On 15/07/2017 10:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
As a reasonably sane landlord, I insist that I the landlord supply,
test and replace the kitchen appliances, and forbid the tenants
from bringing in their own. Unless they manage to carefully hide
them they would be noticed when I have the annual gas inspection
done.

As a matter of interest, who do you use to test the freezer and tumble
drier, etc? And what does the test consist of?


He supplies and tests it so he can be held responsible when it catches
fire and kills someone.
He will be OK as long as his insurance is good.

dennis wrote:
As a matter of interest, who do you use to test the freezer and tumble
drier, etc? And what does the test consist of?

He supplies and tests it so he can be held responsible when it catches
fire and kills someone. He will be OK as long as his insurance is good.

The manufacturer tests them. I buy them new from a reputable supplier,
and replace them every five years or so, and keep all the paperwork. My
insurance has the option of persuing the manufacturer for "non-merchantable
quality".

In message , at
16:52:56 on Sat, 15 Jul 2017, remarked:
dennis wrote:
As a matter of interest, who do you use to test the freezer and tumble
drier, etc? And what does the test consist of?

He supplies and tests it so he can be held responsible when it catches
fire and kills someone. He will be OK as long as his insurance is good.

The manufacturer tests them.

Flanders and Swann:

"We had to look outside during the interval, see if our car's all right.
It's getting a bit old, it'll have to be tested soon. You know they
started these tests for 10-year-old cars, they brought it down to six,
now five, they'll bring it down to three. There's even been some talk of
having them tested before they leave the factories."

I buy them new from a reputable supplier,
and replace them every five years or so, and keep all the paperwork. My
insurance has the option of persuing the manufacturer for "non-merchantable
quality".

--
Roland Perry

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.

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:42:18 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
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 ?

Get whatever CORGI is called this week to explain how they deal with
annual inspections of gas appliances in rented houses.

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.

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not. A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance, in the past I;ve had items that have failed this.

https://www.pattesters.co.uk/martind...SABEgJntfD_BwE

If all you need is to look just get a paair of glasses or a webcam.

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 13:29:44 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:08:44 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:17:55 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Dave's soaked braincell strikes again. Just how would a visual inspection be more likely to find serious faults than visual inspection AND electrical testing, which is what PAT is?

Just because you have no idea.




NT

In message , at
03:33:52 on Mon, 17 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:
PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not. A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance

How does that work with appliance where the earth pin is a bit of
plastic?

If all you need is to look just get a paair of glasses or a webcam.

mmm... webcams in all council flats. What could possibly go wrong?
--
Roland Perry

On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:33:55 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:42:18 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:

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

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not.

Some are.

A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance, in the past I;ve had items that have failed this.

not always


NT

On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:34:57 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 13:29:44 UTC+1, tabb.y wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:08:44 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:17:55 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

Dave's soaked braincell strikes again. Just how would a visual inspection be more likely to find serious faults than visual inspection AND electrical testing, which is what PAT is?

Just because you have no idea.

I usually don't bother reading you arguing with the other wallies here.

On Monday, 17 July 2017 12:22:28 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:33:52 on Mon, 17 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not. A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance

How does that work with appliance where the earth pin is a bit of
plastic?

or when it's metal but the earth connection is in no way acessible at the other end, as with some wallwarts

If all you need is to look just get a paair of glasses or a webcam.

mmm... webcams in all council flats. What could possibly go wrong?

Why does he argue so much when he has not a clue.


NT

On Monday, 17 July 2017 12:22:28 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:33:52 on Mon, 17 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:
PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not. A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance

How does that work with appliance where the earth pin is a bit of
plastic?

Check with someone that does PAT testing. It;s pretty much teh same with applienaces that are 50V or less, thais doesn't mean they can't catch fire or cause damage, none of the samsung phones could be PAT tested.
And string at them wouldnlt have told yuo eiterh so a visual PAT test wouldn't have shown the faults, that doesnlt mean there weren't any.





If all you need is to look just get a paair of glasses or a webcam.

mmm... webcams in all council flats. What could possibly go wrong?

Or what could go right depending on yuor aims.

Maybe a web cam on the applience that went faulty may have raised an alarm quicker in Grenfell tower

On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:26:42 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:33:55 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:42:18 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:

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

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not.

Some are.

No they aren't a PAT test is an actual test. A visual test is a visual test..
Just the same as you can with a MOT test, such as smashed lights, broken wondscreen.

Portable appliance testing (PAT) is the term used to describe the examination of electrical appliances and equipment to ensure they are safe to use. Most electrical safety defects can be found by visual examination but some types of defect can only be found by testing.


A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance, in the past I;ve had items that have failed this.

not always

WTF do you mean by that.

On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:40:10 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:26:42 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:33:55 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:42:18 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:

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

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not.

Some are.

No they aren't a PAT test is an actual test. A visual test is a visual test.
Just the same as you can with a MOT test, such as smashed lights, broken wondscreen.

Portable appliance testing (PAT) is the term used to describe the examination of electrical appliances and equipment to ensure they are safe to use. Most electrical safety defects can be found by visual examination but some types of defect can only be found by testing.


A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance, in the past I;ve had items that have failed this.

not always

WTF do you mean by that.

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.


NT

On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:40:10 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 13:26:42 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:33:55 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:42:18 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave
remarked:

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

PAT-testing of many items *is* just a visual check.

No it's not.

Some are.

No they aren't a PAT test is an actual test. A visual test is a visual test.
Just the same as you can with a MOT test, such as smashed lights, broken wondscreen.

Portable appliance testing (PAT) is the term used to describe the examination of electrical appliances and equipment to ensure they are safe to use. Most electrical safety defects can be found by visual examination but some types of defect can only be found by testing.


A PAT test would give you at the very least the Earth resistance, in the past I;ve had items that have failed this.

not always

WTF do you mean by that.

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.


NT

No you tell me what you mean by not always.
If the appliance has an Earth fault then it would fail the PAT test it might not fail a visual inspection, this is what happend with a few bench suplkiies we had in teh lab the PAT unitl gave a resistabnce of 0.5 ohms IIRC and that was a fail, so I reduced the lengh oif the mains cable and the metal parts of teh case sanded down so the earth screw went back to metal rather than 20+ years of grim.
The meter on one of thesde PSU was next calibration date 1987 which was when the unit was meant to be calibrated, which isnlt a PAT failure in case though assumed it was.

On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:16:12 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, tabby wrote:

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.

No you tell me what you mean by not always.

I will on one condition. You get a good bit more realistic about your lack of knowledge instead of arguing from ignorance with people that have done PAT testing and understand the subject properly. Since that won't happen, enjoy your life. Bye.

On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:26:50 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:16:12 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, tabby wrote:

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.

No you tell me what you mean by not always.

I will on one condition. You get a good bit more realistic about your lack of knowledge

I have the knowledge you have NOT.


\ instead of arguing from ignorance with people that have done PAT testing and understand the subject properly. Since that won't happen, enjoy your life. Bye.

What do you mean by done PAT testing what did you do just look at the equipment.
In order to PAT test you have to do a bit more than just look at the item.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:44:49 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:26:50 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:16:12 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, tabby wrote:

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.

No you tell me what you mean by not always.

I will on one condition. You get a good bit more realistic about your lack of knowledge

I have the knowledge you have NOT.


\ instead of arguing from ignorance with people that have done PAT testing and understand the subject properly. Since that won't happen, enjoy your life. Bye.

What do you mean by done PAT testing what did you do just look at the equipment.
In order to PAT test you have to do a bit more than just look at the item.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

plonk.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:44:49 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:26:50 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:16:12 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, tabby wrote:

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.

No you tell me what you mean by not always.

I will on one condition. You get a good bit more realistic about your
lack of knowledge

I have the knowledge you have NOT.


\ instead of arguing from ignorance with people that have done PAT
testing and understand the subject properly. Since that won't happen,
enjoy your life. Bye.

What do you mean by done PAT testing what did you do just look at the
equipment.
In order to PAT test you have to do a bit more than just look at the
item.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

plonk.
LOL another plonkster such as myself.
LMFAO.

On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 00:57:05 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:44:49 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:26:50 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:16:12 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 14:04:02 UTC+1, tabby wrote:

You are so clueless. Have a nice life.

No you tell me what you mean by not always.

I will on one condition. You get a good bit more realistic about your lack of knowledge

I have the knowledge you have NOT.


\ instead of arguing from ignorance with people that have done PAT testing and understand the subject properly. Since that won't happen, enjoy your life. Bye.

What do you mean by done PAT testing what did you do just look at the equipment.
In order to PAT test you have to do a bit more than just look at the item.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf

plonk.

So you are a plonker, no suprise there.

replying to dennis, Russell Hurley wrote:
You are completely right. Cladding is a scapegoat.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1220838-.htm

replying to Roland Perry, Russell Hurley wrote:
Yes. Mixed messages indeed. Cladding is not an issue. Get that our of your
mind. The new windows went before the cladding did. The gas was St...........]
{|;|]} {} ÷¦


--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1220838-.htm