have
replaced the pin.



you need some evidence.

If the british regulator authoritys believe that fused plugs
produce a lower electrical fatality rate or a lower rate of fires,
they need to provide evidence that the extra cost has some

It was in response to the rate of electrical fires and shocks that the
standard was developed.

Stupidity still exists and if you have none moulded plugs and stupid
people...

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...lty_plugs.html

I'm not sure if this level of stupidity could have been achieved with
moulded plugs.
PAT testing would have shown this up but hardly neccessary I'd have
thought...

whisky-dave wrote:

maybe the equivalant of an air bag is what you're thinking of,

Gerroff you were chatting to Rod Speed he doesn't do thought.

but I
don;t think they exist
for electrical faults, that;s what the fuse is for I guess.

I'd say the RCD is the airbag.

On 08/06/2012 15:14, whisky-dave wrote:

WRONG, you do what you need to to do the job effectively and
efficintly.
I let my PAT tester throw away two of my 24V soldering irons because
he said they failed the test,
but I know nothing under 50V needs PAT testing, I couldn;t care less I
just replaced them.

Were they the sort of soldering iron with a separate power adaptor? If
so, the power supplies certainly had to be tested even if the irons
themselves didn't because the power supplies plug into the mains.

If you then have to throw away the power supply you'd probably have to
pay as much for a replacement PSU as for simply buying a whole new
replacement kit.

On the other hand, if you own something like an electronic piano which
has a separate (50V) PSU you're not going to throw the keyboard away if
the PSU fails PAT!

Michael

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill wrote
charles wrote
H. Neary wrote:

A visual inspection finds virtually everything.

That depends on how thorough you are. Do
you open the plug top and check the terminals?

I do open every plug and check the terminals, even on new, out of the
box, equipment, which a lot of places accept as OK because it is new.

Fuses are normally correct.
The number I find that have not been tightened fully is low.
But there are a lot that have the wires incorrectly cut to length so
that in the event of the cable grip failing they will pull out in the
wrong order. Frequently they are all cut to the same length which can
give the effect of them pulling loose in the order of E N L which
is totally "A bout T"

Makes a lot more sense to not have fused plug tops so you
can use molded plug tops instead and just check that they
are wired correctly if you are that paranoid.

Where does paranoia come into it?

I don't believe that the percentage of molded cables that
don't have the correct wires on the correct plug pins is very
high at all with new cables.

True for new cables only. That;'s why new equipment
doen;t need PAT testing it's the assumption.

Just as true with any cable that has the plug molded on each end.

It must have been a new cable once.

Anyone see all those dangerous toys on Fake Britain that have the CE logo.

I certainly don't bother to measure them all before using one.

The user shouldn't need to that's why a compendent person should inspect
them.

I don't bother to get one of those to inspect everything
I buy new before I use it. And I inspect it myself with a
used one for obvious damage and rely on the other
protective devices like the RCD with wiring stupiditys.

We are talking about PAT and what needs to be checked.

I was actually talking about what makes sense instead.

Makes sense to who, the user, the inspector,
the business or the insurance company.

The user or the business.

The correct assembly and safety of the plug is part of this.

Sure, but I'm not that anal and I certainly don't
bother to PAT test everything in my home.

It's not needed in teh home, althpough maybe it should be.

No it should not.

I doubt to many others in here do either.

Well I understand that it's a wise move to check electrical things for
safety.

I doubt many in here do that with everything
they buy or borrow even when its bought used
or when they show up at someone's place to
help them with something and use whats there.

I cant say I have ever come across someone that anal.

Although I would agree that moulded plugs are a lot safer
in so far as they reduce the mistakes that "people" can make.

And last a lot longer too.

I also buy them cheaper than it cost some to PAT test them.

And so does everyone else buying price wise.

Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.

And I was saying that it makes more
sense to not have fused plug tops at all.

Why ?

Essentially because the rest of the
world has proved that they work fine.

Not every piece of equipment needs a 13 amp fuse .
In fact most of ours are 3 or 5 amps.

Most appliances that need a fuse have one or at least a fusable link.

None of the rest of the world that matters does.

really ?

Yep.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Bill wrote

Moulded plugs still have to have fuses fitted.
And still have to be checked that the L pin is
connected to the L of the equipment etc. It's not
unknown for moulded leads to be "cross wired".

And only the most anal do a full PAT test on everything
they buy when the RCD will trip if its dangerous.

Not if the earth wire doesn't connect to
the metalwork of the item in question.

There isnt any metalwork on most we buy now.

Not sure that's true but I guess it depends on what you buy.

Corse it does.

I know ny iPad has a metal back, and my ipods.

That's a tiny subset of what most buy.

I used the word most for a reason.

My aluminiumn iMac too.

An even smaller subset of what most buy.

Even plastic kettles have a metal element

That's not metalwork that you touch when using it.

(how do they make kettles for under a fiver)

I find keyboards even more surprising for even cheaper.

Most of its double insulated so its just not worth
doing a full PAT test of everything you buy.

It's not worth the average consumer PAT testing
anything as anything brought new should be safe.

Its not worth the average consumer PAT testing
all portable appliances every year either.

As defined by the CE logo... which of course can be faked
Unless you choose to buy dodgey gear from car boot sales.

I don't bother to PAT test everything I buy from those either.

The most I ever do is check for obvious damage,
but I do that before I buy something anyway.

Or even of everything that isnt double insulated either.

That's why we have RCDs.

you may have RCDs, but a great many premises do not.

