Would anyone consider a residual current device and socket tester to be PPE? (PPE is defined as something which is worn or held) or are they covered under work equipment. If they are work equipment who is responsible for buying them - they form part of our safe system of work for electrical safety and my query relates to who should buy them in the case of contractors. I think the company should (particularly as our contractors as classified as self employed in a employer-employee relationship) but I am being challenged and would appreciate some input ...........

Thanks John, what would you advise in respect to the issue of payment? Kind regards Sharon

If you are the employer, then should supply them. If they are true contractors then you should have supplied the relevant information as regards the minimum expected safety prior to signing contracts.

quote=ron hunter]I haven't heard up to now of socket testers being used routinely in this situation (I assume these are the kind that also check earth impedance). I recall from my time with Trading Standards that some of the cheaper socket testers were particularly dodgy. It is of course possible (and practicable) to have RCDs (RCBOs) built-in to the appliance cables/ extentions sets - something more robust than the 'domestic' type, whcih don't take kindly to being dropped or chucked about.

I work for one of Britain's biggest social housing companies (I will leave you guessing the name), and yes RCDs are used widely. 1) No its not considered P.P.E 2) Yes your company should pay in the circumstances you are outlining however, they might insist in the contractors rules that you supply this equipment. If this is stated in their contractors rules then, you cant really argue with that. 3) The reason R.C.D`s are used widely in social housing projects is because of the following: The client generally, due to poor advice and financial restraints, has a poor understanding of C.D.M. There is also a lack of trust, which seems to be inherent, so the client believes the poor advice i.e. their C.D.M Coordinator, rather than the principle contractor. The client seems to insist that all contracts lasting over 500 person hours, 30 days, are notified to the HSE, and do not understand, this is for each project. This, in turn, means we, as a client, have recognized the whole contract as a construction project. The 17th edition regulations BS 7671 outlines that all use of 240v equipment should be protected by a reduced low voltage or; automatic disconnection of supply with additional protection provided by an R.C.D. Reference Special locations - section 704.410.3.10 Hope this info helps both Sharon & Ron.

Your right Ron, and would be concerned otherwise but, that does not meet the retirements of bs7671. The rcd must be situated at the socket point I.e before the main circuit (now I'm getting you thinking). I have realised something with your statement - if they are working to your companies safe systems, you must supply. If the sub contractors are working to their own they must supply them. If you have agreed the sub contractors safe systems prior to works and now its being insisted as an extra the p.c will have to supply. Just been thinking - why is your company issuing socket testers to multitraders? They should not be working near any exposed parts of the circuit until proven dead by 'a competent person'

Thanks for that useful link Paul. I wonder if Sharon has some food for thought on a potential change to that "safe system of work". The use of socket testers, whilst well intentioned, just seems a wee bit OTT to me - and by no means fail-safe!

jarsmith, are you saying that you think BS7671 requires the use of a socket tester? Which regulation? Socket testers IMHO might indicate that certain faults are present at a socket, but are not sufficient to prove a socket or any other part of the installation is safe to use.

jarsmith, I am sorry that you find my post insulting, however, it is my opinion that I had to put things in a blunt and forthright manner as again in my opinion, your post was misleading and incorrect. You quoted a regulation from BS7671 which relates to construction sites, then you go on it appears to support point of use RCD's. The two are mutually incompatible. Your Chartered H&S status is of no interest to me, sorry, I have met and interacted with too many Chartered H&S professionals whose grasp of electrical engineering is IMHO less than acceptable. This is not their "fault". It is a specialist area, and if you are a JIB graded electrician or electrical technician with 2391, then you should have known better, however, I can tell you are not one of my students else you would have known better. You did NOT IMHO word your original post in the manner that you have worded your reply to my post. Also you must be careful with the term "point of origin". The origin of an electrical circuit is the distribution board from which it originates. If you are going to apply Section 710 regs then the RCD protection must be at the DB as 710 regs aply to construction sites. There is no original un-modifed Reg with regard to 410.3.10, allowing for you using the Red book, as few yet will have moved over, I however am one of the few, and I have very good reasons for doing so. In fact, I do have an apology, as I looked up construction & demolition sites, in the red book, then looked up 410.3.10, which is the reg I quoted. However, this is section 704, not 710 so my quotes of the regs whist the wording is correct, the reference is wrong, as if this is the reg you are referring to is also wrong. In the Red book there is no section 710. IF you are working to the Green book, I fail to see the significance of Medical locations to construction works in any shape, unless they are in medical locations, & I don't believe that this is the case. This will teach me to check my references fully, rather than take the information given in another post as correct, when it turns out not to be. As the American kids say "my bad"! I hate that term, but I can't think of anything better at this time of night. Even in the Green book there is no 710.410.3.10. I am not sure which JIB exam you did to become JIB 17th Edition qualified as I have never seen a JIB exam on BS7671. I await to be educated. All of the exams with regard to BS7671 I have ever come across, sat or taught are set by City & Guilds. I am unsure of what you mean by test & inspect etc. If you mean you hold 2391-10 & 2391-20 (also known as 2400), then this concerns me even more to be honest. BTW it's professional, NOT proffesional! It seems to me from your posts that you do not understand BS7671 sufficiently at all. I have admitted my misinterpretation, which was due to me believing your quote, big mistake on my part. I will agree that there is NO requirement in BS7671 to utilise what is "commonly" known as a "socket tester", however, there IS a requirement to test sockets. IMHO your post suggests that BS7671 extends past the socket outlet, if it did then the situation with regard to PAT and various other "electrical requirements" would be very different. I did not see the reference to "multi-traders", nor the situation with regard to exposed conductive parts, however, what if the "multi-trader" has as their "first trade" that of a competent electrician? Following which they have diversified? What is the problem with them having plug in socket testers as long as they understand the limitations to their use, which, they should. These plug in socket testers are very limited in their use, they are not acceptable for "proving dead" IMHO, or that it seems of the guidance issued by HSE and the trade bodies. I don't really understand the use of them in many situations. I have had British Gas "engineers" (I HATE this term as they are NOT engineers by any means, however, I hope the term serves a purpose) plug them in at my home and I have questioned the output they have found, to which they do not have an acceptable answer. I have heard from others in the electrical profession that they have been called to premises after British Gas personnel have used these devices and declared no earth being present, when in fact the installation is TT and perfectly acceptable to BS7671 & accepted industry practice. Your response to stillp, seems to me to be at odds with your earlier posts.