I would consider discussing this with the TSO's boss. Not to get your own back, but so that it gets discussed and this (presumably inexperienced) TSO learns something. Otherwise they will carry on causing unneccesery disruptions in blissful ignorence.

But if I go in to one of your shops and find you haven't tied up you kettle leads with pink ribbons with puple polkadots, watch out! ;-)

One option I hope you will take is to openly discuss with the TSO why they want you to do this. Far more important to me reading your post is quite why you shut down sales and gave yourself the problem before finding out what the problem was? If it had been that serious then isn't it reasonable to suppose that you would have been contacted more directly than by a standard letter?
If as you suggest this is a minor matter then hopefully you will be able to deal with as such. Raising it to a senior level doesn't look like a very productive approach to me from what you have told us thus far.

In these days of carbon footprints and saving the planet, I would have thought it was good practice not to include an unnecessary piece of cardboard that the customer would simply rip off and throw away? Maybe you can use that as a good reason not to include it.

Hi JWK,

Would be interesting to see if there are any incidences of fires starting because of consumers not removing these cardboard covers before using the appliance! Do we also then have to include a message to say "Remove before use"?

Wazimu Mzungu

Reasons why I would be escalating this to a major issue if it were me:

1) As fitting cardboard inserts isn't a legal requirement, the TSO has acted outside his legal authority. He's also spent time doing something that isn't his job - time he should have spent doing something that IS his job.

2) The TSO sent a letter that made untrue statements - statements the TSO knew to be untrue.

3) On the basis of the first letter, JWK's organisation could have initiated legal action (or disciplinary, if he's an employee) against their electrical tester.

4) If someone doesn't rein this TSO in now, what's he going to do next?

5) How long before the Daily Snail publish their next anti-H&S rant "Charity shops forced to stop selling electrical goods by Elf and Safety Nazis"? A smaller organisation than JWK's wouldn't have had the recource to do what he's done, and just taken the minimum-aggro approach and stopped electrical sales - as I know many electrical shops have.

Good luck JWK - let us know how it progresses.

The cardboard can absorb water from the atmosphere and cause a circuit to trip via the RCD. I used to leave them all plugs but, on the advice of my sparky, now take them off

Oops...typing quicker than I can think again. That should obviously be "...as I know many CHARITY shops have"

TGIAF

Dear jwk
The problem of regulators acting outside of the regulatory remit is not a new problem. First Hampton then Davidson both produced reports on poor regulatory practice. Areas from their respective reports resulted in the Statutory Code of Practice for Regulators being issued in 2007. This can be accessed at the following URL http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file53268.pdf
The Hampton Report can be found here http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22988.pdf
The Davidson Review can be found here http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdf
The evidence I have seen presented does not fit with the 5 principles of good regulation namely Proportionality Accountability Consistency Transparency and is certainly not Targeted. Pete may be correct about the company response, but I can understand the reaction from the manager.

This cannot be ignored, as if allowed to make unreasonable demands, may result in the demands either escalating or business becoming regulated in a anarchistic manner, i.e. being asked to do what is not required by law. Especially if the recommendations from the Macrory report as to Regulators issuing Fixed and Variable Monetary Administrative Penalties comes into force. Some of these are now in force and are being taken forward by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. My question is “Would this particular TSO then start to issue penalty notices he/she should not be issuing”?

Similarly I do not think that the action taken by the LA Business Regulation Unit fits with the principles of Macrory and the proposed sanctioning regime, which are also reflected in the principles of good regulation in that:
• A sanction should aim to change the behaviour of the offender.
• A sanction should aim to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from noncompliance.
• A sanction should be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm caused.
• A sanction should aim to restore the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance, where appropriate.
• A sanction should aim to deter future non-compliance

It would seem the behaviour of this charity is one of compliance, there is no requirement to comply, no offence has been committed , no financial gain has been made through non compliance, no harm has been caused and there cannot be any doubt about future compliance therefore why the intimidatory (my words from the interpretation from reading the original posting) correspondence.

