DrCheese Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Hi Guys, We've just had a PAT test done over the holidays here and the testers have decided to slap great big "Danger, unsafe appliance" on computers that have damaged faceplates. Where do we stand with this? The company that dealt with it previously never failed equipment based on this, so we never saw it as an issue. Short of replacing faceplates that will just get damaged or removed again, Where do we stand legally on this? (i.e if we continued to use the kit regardless)
joe90bass Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Sounds a bit overzealous of them to me! I don't have an answer to the legal implications, but..Whilst the PAT testers are 'supposedly' the experts what is your view on how dangerous the PCs are? Can you do a risk assessment with whoever is in charge of H&S at your place? Can you make safe with assistance from the D&T dept or site staff?
IrritableTech Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 The majority of the case is metal, so exposing the metal behind the plastic doesn't seem electrically unsafe. However, that isn't to say it is safe! The metal is often quite sharp behind those plates, but I'd be surprised if this concerned a PAT tester. We've never had a computer fail for this reason, but generally try and replace plates when they are broken or removed. If a student sees damage in a room, we often find they are happier to cause more damage.
Valentine Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) If the equipment did fail the inspection part of the test then no electrical tests would have been carried out on it which probably doesn't leave you in the best position legally. It is useful to have someone in school qualified in PAT so they can retest failed devices like this. Edited April 13, 2012 by Valentine
synaesthesia Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Tell them to retest them properly or they can go and get hanged for their payment. I would go absolutely APE if I saw some jobsworth do that. For instance, under that mindset, tech stations would be an instant fail... Edited April 13, 2012 by synaesthesia
joe90bass Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 If the equipment did fail the inspection part of the test then no electrical tests would have been carried out on it which probably doesn't leave you in the best position legally. It is useful to have someone in school qualified in PAT so they can retest failed devices like this. Good point, never thought of that.......
DrCheese Posted April 13, 2012 Author Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) Whilst the PAT testers are 'supposedly' the experts what is your view on how dangerous the PCs are? Well they are all Dell GX620/745's SFF's so whist yes you could stick your finger in and touch the RAM, You'd really have to cause a lot more damage to harm yourself doing so. If someone wanted to do that, having an intact faceplate wouldn't really do much. I generally consider it cosmetic damage, so it's frustrating that they've slapped failed stickers on them. We've tried in the past to fix them in place but the students always find a way to push them out again. In some cases they've snapped the little divider between the two faceplates, meaning we can't just stick them back in, we'd have to replace the entire front. We've sorta given up for the moment and will learn from the experience when we next refresh our stock (soon) Edited April 13, 2012 by DrCheese
themightymrp Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 The company who used to do our PAT tests failed a load of computers based on missing face plates. Our current company doesn't seem to care though :/ They passed them all! The problem we have is that most of our systems are Dell and to get replacement covers are £5 a pop - that would add up to some serious spending over the course of a year to keep them repaired!
DrCheese Posted April 13, 2012 Author Posted April 13, 2012 How did you resolve it? I'm tempted to just rip the stickers off but ugh, the legalities of it. If they've actually done a test of the unit and it's passed ok I really don't see what's wrong with it.
Valentine Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 As it has been failed I don't think anyone can recommend using the equipment again until it is retested (whether it is fixed or the testers are just informed it isn't a risk) as certainly the school and possibly yourself could be in serious trouble if something does happen. The testers will have logs of everything that has passed and failed as it is a requirement of the testing. To be qualified for PAT it takes no knowledge or experience of anything electronic which doesn't always mean the people doing it can use common sense as they just might not know enough about it. I would hope a PAT company has some sort of qualified electricians doing it though.
LukeC Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Iv had this before, i think the argument is the students possibly put there hands into the machine, made some new plates on the laser cutting machines - worked nicely.
synaesthesia Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 There is no argument. You can have PC's without lids, like you can have cars without bonnets. The PAT testing company needs to come out and retest them at no extra expense.
plexer Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Ask them why they failed them? If the gaps allowed access to energised mains voltage equipment then fair enough. Ben
Grey-gear Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) I've had a lot of that in the past, all I did was get the dt tech to cut out some lovely green plastic covers for the missing sections and then me and the other technicains super glued them on. Who do you think is more to blame the students or the teachers that "don't see it" when they are in those rooms? My boss riase this with the head of IT and the head explianing that if it continued that there won't be many lessons that will be using computers, it soon stopped. Edited April 13, 2012 by Grey-gear
bmdixon Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 The problem we have is that most of our systems are Dell and to get replacement covers are £5 a pop - that would add up to some serious spending over the course of a year to keep them repaired! stick old cd drives (or get new @ the cheapest you can in bulk, would save money over time) in them (and don't connect them up). Problem solved!
Sylv3r Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 I thought a PAT test included a visual test - surely if the case is open or faceplace has been removed it fails before an electricial test is even carried out? Thats my reading of it anyway.
synaesthesia Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 No. http://xtreview.com/images/Antec%20Skeleton%2002.jpg PAT fail. Not a chance. I know it's not going to get much use in business - well, except testing/tech stations. As said, I'd stand my ground and get them retested for being jobsworths.
