Kettle in college? Legality

BMMachine

Hey guys & gals,
Just wondering about the legality of having a public kettle available for use in a college? Its a small college with access to a rec room which already contains a microwave. Is there any legal obligations in order to have a kettle there too?
Thanks for anything you can provide on this

FortySeven

BMMachine wrote: »

Hey guys & gals,
Just wondering about the legality of having a public kettle available for use in a college? Its a small college with access to a rec room which already contains a microwave. Is there any legal obligations in order to have a kettle there too?
Thanks for anything you can provide on this

It will have to pass an electrical inspection performed by an accredited inspector. It has to be labelled as passing inspection and be recorded.

BMMachine

Thanks!
Any chance you know how much the inspection would cost?

Del2005

BMMachine wrote: »

Thanks!
Any chance you know how much the inspection would cost?

Depends on whether the college has their own team or has to hire in. Google "PAT testing" for the requirements.

I really doubt that there is any legal requirement to provide an electrical and thermal danger to a work or study place. And I'd guess that PAT testing is not the reason why a kettle is not provided in the rec room.

Mrs OBumble

FortySeven wrote: »

It will have to pass an electrical inspection performed by an accredited inspector. It has to be labelled as passing inspection and be recorded.

Does the microwave also have to pass a special inspection? What about a toaster? Or the clock on the wall?

Why don't the appliances in my house have to pass an inspection?

OP, if I read you right, you're asking if there's a legal obligation on them to provide a device for boiling water. I don't believe there is.

Atlantic Dawn

The risk of spilling boiling hot water on someone and risking a €50k plus inshurdance claim is the reason why it would be banned or have serious regulations. A fixed point permanently boiled unit (not sure what it's called) would be a better option.

Gatling

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The risk of spilling boiling hot water on someone and risking a €50k plus inshurdance claim is the reason.

But yet they allow a microwave that can boil water hotter than a kettle

gctest50

This is the kind of thing you need, wall mounted and plumbed in :


https://www.caterkwik.co.uk/cgi-bin/trolleyed_public.cgi?action=showprod_WM3

Special Circumstances

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The risk of spilling boiling hot water on someone and risking a €50k plus inshurdance claim is the reason why it would be banned or have serious regulations. A fixed point permanently boiled unit (not sure what it's called) would be a better option.

Burko? Urn?

BMMachine

there is already a hot drinks vending machine there which is frankly awful. Kettle would be nice to make noodles and other snacks, as well as tea of course but yeah the reason we were told is legal and if they are already serving boiling liquids from the vending machine I don't see why a kettle is the issue.
Thanks people, I'll see what I can get done with this info

gctest50

problems with kettles :

people walking to a table with it full of boiling water

problems with kettles and countertop boilers :

Needs to be filled all the time - causes hassle
Someone will borrow it for an open day etc

you need the bolted-to-the-wall-self-filling-yoke above or similar

Del2005

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Does the microwave also have to pass a special inspection? What about a toaster? Or the clock on the wall?

Why don't the appliances in my house have to pass an inspection?

Yes the microwave and toaster should be tested. Clock on the wall isn't portable so doesn't need testing. All portable electric devices in work environments need to be tested.
They haven't brought in the law yet for domestic use so there's no need to test your home appliances.

CalamariFritti

FortySeven wrote: »

It will have to pass an electrical inspection performed by an accredited inspector. It has to be labelled as passing inspection and be recorded.

Still not sure if you're being satirical/cynical or serious. I'm afraid its serious which makes me think 'Golgafrincham'. We are supposedly the jewels of creation, but we can't be trusted with a kettle. We're toast.

sbsquarepants

Gatling wrote: »

But yet they allow a microwave that can boil water hotter than a kettle

Hotter than a kettle??

Shít like this really gets my goat - is this really the kind of world we want to live in, where you have to worry about PAT testing a kettle - it's entirely possible that the test will cost more than the kettle! Or that you can't trust a grown adult, a college going adult no less, to make a god damn cup of tea without doing something stupid and suing. It's a sad reflection on society to be honest!

I work in a big construction company and we actually had to buy our own testing machine a couple of years back because it was costing so much to test every tool externally.
Like a lot of "safety" legislation it's heart is possibly in the right place and therefore it's hard to criticise without just looking like a cowboy, but in practice it's just yet another gravy train.

It's a kettle - not an nuclear reactor!