My advice would be to speak to one of the more experienced regulators in the LA office, and discuss the issues to bring about a satisfactory resolution.

Tim, many thanks for the useful background. I have archived those references for the future.
Paul I do agree with you with regard to the fact that it was not best handled. I just find that a conciliatory approach often solves more problems even with those who hide behind two paragraphs of legal candyfloss or don't like blue cars.
Thanks for the discussion, the forum is beginning to return to normality thank goodness,
Pete

It may be worthwhile reflecting upon the requirements for the resale of electrical goods.


The first reference is "selling safe second-hand electrical goods" from the trading standards institute website:-

http://www.tradingstanda...ice-business-sfsum18.cfm

If the equipment you are selling complies with an acceptable standard, e.g. a British/European Standard, it will normally meet safety requirements.

………Distributors and retailers, including second-hand dealers and auctions, must only sell appliances that are correctly fitted with an approved plug with sleeved neutral and live pins and the correct fuse……….

The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 came into force on 1 October 2005 and replaced the General Product Safety Regulations 1994. The Regulations are made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and transpose Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety into UK law.


The purpose of the General Product Safety Directive is to ensure that all products intended for or likely to be used by consumers under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions are safe.


The Regulations apply to the supply of all new and second-hand products, excluding products supplied for repair or reconditioning prior to being used (provided the supplier clearly informs the person to whom he supplies the product to that effect), and excluding the sale of antiques.


There is guidance at:-

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22713.pdf

Obviously, the guidance does not cover specifications that are covered by either British or European or International Standards, but does clarify that the regulations introduce for the first time a presumption of conformity with the general safety requirement if a product conforms with the UK transposition of a voluntary European standard that has had its references published in the Official Journal of the European Union, but only as far as the risks are covered by that standard.

It is possible that the requirement to cover the pins mat be arising from the above.

I personally do not think it is a high or even a medium risk, but I am not an expert on product safety and it would be interesting to know why new electrical household appliances being sold have the covers. Is it from a consumer safety perspective, if so, what is the British or other Standard for it.

If the TSO has admitted it is not a requirement, but they think it is a good idea, then you do not need to do it. You are within your rights to say no. We do not have to agree with everything that is required by trading standards officers if their request is not backed up by law or a very, very, very good reason. If it is just something they like then tough, tell them no.

Ok. Just for clarity (as it appears there are some 'crossed wires' here). Are we talking about cardboard pin protectors or 'How to wire a plug properly' cards?

I would ask your forgiveness for the pun but it is undeserving! ;-)

Jay
I agree with JWK. Jay you have missed the point. The point was never about the actual legislation relating to the sale of second hand electrical goods, but about the behaviour of the TSO.

The legislative requirements may have been referred to in the letter received from the TSO, but the posting was about the behaviour of the TSO. It is quite plain that in this instance the principles of good regulation were not being applied in this case, as advised in the Regulators Code of Practice.

Similarly if there was a requirement to cover pins – which I do not think there is, a cardboard cover would not suffice, it would normally be of the plastic variety found normally on all plugs of new manufacture. For a regulator to take action Jay, they must act within the law, any defence by a person wrongly regulated would be quite easily proven, that the Regulator acted Ultra Vires.

JWK all my dealings with LA regulators (and I have taught many) are that the vast majority of them are very reasonable people, and are normally very helpful, so a quiet approach and considered words will go much further in gaining understanding satisfactorily to both yourselves and the LA TSO’s, as I am sure you have already found out, and as Pete points out quite correctly, conciliation is far better than conflict for all parties concerned.

Morning Phil

I agree with your general sentiments, but there is a democratic and legal difference between "Gold plating legislative requirements" or making up your own requirements and making a mistake. This is not a mistake by the TSO but a deliberate unlawful action.

Are you aware of the Statutory Regulators Compliance code, its requirements and other documents advising enforcers not to enforce personal requirements, then trying to apply and enforce these requirements upon dutyholders. If that is allowed to happen, it may equal anarchy. Who knows where this would lead, dare I suggest the possibility of more adverse "Elf and Safety" stories.

Regards

Tim B