Discuss Cooker connected to unfused connection unit with 6mm twin and earth in the Electrical Testing & PAT Testing Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

oracle

-
Esteemed
Arms
Reaction score
413
Today I found a free standing cooker connected with T&E cable. Since the cooker is bordered by cupboards it is regularly pulled forward about a metre for cleaning the unit and the floor beneath it.

This forward movement extends the cable to full stretch while pushing it back makes it hang in a loop. Surely this is not "fit for purpose" but the Regs and IET code are not much help

I would like to change it with heat resistant flexible cable with flexible metal sheath but to do this I have to justify the need to a sceptical housing organisation

Any helpful suggestions would be greatly appreciated
 
521.9.3 says that if the equipment is not subject to vibration then non-flexible cable can be used. T&E is not ideal but it does meet the regulations

I generally use H07RN from the cooker outlet plate to the cooker but on occasion I use T&E if I have forgotten my big roll of flex.
 
There are millions of cookers installed in this way, but most of those are static..and T&E is meant for fixed wiring.
As Murdoch says - not ideal. Something like this would be better: 3183TQ Butyl Flex

What size is the cable and/or the protective fuse and/or the rating of the appliance?
 
Love to know what you were thinking when typing that for predictive text to come up with that alternative to heat :D

What is 'breast resistant flax' anyhow? Curious at to something sooo powerful that it is resistant to breasts
 
Cable is 6mm and breaker is 32A type B on the RCD side of the split CCU. Using the OSG table A2 it complies and customer has not had it trip.

Thanks for the advice re cable type but how do I justify code 1 on this?

Housing agency may be difficult to convince without proof of non compliance, and the Regs are not helpful
 
Code 1 for a cable that is used in the vast majority of installations for this very purpose,are you serious ?:confused:

Maybe there exposed live connections that are accessible that you are not telling us about ;)
 
You are never going to code 1 it.

Millions of house are done like that. Note that it needs fixing and the faults which may arise if they don’t , and let them worry about it
 
I realize it's overkill going code 1 but they wouldn't pay for anything that wasn't.

The million house thing also applies to installations wired to the 14th Edition and earlier

I suppose that being fed through RCD will protect the cable from damage through flexing
 
Are you carrying out an EICR?
The million house thing also applies to installations wired to the 14th Edition and earlier
And other editions. Regulations are not retrospective and items on an installation that met the 14th at the time of installation can only be coded C3 unless there is actual danger present NOW and there isn't

I suppose that being fed through RCD will protect the cable from damage through flexing
How can it protect the cable??
Look, go to an electrical wholesalers and buy a couple of metres of HR flex. How hard can it be?
If you put an RCD in circuit you are then using an RCD as a method of basic protection. What does your regs book say about that?
It says that RCDs are not recognised as a sole means of protection......
 
Look I'm sorry I asked! All I was doing was a PAT test so I gave it a code 3 anyway. I have since contacted the housing agency and I said that it needed improvement and they took the same view as you guys.

I just don't like that the cable is strained every time they clean, and being pressed between the cooker and wall may be subjecting the cable to heat greater than 70 © temperature when the cooker is hot.

I just didn't like it but couldn't find any definitive ruling in my favour, Regs or Cop. Did they ever say why the cooker in the Grenfell building caught fire ?
 
Last edited:
Look I'm sorry I asked! All I was doing was a PAT test so I gave it a code 3 anyway. I have since contacted the housing agency and I said that it needed improvement and they took the same view as you guys.

I just don't like that the cable is strained every time they clean, and being pressed between the cooker and wall may be subjecting the cable to heat greater than 70 © temperature when the cooker is hot.

I just didn't like it but couldn't find any definitive ruling in my favour, Regs or Cop. Did they ever say why the cooker in the Grenfell building caught fire ?
It was a Fridge wasn't it?
 
I realize it's overkill going code 1 but they wouldn't pay for anything that wasn't.

The million house thing also applies to installations wired to the 14th Edition and earlier

I suppose that being fed through RCD will protect the cable from damage through flexing
What this sort of flexing, what a load of carp.
Dorks doesn't really cut it does it, Worlds gone stupid, other words would be more suitable but I don't want a ban.
 

Reply to Cooker connected to unfused connection unit with 6mm twin and earth in the Electrical Testing & PAT Testing Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock