Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Suggested Helpful Answer
  • Replies 42 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 39 subscribers
  • Views 8522 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

EICR coding for lack of local isolation of kitchen appliances

Alan B

I have been asked by a friend to provide a second opinion on EICR coding for kitchen appliances connected to sockets that can only be accessed by moving the appliance, in this case the appliances are free standing and it's in rented accommodation, not HMO.

It certainly contravenes current regulation 537.3.2.

Electrician that completed the EICR is coding it as a C2 and want's to install suitable isolators with associated costs and disruption. To my mind it's a C3 as it's a bit inconvenient but the appliances can still be isolated by turning a circuit breaker of at the CU. Alternatively everything is RCD  protected, moving a free standing appliance without isolation isn't that risky.

I then started to look for documentation  and articles to provide guidance on the sittuation without much luck. Plenty describing why it's required and how to achieve it.

How would others code this, are there any articles you are aware of on the subject. When was the requirement introduced?

Appreciate any input you have. 

Parents
  • 0

    BS7671  does not mandate local isolation for any household appliance.

  • 0 in reply to geoffsd

    I agree - what makes you sure that 537.3.2 requires a dedicated switch for each appliance ? I do not think it does.

    This wiring matters article seems to agree that it can be OK to omit,  if it does not contradict the maker's instructions.. In my mind, what you describe is a C3 at most.

    From the other side, where is the potential for danger that justifies a C2 ?. Perhaps a stupid design, awkward, certainly, but not especially dangerous...

    Mike.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to geoffsd

    I agree - what makes you sure that 537.3.2 requires a dedicated switch for each appliance ? I do not think it does.

    This wiring matters article seems to agree that it can be OK to omit,  if it does not contradict the maker's instructions.. In my mind, what you describe is a C3 at most.

    From the other side, where is the potential for danger that justifies a C2 ?. Perhaps a stupid design, awkward, certainly, but not especially dangerous...

    Mike.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines