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 8541 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
    Sparkingchip said:
    Including Table 537.4 note 6.

    Irrelevant. The socket-outlet is hidden behind the appliance. The SDTH says the "separate switching" is "to allow the appliance to be isolated".

    Chris Pearson said:
    Yes, but if you can switch the switch, you can pull the plug!

    Agreed ... yes that seems to be what the SDTH is getting at. "Can't pull the plug so need another (accessible) means of isolation".

  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    So in Scotland, are EICRs being done to the SDTH, or to BS7671 ?

    I suggest it really should be against BS7671 - in the same way an English  EICR does not fail if some other piece of advice, however wise and well meant, is not followed.

    The classic must be non electrical building regs, so if the height of the worktops does not meet part M or if there is not an electric fan in the loo or a back flow valve is required for the shower the house does not get its electrics condemned. (it may get an advisory note to get a plumber in...)

    Otherwise there would be a patchwork of documents by various authorities and trade bodies that one could pick and choose the best from to show compliance with, and what then, perhaps not bother with the BS7671 part  at all?

    Mike.

  • 0 in reply to mapj1
    mapj1 said:
    So in Scotland, are EICRs being done to the SDTH, or to BS7671 ?

    I guess it depends on whether the work is done either to determine electrical work required for, or done just after, a major re-development or re-fit of the premises, where (just as in England or Wales, BS 7671 is NOT the only consideration).

    BUT regards this thread, Alan asked:

    Alan B said:
    and also understand why in general the industry seems to believe that local isolation is required for kitchen appliances.

    So I've provided one possible answer ...

Reply
  • 0 in reply to mapj1
    mapj1 said:
    So in Scotland, are EICRs being done to the SDTH, or to BS7671 ?

    I guess it depends on whether the work is done either to determine electrical work required for, or done just after, a major re-development or re-fit of the premises, where (just as in England or Wales, BS 7671 is NOT the only consideration).

    BUT regards this thread, Alan asked:

    Alan B said:
    and also understand why in general the industry seems to believe that local isolation is required for kitchen appliances.

    So I've provided one possible answer ...

Children
  • 0 in reply to gkenyon

    And that is fair enough at time of "full plans" approval and visits by the building inspector - much as that is when other departures from building regs are considered.

    However, an EICR is an entirely different matter, and is intended to weigh the installation against the essential requirements of '7671 and decide if it is safe and fit for continued use (or not).  If you want a full building control style inspection of drains, fire alarms, lightening conductors. heating & ventilation and insulation   then you need a different person, quite possibly several, and a different budget.


    I suggest folk failing installations on a BS7671 style EICR need to be very careful what exactly they think it is failing on - and that should link back to '7671. If we think the electrical regs need to change to make omission of  worktop isolation a serious danger, then the way  to address that is as a change in the UK regs, not in tertiary documentation.

    Mike

  • 0 in reply to mapj1
    mapj1 said:
    I suggest folk failing installtions on a BS7671 style EICR need to be very careful what exactly they think it is failing on - and that should link back to '7671.

    Agreed - although the report might also need to include for other matters as per the scope agreed with the person ordering the report.

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