Jaymate Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 Hi, I did a course for PAT Testing and if the case is damaged on any electrical item its a fail. In theory though this should also be picked up and reported every time that it is found broken by a member of staff or IT team as it's broken. Better safe than sorry - if some kid stuck a paper clip or something in there and something happens then who is at fault? Not the PAT tester who failed it - for sure! I was told to cut the plug off anything that wasn't safe when you fail it. I am sure you can do something simple with your DT dept to make it safe - for everyone!
synaesthesia Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 It must be practicable. Try it with no funds. Try it when departments are financially independent and don't want to spend their time, money and tools doing jobs for you. Common sense needs to prevail. Plus, one simple fact. You will do more harm to yourself (as a child) poking metal things into the freely available USB ports carrying 5 volts. In fact, a child could easily poke something metal into the vents in the power supply and open themselves up to enough juice to kill them. Not just computers - just about any electronic appliance with an unsealed power supply. That includes TVs, toasters, microwaves... etc etc. Please, apply common sense.
synaesthesia Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 This is what I hate about society. It's OK for someone to stick their tongue in the vent of a power supply and kill themselves with 400v of goodness, but if they get a slight tingle from a heavily regulated computer innards (let's face it, the parts of a PC have more protection than any other piece of equipment in the home or office) then the owner of that equipment can be locked away. I stop short of saying Darwin should claim everyone that is lacking in sense, but people do need to take responsibility for themselves. I will reiterate important points here: Visual inspections : "Damage to external casing of the equipment, or loose parts or screws." A missing faceplate can't be seen as damage. They're meant to be removable. Entire parts of some cases are meant to be removable. Voltages : There is no part inside a PC outside of the PSU that is able to cause serious harm to anyone (with some exceptions of course - I suppose licking a battery might hurt someone, even moreso if they have a pacemaker). Everything is too tightly regulated. The most harm will be to the computer. Actual risks : The biggest risk, in this example of a case with a missing faceplate has been cited already, someone putting their hand in and slicing it on the steel inside. We've all done it. It's not the fault of PAT testers, after all they're not experts in everything they are testing. There is still debate on what PAT covers, the guidelines state anything with a plug, however as soon as you bolt that item to a desk or wall, it's not a portable appliance. You could actually hardware kettle leads into the wall with the correct faceplates (expensive with the relevant electrician doing it), or boost security by bolting it to the desk/wall. A large amount of PAT testers can't actually test a computer because they don't have the right equipment, in which case a visual is *all* they can do apart from a check of the mains cable, for the same reason they can't do many refrigerators. But if anyone's going to start wailing about "lives could be saved" if someone put their hand in a computer, I'd happily do it for them and feel around with absolutely no risk to my health*. * with the exception of missing fingers due to certain clips on AMD heatsinks, huge gashes thanks to cheap steel cases and garotted hands because you've forgotten that hard drive in there was still an IDE cable...
Arthur Posted April 13, 2012 Posted April 13, 2012 what price is a persons life? £1,252.85 at current exchange rates.
localzuk Posted April 14, 2012 Posted April 14, 2012 Put it this way - the internals of a PC are segmented. The PSU is in its own casing. If this casing is damaged, I'd say its a fail. However, outside that case, the maximum voltage is 12V. People in electronics and physics lessons use batteries and power supplies to supply projects with electricity. The power supplies available at my high school when I was a kid allowed you to choose 24V too. So, no, it shouldn't be a fail. However, the thing to remember is this - PAT testing is not a legal requirement. It is a liability cover issue. If someone injures themselves on a faulty piece of equipment, the PAT test is there to say 'we've done our due diligence and we try our best to repair/replace any damages'. The law simply states that electrical equipment must be maintained and fit for use.
GrumbleDook Posted April 14, 2012 Posted April 14, 2012 The other thing to remember about PAT testing (especially the visual test) is that it includes risk management. If there is damage to the case which leads to an increased risk of something going wrong (i.e. damaged face plate allows fingers and other things to by rammed into the machine with *a lot* more ease) then yes, it is likely to be assessed as a fail. This does not mean it is unsafe. Any PAT Tester which sticks a label of 'unsafe' on an item after a visual inspection should be challenged. As to see the companies manual of assessment and their risk tables. Also ask them to remove the labels as you will remove them from use until they can be re-assessed ... and if they refuse or if the labels do not come off without leaving marks then challenge them on the damage *they* have caused. You cannot scream criminal damage (which I have seen one school try) as they are likely to have in their contract that they stick labels on things ... and if you have not challenged it before then you can't go legal on them ... Also remember that they are performing a service ... if you are not happy with the service or the quality of it then you do not have to use them again, and you can also report them to Trading Standards. I have seen some firms which do PAT testing also have 'repair centres' and so there is a clear conflict at times. Be careful of this.
sjatkn Posted April 14, 2012 Posted April 14, 2012 The problem we have is that most of our systems are Dell and to get replacement covers are £5 a pop - that would add up to some serious spending over the course of a year to keep them repaired! At least you don't have HP DC7800's, the last time I asked HP the 3.5" floppy bezel was £42 each (dropping to £35 for 100)! I did a course for PAT Testing and if the case is damaged on any electrical item its a fail. In theory though this should also be picked up and reported every time that it is found broken by a member of staff or IT team as it's broken. I agree with you in both statements. In a previous job (laboratory technician in a university Physics department) I was also responsible for PAT testing several thousand items, as part of our training we were told that we should remove from service items with any damage to the case. As I was also the person responsible for maintaining the same kit I never had that happen as I had already repaired it. I was also fortunate that the staff and students working the the lab were excellent at reporting faulty kit so I rarely found damaged kit at PAT test time. I just wish staff and students in my current school had the same desire to look after the equipment.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now