Grenfell and gas pipes.

In message , at 10:53:05 on Thu, 13 Jul

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

OK, so you disagree with the examples given earlier.

Might be, but last time I looked the serial number was on the outside, and could be checked against recall lists.

Reply to
Roland Perry
Loading thread data ...

In message , at 10:50:47 on Thu, 13 Jul

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Works OK for gas. And no-one said *every* appliance. You could start with white goods in the kitchen.

Reply to
Roland Perry

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 ?

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

Reply to
whisky-dave

but, a visual check is part of the PAT procedure.

Reply to
charles

In message , at

03:08:40 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, whisky-dave remarked:

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

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

Reply to
Roland Perry

Trouble is like everything in this country it would soon morph into an exercise in taking what you've got and extracting money on very iffy grounds. Wrong colour earth conductor? We'll take that and destroy it Sir, can't have dangerous goods can we.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

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?

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

Think most of us have many many more times the number of electrical appliances than gas ones.

And a gas appliance is easier to test anyway. It is simply not practical to examine a TV etc to see if it may burst into flames in the future.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

My guess is most appliance fires start internally. Certainly the case with TVs.

And no visual inspection - or PAT - is going to help there.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In message , at 14:14:03 on Thu, 13 Jul

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

You can read the serial number off a tumble drier, and see if it's on the list...

Reply to
Roland Perry

How about phone chargers? They are said to be a major case of fires. And TVs.

Be interesting to know the percentage of fires caused by appliances known to be at risk. Where identification by a serial number as you suggest would be cost effective. Because it would cost a fortune to check every single household in the land for such things.

I'd hate this tragedy to result in some gut reaction 'something must be done' legislation we see all too often. As in simply passing a law without enforcement. As so often happens.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In message , at 14:50:16 on Thu, 13 Jul

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

You have to start somewhere.

I think I posted some kitchen appliance fire stats earlier in the thread.

Whoa!!! Who said every single household.

It's reported there are around 200k of one type[1] of tumble drier still at risk. And 750 house fires caused by one of them so far.

[1] Several different near-identical models.
Reply to
Roland Perry

PAT testing could make it worse..

You are testing the insulation with a higher voltage than it operates at and could cause damage that doesn't show up during the test.

You can only stress stuff a limited number of times without expecting failures. Just how many times you can PAT test a fridge/freezer is something I doubt has been looked at.

Reply to
dennis

Are these major causes because they are so common or because they are cr@p?

If its because there are a lot of them then testing will make no difference.

Reply to
dennis

Gas safety checks are annual, not every five years. Trading standards "fit for sale" legislation already exists to cover fridges Landlord's safety checks would not cover tenant's appliances.

There's already something that covers electrical tests of tenanted properties, can't remember the details just now, but I think it's more along the lines of not doing tests makes you culpable in event of a problem, doing tests shows you've gone to appropriate lengths to avoid problems. So, any reasonably sane landlord does it anyway.

Reply to
jgh

The somewhere to start is making sure flats in a block conform to existing fire regulations. Contain any fire for the appropriate time.

Yes - but they ain't the only electrical appliance that can cause a fire.

It would be a nonsense to have such a thing only apply to rented properties.

Well, if we know these are at risk aleady, why hasn't something been done about it? Tales about of the maker trying to avoid fixing them.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Not that the Grenfell fridge was /on/ any recall list ...

Reply to
Andy Burns

In message , at 18:03:37 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Andy Burns remarked:

But it could have been. There's 200k incendiary tumble dryers still out there.

Reply to
Roland Perry

In message , at

15:20:55 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, "dennis@home" remarked:

When everything installed at a workplace requires regular PAT testing, are you sure they haven't encountered fridges yet?

Reply to
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:09:53 on Thu, 13 Jul

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Massively powerful door closers would be a start.

You have to start somewhere.

The idea is to apply it to all properties in tower blocks.

Send storm troopers into local authority tower blocks and confiscate them all. That would be "something".

Reply to
Roland Perry

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.