Anyone who is that anal about doing a full PAT test
of everything they buy should do tho, because even
a full PAT test every year and of everything they buy
wont protect them as well as an RCD does.

PAT testing isnl;t meant to protect you any more than a MOT is.
I don;t know anyone who thinks a MOT protects them from having an
accident, and in case you're wondering insurance doesnlt protect you
either... maybe the equivalant of an air bag is what you're thinking of,

Nope.

but I don;t think they exist for electrical faults,

RCDs and fuses do.

that;s what the fuse is for I guess.

Its one of the things a fuse is for.

My local authority did bring in a requirement for licenced premises
to have RCDs "on stage lighting circuits" over 20 years ago. Of
course, they meant "stage power outlets" - but got it wrong.

And anyone with a clue does what makes
sense, not what any authority requires.

WRONG,

RIGHT,

you do what you need to to do the job effectively and efficintly.

I don't. I do what makes sense.

I let my PAT tester throw away two of my 24V
soldering irons because he said they failed the test,

I wouldn't be that stupid. I'd only stop using
them if they really were a safety or fire risk etc.

but I know nothing under 50V needs PAT testing,
I couldn;t care less I just replaced them.

I wouldn't do that.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:18:33 +0100, charles wrote:

I don;t think you can on all equipment, it's OK on leads but
putting
500V into a lot of electronic and scientific equipment isn't a
good
idea, particually computers or so I was told.

agreed. 240v is usual for them. but again you don't get that from a DMM.

230v nominal RMS. But the tolerance allows up to 253v RMS that's a
peak of 357v. I'd say anything that can't tolerate 500v won't last
through the first nearby thunderstorm.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , at 15:45:19 on Fri, 8
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract talks
about doing some works and making good, anything you broke (even
accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

Exactly. Even if the nature of the contract dispute was because you
accidentally broke something (and didn't fix it).
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:58:35 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 15:45:19 on Fri, 8
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract talks
about doing some works and making good, anything you broke (even
accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

Exactly. Even if the nature of the contract dispute was because you
accidentally broke something (and didn't fix it).

No, that excludes making good where it's included in the contract, it
clearly states the specific issue.

In message , at 09:12:11 on Mon, 11
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract
talks about doing some works and making good, anything you broke
(even accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

Exactly. Even if the nature of the contract dispute was because you
accidentally broke something (and didn't fix it).

No, that excludes making good where it's included in the contract, it
clearly states the specific issue.

Does this mean there's an incentive on builders to resist "making good"
clauses in the contract. Because in the absence of one, you make it
sound like the insurance company will pay them to make good.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:36:50 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:12:11 on Mon, 11
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract
talks about doing some works and making good, anything you broke
(even accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

Exactly. Even if the nature of the contract dispute was because you
accidentally broke something (and didn't fix it).

No, that excludes making good where it's included in the contract, it
clearly states the specific issue.

Does this mean there's an incentive on builders to resist "making good"
clauses in the contract. Because in the absence of one, you make it
sound like the insurance company will pay them to make good.

I've no idea, that would seem like a quick route to not being covered &
vastly increased premiums. But nobody other than you has ever suggested
that making good would be covered, that would seem to be a normal
contractural liability to a builder so hardly fits with something many
people would expect to be covered.

In message , at 09:51:41 on Mon, 11
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract
talks about doing some works and making good, anything you broke
(even accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

Exactly. Even if the nature of the contract dispute was because you
accidentally broke something (and didn't fix it).

No, that excludes making good where it's included in the contract,
it clearly states the specific issue.

Does this mean there's an incentive on builders to resist "making
good" clauses in the contract. Because in the absence of one, you
make it sound like the insurance company will pay them to make good.

I've no idea, that would seem like a quick route to not being covered &
vastly increased premiums. But nobody other than you has ever suggested
that making good would be covered, that would seem to be a normal
contractural liability to a builder so hardly fits with something many
people would expect to be covered.

It all depends what you mean by "making good". I'm having a builder
knock down a kitchen wall next month. Maybe he'll accidentally crack
some nearby wall tiles in the process. Is replacing those "making good"
or "accidental damage"?

(A theoretical question, because we will later be removing said tiles,
but perhaps we'd have wanted to keep them).
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:30:33 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:51:41 on Mon, 11
Jun 2012, Duncan Wood remarked:
"We will not cover contractual liability", so if your contract
talks about doing some works and making good, anything you broke
(even accidentally) that has to be fixed won't be covered.

That's failure to fulfill your contract, not accidental damage.

Exactly. Even if the nature of the contract dispute was because you
accidentally broke something (and didn't fix it).

No, that excludes making good where it's included in the contract,
it clearly states the specific issue.

Does this mean there's an incentive on builders to resist "making
good" clauses in the contract. Because in the absence of one, you
make it sound like the insurance company will pay them to make good.

I've no idea, that would seem like a quick route to not being covered &
vastly increased premiums. But nobody other than you has ever suggested
that making good would be covered, that would seem to be a normal
contractural liability to a builder so hardly fits with something many
people would expect to be covered.

It all depends what you mean by "making good". I'm having a builder
knock down a kitchen wall next month. Maybe he'll accidentally crack
some nearby wall tiles in the process. Is replacing those "making good"
or "accidental damage"?

(A theoretical question, because we will later be removing said tiles,
but perhaps we'd have wanted to keep them).

No idea, I doubt he'd claim anyway, but maybe you should ask him if you
think such things are an issue. If he breaks your front window or drops
the rubble on your car then it's easy, although he'd probably still pay
himself.