davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Well Graham, I think that the blame should rest with the manufacturer and sale of goods act.

Perhaps … see below, although consider the intended use vs Appendix 15 of BS 7671.

 

 It is illegal to sell something which is not fit, and this appears to be the case here. This is not changed in any way by a supposed specification, this is itself clearly not fit for purpose if a specified item burns (or goes black).

That would perhaps need some more explanation or elaboration. I'm not sure I agree on this point.

The problem often appears to be the plug/fuse assembly as someone else stated above. Both are supposed to be made as compatible items, clearly, this in a few cases may not be true. 

Only separating here to draw a line between points …

But to suggest this is any way the installers fault seems very unsatisfactory. If you apply this to Grenfell tower, the cladding is entirely the fault of the installer, which is very far from true. It is very likely that the law will be changed as a result of the inquiry, which has found endless problems with the standards process as much as anything else.

Sorry … the limitations of the ring final circuit are very clear.

If it's not recommended to place a 2 kW oven on the ring final, then it's certainly not recommended to put two heavy current-using appliances on an individual double socket-outlet … this is specifically covered in Appendix 15 of BS 7671 item (iii) … so, what are you actually saying?

It seems to me that the suggestion that we change to single-socket radials for everything, and unfused plugs, is much worse than our present system. In my house I would need a 1000m of cable and 50 breakers for such a system, clearly, it is not fit for purpose, yet might save one fire per year according to your view. I doubt it as more equipment is bound to mean more risk.

No, I said perhaps ditch the ring final for radials, NOT single socket-outlet radials.

That would address the situation with 2 no. point-loaded appliances with rating > 2 kW though.

In my experience (40+years) it is very rare indeed for this “burning” to occur. If the EAWR is going to work in the way you suggest, there would be NO electricity in any workplace, because it is impossible to be SURE that this burning (slight colour change) will not happen. The answer is a proper maintenance regimen, not an outright ban. I note that you would ban soldering irons as a serious safety risk, that is perhaps why most electronics are made in China, and almost all our steelworks have closed! The EICR is such a regimen, it would be unnecessary if nothing could ever go wrong!

I'm sorry David, but I have to disagree. This has nothing to do with banning soldering irons, but overloading of a device that clearly states its rating.

The only thing I will concede, is that the rating is concealed from the user … which could be considered indefensible if it were not covered by a British Standard !

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Well Graham, I think that the blame should rest with the manufacturer and sale of goods act.

Perhaps … see below, although consider the intended use vs Appendix 15 of BS 7671.

 

 It is illegal to sell something which is not fit, and this appears to be the case here. This is not changed in any way by a supposed specification, this is itself clearly not fit for purpose if a specified item burns (or goes black).

That would perhaps need some more explanation or elaboration. I'm not sure I agree on this point.

The problem often appears to be the plug/fuse assembly as someone else stated above. Both are supposed to be made as compatible items, clearly, this in a few cases may not be true. 

Only separating here to draw a line between points …

But to suggest this is any way the installers fault seems very unsatisfactory. If you apply this to Grenfell tower, the cladding is entirely the fault of the installer, which is very far from true. It is very likely that the law will be changed as a result of the inquiry, which has found endless problems with the standards process as much as anything else.

Sorry … the limitations of the ring final circuit are very clear.

If it's not recommended to place a 2 kW oven on the ring final, then it's certainly not recommended to put two heavy current-using appliances on an individual double socket-outlet … this is specifically covered in Appendix 15 of BS 7671 item (iii) … so, what are you actually saying?

It seems to me that the suggestion that we change to single-socket radials for everything, and unfused plugs, is much worse than our present system. In my house I would need a 1000m of cable and 50 breakers for such a system, clearly, it is not fit for purpose, yet might save one fire per year according to your view. I doubt it as more equipment is bound to mean more risk.

No, I said perhaps ditch the ring final for radials, NOT single socket-outlet radials.

That would address the situation with 2 no. point-loaded appliances with rating > 2 kW though.

In my experience (40+years) it is very rare indeed for this “burning” to occur. If the EAWR is going to work in the way you suggest, there would be NO electricity in any workplace, because it is impossible to be SURE that this burning (slight colour change) will not happen. The answer is a proper maintenance regimen, not an outright ban. I note that you would ban soldering irons as a serious safety risk, that is perhaps why most electronics are made in China, and almost all our steelworks have closed! The EICR is such a regimen, it would be unnecessary if nothing could ever go wrong!

I'm sorry David, but I have to disagree. This has nothing to do with banning soldering irons, but overloading of a device that clearly states its rating.

The only thing I will concede, is that the rating is concealed from the user … which could be considered indefensible if it were not covered by a British Standard !