FortySeven

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Still not sure if you're being satirical/cynical or serious. I'm afraid its serious which makes me think 'Golgafrincham'. We are supposedly the jewels of creation, but we can't be trusted with a kettle. We're toast.

I'm serious. No need domestically but for business or other institutions it is a mandatory part of health and safety legislation.

Peregrinus

I think you're missing the point. The effect of this law is not that people spend thousands getting kettles PAT tested. It's that instead of putting in kettles they put in fixed hot water dispensing systems, which are much safer (as in, they have much lower accident rates). And this significantly reduces accidents, burns, etc which, pain and inconvenience aside, cost money.

It's a cost-benefit thing. It's not cost-effective to install a fixed hot water dispenser in your home (though you can do that if you want) because a kettle in a home kitchen is used much less frequently, and in any event is likely to be better-maintained and/or more readily replaced if a bit dodgy. But in a workplace or similar environment a kettle is used much more frequently and, therefore, assuming the same accident rate as for home use, the actual number of accidents will be much greater. Therefore, the cost-benefit tips towards favouring the fixed dispenser. Therefore, laws which (in effect) mandate a fixed dispenser aren't imposing massive unreasonable costs on employers and similar; they are requiring employers to do what, in most cases, their economic self-interest would lead them to do anyway.

FortySeven

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hotter than a kettle??

Shít like this really gets my goat - is this really the kind of world we want to live in, where you have to worry about PAT testing a kettle - it's entirely possible that the test will cost more than the kettle! Or that you can't trust a grown adult, a college going adult no less, to make a god damn cup of tea without doing something stupid and suing. It's a sad reflection on society to be honest!

I work in a big construction company and we actually had to buy our own testing machine a couple of years back because it was costing so much to test every tool externally.
Like a lot of "safety" legislation it's heart is possibly in the right place and therefore it's hard to criticise without just looking like a cowboy, but in practice it's just yet another gravy train.

It's a kettle - not an nuclear reactor!

Don't get me started on the law that says I have to have a registered electrical contractor to carry out work on my own home.

(Nothing but a guarentee of work for electrical contractors)

CalamariFritti

Gatling wrote: »

But yet they allow a microwave that can boil water hotter than a kettle

:pac: Water boils at 100 degrees celsius, it turns into gas then. You could pour it into an open volcano and it would still be the same thing.

FortySeven

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. The effect of this law is not that people spend thousands getting kettles PAT tested. It's that instead of putting in kettles they put in fixed hot water dispensing systems, which are much safer (as in, they have much lower accident rates). And this significantly reduces accidents, burns, etc which, pain and inconvenience aside, cost money.

It's a cost-benefit thing. It's not cost-effective to install a fixed hot water dispenser in your home (though you can do that if you want) because a kettle in a home kitchen is used much less frequently, and in any event is likely to be better-maintained and/or more readily replaced if a bit dodgy. But in a workplace or similar environment a kettle is used much more frequently and, therefore, assuming the same accident rate as for home use, the actual number of accidents will be much greater. Therefore, the cost-benefit tips towards favouring the fixed dispenser. Therefore, laws which (in effect) mandate a fixed dispenser aren't imposing massive unreasonable costs on employers and similar; they are requiring employers to do what, in most cases, their economic self-interest would lead them to do anyway.

That may be fine for kettles, now find me a fixed point toaster.

It's not about changing behavior. It's about ensuring electrical equipment won't burst into flames.

(It's more about vested interests creating an industry and protection from lawsuits but that's for another thread)

BattleCorp

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Does the microwave also have to pass a special inspection? What about a toaster? Or the clock on the wall?

Portable appliance testing (PAT) in the workplace should be carried out annually. This is where portable electrical devices such as kettles, drills, microwaves, toasters, electric fan heaters etc. are independently inspected and tested by competent inspectors. If they fail the PAT, then they must be either repaired or removed.

The clock wouldn't need to be tested as it isn't a portable piece of equipment. And it's probably battery operated too, not mains powered.

Why don't the appliances in my house have to pass an inspection?

They don't need to be tested because it is in your own home. The regulations only apply to workplaces.

OP, if I read you right, you're asking if there's a legal obligation on them to provide a device for boiling water. I don't believe there is.

There's a requirement to provide potable drinking water in the workplace, but I don't think there is a requirement to provide boiling water to make beverages. There is a requirement to provide warm water for washing, but that's not the same.


When we get items tested in our workplace, I think it works out at less than €3 per device tested. It adds up though because there's a lot of electrical equipment in the workplace nowadays.

