Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
markburrows  
#1 Posted : 15 December 2010 09:22:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
markburrows

Here we go again...personally I have no issues with the office personnel putting them up on the tree providing a simple visual inspection is done prior to use.... but should they be PATested ?????? Please if we can keep responses short and sweet !! Christmas is fine but my birthday (Also 25th!!) is better :-)
Ron Hunter  
#2 Posted : 15 December 2010 09:46:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

The employer's lights, the employees lights brought in from home, or new lights bought from the shops? (I'd suggest a different answer for each). In any event, please (please) don't the "One" show (BBC1 after the News) get involved. Last night's effort was simply appalling (14th). Apparently, Christmas Crackers are classed "in the same Category as Nitroglycerine".
markburrows  
#3 Posted : 15 December 2010 10:05:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
markburrows

HI Ron, These are lights provided along with the tree and some tinsel stuff by us as the employer. We dont allow the employees to bring anything electrical in from home which makes it nice and easy. I am in no way trying to spoli the festivities just need to make sure we are all safe and no silly avoidable instances occur !
son of skywalker  
#4 Posted : 15 December 2010 10:23:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
son of skywalker

Hi Mark I would always recommend that they be PAT tested. When you think that they have been wound up, scrunched together etc and forced into a box for a year. They can be damaged and the bulbs do not always work when you take them back out of the box. Why do the bulbs not work when they went into the box fine? That is a question that will still be asked in centuries to come. There are also plenty of dodgy sets of lights out there either cheaply made or old and now dangerous. I often come across lights where the bulbs are not available anymore and unsuitable alternatives are "adjusted" and shoved into the fitting. PAT test. It is not expensive, does not take long to do and could stop a fire and potential electrocution. Son of Skywalker
SBH  
#5 Posted : 15 December 2010 10:27:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SBH

Yes do a PAT also request visual checks daily, for frayed wires and bad wiring to plugs Turn off the lights when the area is vacant, no combustibles near the tree lights, and ensure all wiring is not a trip hazard. Bah Humbug.
boblewis  
#6 Posted : 15 December 2010 10:27:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

As an employer I would always go for low voltage, 25 or less, that way only the transformer needs attention Bob
Ron Hunter  
#7 Posted : 15 December 2010 10:27:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

In which case, this appliance should be on the inventory and subject to the established PAT/safety regime in the same way as is applicable to all portable appliances in the establishment. The frequency and scope of that regime is for the employer to determine on the basis of risk and could be an annual formal visual with a test and inpection every (say) 5 years (by which time the tree may well be fit only for the bin). If this light set is quite old and the lights are single insulation (the type where you can see the conductor through the plastic) then I'd err on the side of caution and chuck it anyway.
Bob Shillabeer  
#8 Posted : 15 December 2010 11:29:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

The simplist way of resolving this is to ban them from the office, they won't be missed by most. To expect such over the top checks is way beyond the resonably practical measure set down in law, get a life for gods sake.
saferay  
#9 Posted : 15 December 2010 11:47:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
saferay

Mark/all Christmas tree lights are mostly (if not always) double insulated Class II pieces of kit. INDG236 has a 'suggested intervals' for testing on page 5. This clearly states that double insulated equipment DOES NOT testing. It does recommend a Formal Inspection (which is visual ony) every 24 months. This approach is also supported in the IEE Code of Practice for the In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment (Second Edition) Hope this answers your question Adrian
brett_wildin  
#10 Posted : 15 December 2010 11:53:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
brett_wildin

Simple answer Yes PAT Test. Electrical Equipement at work.
son of skywalker  
#11 Posted : 15 December 2010 12:09:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
son of skywalker

I got this from County Druham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service site http://www.ddfra.co.uk/index.php Have a look and you will see the pictures used. It says 70% of house fires include electrical appliances or wiring problems as a contributory or causal factor. That is enough for me to advise that we go above and beyond the requirements for double insulation electrical equipment (if we believe the hazard and risk require it). That is after all why we do a risk assessment. Anyway here is there "The 12 Days of Christmas Fire Safety" which they could at least have tried to make rhyme. On the 1st day of Christmas Check your Christmas tree lights conform to the British Standard On the 2nd day of Christmas Never place candles near your Christmas tree or furnishings. Don't leave them burning or unattended On the 3rd day of Christmas Make sure your family and guests staying for the festive period know what to do in an emergency. Make a fire excape plan On the 4th day of Christmas Decorations can burn easily - don't attach them to lights or heaters On the 5th day of Christmas Most fires start in the kitchen - never leave cooking unattended On the 6th day of Christmas Celebrate Christmas and New Year safely. The risk of accidents, especially in the kitchen, is greater after alcohol is consumed On the 7th day of Christmas If you are planning to celebrate with fireworks, store them in a metal box, read the instructions, never go back to a lit firework and keep a bucket of water nearby On the 8th day of Christmas Check the battery in your smoke alarm every week and use Christmas as a reminder to clean it and remove dust On the 9th day of Christmas Keep candles, lighters and matches out of the reach of children On the 10th day of Christmas Never overload electrical sockets. Take special care with Christmas lights On the 11th day of Christmas Make sure cigarettes are completely extinguished before going to bed On the 12th day of Christmas Take time to check on elderly relatives and neighbours this Christmas - make sure they are fire safe Son of Skywalker
Les  
#12 Posted : 15 December 2010 12:09:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Les

Adrian, What you have quoted is correct; Mark, This is a useful document. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf ( page 5). As stated earlier double insulated equipment does not require testing, it requires a formal visual inspection prior to use. As for the comment 'Ban them' - comments like that is exactly what gives us the title' elf n safety'. Les
Invictus  
#13 Posted : 15 December 2010 12:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

PAT is not a legal requirement. But for the sake of a couple of quid if you are that unsure by a new set. Don't ban them thats always one way to have to work harder next year to get people on board with health and safety. They'll always remember that you banned Christmas.
Bob Shillabeer  
#14 Posted : 15 December 2010 12:20:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Just as I thought my comments resulted in some comments, what I was hoping for was some careful and balanced comments, some were some had the expected result though. Double insultated lights should be used and any that are more than four or five years old should be disposed of and new one obtained. The cost of doing so is so small it would simply come out of petty cash. New lights would be safe and a simple visual check would ensure they are safe to use. Why do we we need to go to the trouble of PAtesting when the alternative is so simple.
barnaby  
#15 Posted : 15 December 2010 14:33:20(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

bob shillabeer wrote:
Just as I thought my comments resulted in some comments, what I was hoping for was some careful and balanced comments - - .
Why should anybody bother replying to the same old 'ban it' stuff the DM is so fond of?
bob shillabeer wrote:
Double insultated lights should be used and any that are more than four or five years old should be disposed of and new one obtained. The cost of doing so is so small it would simply come out of petty cash. New lights would be safe and a simple visual check would ensure they are safe to use.
Yes, much more sensible (and very similar to what Ron said.
Bob Shillabeer  
#16 Posted : 15 December 2010 14:49:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

You may have noticed I have a serious distrust of the PA testing syndrome, firstly it is simple historic by nature and does nothing to ensure ongoing safety of electrical kit. The task is quite simple to examine the Christmas tree lights, do it my self every year and if faulty or suspect buy new ones, as simple as that the cost is low even if they are bought from a repetable dealer (the only option for me, forget the pound shops and the market traders). There are more fruitful ways of earning money rather than ripping people off on spurious checks.
Ron Hunter  
#17 Posted : 15 December 2010 16:35:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Wholeheartedly agree Bob, particularly where the machine is in inexperienced hands, or where the PAT regime is done to a per unit/ piecework rate. I've seen damaged appliances "passed" when the copper conductors in the cable were visible. Proper formal visual exam. is crucial.
Taylor  
#18 Posted : 17 December 2010 14:31:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Taylor

Les wrote:
Adrian, As for the comment 'Ban them' - comments like that is exactly what gives us the title' elf n safety'. Les
Les - totally agree with you. I'm afraid people who have this mindset do our profession a real dis-service. Yes there is risk with putting up the lights - some of the sensible precautions mentioned here will overcome that. Life without any kind of risk would be kind of boring - and totally impossible to achieve. Said individual then went onto say 'Get a Life for Godsake'. Think he must have been looking in the mirror !!
Bob Shillabeer  
#19 Posted : 17 December 2010 14:58:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

Taylor, the comment get a life is quite true the cost of buying a new set of xmas lights is so low the cost of getting them PA tested would cost just as much or possibly more so no point buy new ones that are doulble insulated and dump the old ones. The only bit that is of high enough voltage is the unit that plugs in anyway, the light themselves are low voltage. I noticed the elf and safety comment but chose to simply giggle to myself and think get a life, been in this world long enough not to get to upset about such comments, seen many people killed and seriously injured to worry about such things mate.
Jon B  
#20 Posted : 17 December 2010 15:27:03(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

I'm going back few years but as I recall under the PAT guidelines, ultra low voltage items (including most modern christmas tree lights), only require a visual inspection and unless things have changed most PAT units cannot even do an electrical test (unless technology has moved on). Also the duty is to maintain electrical equipment in a safe condition. there is no legal requirement to PAT test. Take them out of the box, a responsible person examines them and uses if they are OK. If you really want to push the boat out you could record the check. If they are not there is no real maintenace you can carry out so throw them away and buy new (Try LED - no spare bulbs!). Ours are battery powered so only cost 6 x AA batteries per year! IF you want to ban them there are vacancies at Christmas Carols -R- US (E Scrooge - proprietor), don't expect a christams bonus though!! Merry Christmas all.
Safety Lemon  
#21 Posted : 17 December 2010 15:30:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Safety Lemon

Why do Christmas Tree Lights needs to be PATested, as they are not portable appliances? European standards define portable appliances as equipment that is either: • hand held whilst being connected to the electrical supply, or; • is intended to be moved whilst connected to the electrical supply. I’m not agreeing whether or not they should be tested electrically (if I had my way there would be no Christmas decorations at all...Bah Humbug!!), just that I don’t agree that they are a portable appliance and should be tested under this basis.
Jon B  
#22 Posted : 17 December 2010 15:36:48(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

I know its going off track but there must be something wrong or missing from that definition. On that basis 90% of general items would not need ( from accepted practice not a legal perspective) PAT. I certainly dont hold or move my PC, microwave etc while connected. Maybe we are missing something and all those specialied PAT companies are about to go out of business.
Bob Shillabeer  
#23 Posted : 17 December 2010 15:47:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

PA testing came about because of the many types of portable kit in use such as drills, saws, kango hammers etc. These yend to be abused by being thrown into the back of a van, the plug pulled out with a good yank on the cable rather that using ones hands to pull it out properly, etc. PA testing was never intended for the likes of microwaves and fridges and christmas tree lights. The business world set themselves up to do such testing and included in its terms of reference evry thing fitted with a plug. That was not what the PA testing scheme was about,. but it made money to prentend otherwise. We have it now but remember what the thing is really about.
Safety Lemon  
#24 Posted : 17 December 2010 16:01:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Safety Lemon

Bob Wholeheartedly agree on you on the origins of testing, although not sure if it was the businesses setting themselves up, or some people thinking that they could (and did) make a killing with a good sales pitch that everything with a plug on it must be tested. The organisation I work for made the same mistake and after a few years realised what a beast had been unleashed and went back to basics. How everything is tested is based on risk, so tools (such as drills, saws) that are being used on construction sites everyday and slung in the back of vans are tested according to a risk rating. Other equipment such as fridges, dishwashers, photocopiers are examined and only tested where the person examining it believes that there may be a need for it. SL
Bob Shillabeer  
#25 Posted : 17 December 2010 16:41:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer

SL, there are some companies who have realised that they are wasting money and I agree with you that drills etc need testing quite often, whuile other types of kit can be tested every five years or so (HSE quidelines available on the net). Those who have paid quite large sums of money to train in PA testing need the myth to continue to get thier investment back and keep themselves employed. I have seen a van near where I live suggesting it is a full time business. There is one point with your process that makes me think why, you say that other equipment such as fridges and dishwashers are only tested where someone has examined it and believe that they may need testing. What issues are these because if the see a defect surely it should be taken out of use and repaired or replaced?
johnmurray  
#26 Posted : 17 December 2010 20:29:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

Double insulated. Since the majority of xmas lights are 12 volt bulbs wired in series I think you will find that one end is 230 volt. You could get the led type, in which case the transformer won't...be a transformer that is..it will be a switched-mode power supply, way cheaper than a transformer. So, if you have the series-wired 12 volts bulbs you should use an isolating transformer....which brings me to the smpsu....a large number of which are not CE rated and interfere with communication equipment.......endless problems. Humbug. Tell the staff you are not religious.
boblewis  
#27 Posted : 17 December 2010 22:02:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

What a lot of heat for very little light. For the cost of lights they could be best regardedas disposable - Not environmentally friendly but an excellent H&S solution Bob
Grizzly  
#28 Posted : 18 December 2010 00:53:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Grizzly

safety lemon wrote:
Why do Christmas Tree Lights needs to be PATested, as they are not portable appliances? European standards define portable appliances as equipment that is either: • hand held whilst being connected to the electrical supply, or; • is intended to be moved whilst connected to the electrical supply. ... just that I don’t agree that they are a portable appliance and should be tested under this basis.
If people stopped using the term 'Portable Appliance Testing', and started to realise that it's all about the inspection & possible testing of ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, then they'd stop getting hung up on whether something is portable or not. If you're going to use xmas lights, then forget the horrible 'bulbs in series, wired straight into a 13A plug' ones, and get an extra low voltage bulb or LED set (<50V) that run off a Class II ('double insulated') plug-in transformer/power supply. Give it a full visual inspection (which as we all know is THE most important, and sometimes only, part of what everyone insists on calling a PA/PAT test), get them plugged in and twinkling, and move on to thinking about something more important.
firesafety101  
#29 Posted : 18 December 2010 17:34:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

messyshaw  
#30 Posted : 19 December 2010 21:11:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
messyshaw

I say keep the tree lights, but ban Christmas. Bah humbug
Nikki-Napo  
#31 Posted : 20 December 2010 10:51:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Nikki-Napo

boblewis wrote:
What a lot of heat for very little light. For the cost of lights they could be best regardedas disposable - Not environmentally friendly but an excellent H&S solution Bob
Genuine LOL moment! thanks for that. :-)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.