Still, it's far cheaper than settling a claim because someone got electrocuted or if a place burned down because of faulty electrical equipment.

maki

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hotter than a kettle??

Yes.

Tow

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm serious. No need domestically but for business or other institutions it is a mandatory part of health and safety legislation.

In Ireland it is often unheard of, while in the UK annual PAT testing has turned into big business, as many commercial insurance companies will not provide cover with out it. Maybe it will be on on top of the list of laws they will drop if brexit eventually happens.

CalamariFritti

maki wrote: »

Yes.

Fair enough and we know about this delayed reaction, but still...

Special Circumstances

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm serious. No need domestically but for business or other institutions it is a mandatory part of health and safety legislation.

The catch all "This equipment should be used only by competent personnel" doesn't work anymore I guess?

godtabh

Gatling wrote: »

But yet they allow a microwave that can boil water hotter than a kettle

dont think that is right. Boiling water is boiling water.

BMMachine

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's a kettle - not an nuclear reactor!

I can very much relate to this statement right now

seamus

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm serious. No need domestically but for business or other institutions it is a mandatory part of health and safety legislation.

This is not correct. The legislation requires that equipment is appropriately maintained to ensure that it's safe for use, but the legislation doesn't require that the inspector/maintainer belongs to a professional body, has been formally accredited or uses any legal certificates.

It can be the company IT guy looking at the cable and saying "Yep! That's grand".

I had a guy ring up offering to PAT test all of the laptops and screens in a company I was working in, warning we could be in breach of the law if we didn't. I laughed at him down the phone.

granturismo

Tow wrote: »

In Ireland it is often unheard of, while in the UK annual PAT testing has turned into big business, as many commercial insurance companies will not provide cover with out it. Maybe it will be on on top of the list of laws they will drop if brexit eventually happens.

PAT has not been applied here to the same extent as in the UK. The UK have interpreted an EU directive to an extreme. They blame the EU when they themselves have over applied some directives.

I was at a safety seminar two years ago with Irish and UK attendees and those from the UK were not only jealous that we have 'reasonably practicable' in our legislation (even if the EU have unsuccessfully tried to get us to remove it) but also that for the most part, inspections for PAT compliance in Ireland are concerned with work equipment that tends to get wear and tear in the workplace (hand operated tools etc).

If the college or insurer wants to ban kettles, they should be upfront and explain why, rather than blame 'health and safety'.

L1011

The wall mounted ones can be just as dangerous if misused - I've seen the results of two cases in two different businesses of cleaners hanging buckets on the tap to get hot water for cleaning and said bucket getting heavy enough to tear the tap off.

BattleCorp

seamus wrote: »

This is not correct. The legislation requires that equipment is appropriately maintained to ensure that it's safe for use, but the legislation doesn't require that the inspector/maintainer belongs to a professional body, has been formally accredited or uses any legal certificates.

It can be the company IT guy looking at the cable and saying "Yep! That's grand".

I had a guy ring up offering to PAT test all of the laptops and screens in a company I was working in, warning we could be in breach of the law if we didn't. I laughed at him down the phone.

Does the testing not have to be carried out by a 'competent person'? Which probably wouldn't be the company IT guy because he might just be a programmer and know sweet fcukall about electrical appliances. Usually 'competent person' means that you must have some sort of qualification to validate your competency.

Looking at the cable is inspection. You need specialist equipment to test it.

Del2005

seamus wrote: »

This is not correct. The legislation requires that equipment is appropriately maintained to ensure that it's safe for use, but the legislation doesn't require that the inspector/maintainer belongs to a professional body, has been formally accredited or uses any legal certificates.

It can be the company IT guy looking at the cable and saying "Yep! That's grand".

I had a guy ring up offering to PAT test all of the laptops and screens in a company I was working in, warning we could be in breach of the law if we didn't. I laughed at him down the phone.

Don't think that you can just look at the cable and say it's grand. In my company they have a machine to check the cable is OK after its passed a visual inspection, the results of the test are then uploaded to a database.

BattleCorp

I stand corrected. The paragraph below is from S.I. No. 299/2007.

(e) suitable and adequate facilities for boiling water and taking meals are provided and maintained for the use of employees, or that employees have reasonable access to other suitable and adequate facilities for the taking of meals, and

So yes, either a kettle or some other device needs to be provided to enable people to boil water.

Although are students the same as employees? Would you have to provide for them the same way you have to provide for employees?

my3cents

Is the problem here just that a kettle would reduce the amount of money that the vending machine makes so the "legal" excuse is just made up?

sbsquarepants

maki wrote: »

Yes.

You live and learn!
Cheers Maki:)

sbsquarepants

Tow wrote: »

In Ireland it is often unheard of, while in the UK annual PAT testing has turned into big business, as many commercial insurance companies will not provide cover with out it. Maybe it will be on on top of the list of laws they will drop if brexit eventually happens.

See herein lies the problem with this type of legislation - insurance companies will do anything to avoid having to pay out on claims, resulting in companies who need insurance being forced to jump through ever more expensive hoops to rule out increasingly less likely events.
Expense never gets absorbed by business, it only ever gets passed on to the consumer.

Del2005

BattleCorp wrote: »

I stand corrected. The paragraph below is from S.I. No. 299/2007.

(e) suitable and adequate facilities for boiling water and taking meals are provided and maintained for the use of employees, or that employees have reasonable access to other suitable and adequate facilities for the taking of meals, and

So yes, either a kettle or some other device needs to be provided to enable people to boil water.

Although are students the same as employees? Would you have to provide for them the same way you have to provide for employees?

There is a facility for getting boiling water from the vending machine.

my3cents

Del2005 wrote: »

There is a facility for getting boiling water from the vending machine.

At no cost?

GM228

BattleCorp wrote: »

I stand corrected. The paragraph below is from S.I. No. 299/2007.

(e) suitable and adequate facilities for boiling water and taking meals are provided and maintained for the use of employees, or that employees have reasonable access to other suitable and adequate facilities for the taking of meals, and

So yes, either a kettle or some other device needs to be provided to enable people to boil water.

Although are students the same as employees? Would you have to provide for them the same way you have to provide for employees?

No, a student is not the same as an employee, employees are those who work under a contract of employment.

Also note that section shows suitable and adequate facilities for boiling water and taking meals are provided and maintained for the use of employees, or that employees have reasonable access to other suitable and adequate facilities for the taking of meals.

It's one or the other, first part requires boiling water and suitable facilities for meals, second part is only access to suitable facilities for meals but does not specify boiling water.

Del2005

my3cents wrote: »

At no cost?

Why should it be free?

FortySeven

seamus wrote: »

This is not correct. The legislation requires that equipment is appropriately maintained to ensure that it's safe for use, but the legislation doesn't require that the inspector/maintainer belongs to a professional body, has been formally accredited or uses any legal certificates.

It can be the company IT guy looking at the cable and saying "Yep! That's grand".

I had a guy ring up offering to PAT test all of the laptops and screens in a company I was working in, warning we could be in breach of the law if we didn't. I laughed at him down the phone.

I did not know that. I was taught that this was a requirement on a health and safety course provided by gmit.

my3cents

Del2005 wrote: »

Why should it be free?

I'm not suggesting it should be but what I am suggesting is that the reason for there being no kettle is to make money from the vending machine.

GM228

FortySeven wrote: »

I did not know that. I was taught that this was a requirement on a health and safety course provided by gmit.

The only requirement is that the person testing is competent to do so.

FortySeven

GM228 wrote: »

The only requirement is that the person testing is competent to do so.

Very much open to interpretation. Isn't it?

Pat Mustard

BMMachine wrote: »

Is there any legal obligations in order to have a kettle there too?

I have never heard of a legal obligation to provide a kettle.

I would investigate a non-legal method of obtaining a kettle.

Find out who is responsible for kitting out the rec room, let them know that you seem to be short a kettle and see if they can sort it out for you.

GM228

FortySeven wrote: »

Very much open to interpretation. Isn't it?

Indeed.

For the purposes of the relevant statutory provisions, a person is deemed to be a competent person where, having regard to the task he or she is required to perform and taking account of the size or hazards (or both of them) of the undertaking or establishment in which he or she undertakes work, the person possesses sufficient training, experience and knowledge appropriate to the nature of the work to be undertaken.

FortySeven

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed.

Where is that taken from? That is hilariously obtuse!

hullaballoo

FortySeven wrote: »

Where is that taken from? That is hilariously obtuse!

It's actually taken directly from the Act: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/10/section/2/enacted/en/html


At least in that case it isn't solely in place to mean that people are forced to pay stupid amounts of money for "tradesmen" or a national testing service.

Prenderb

FortySeven wrote: »

Where is that taken from? That is hilariously obtuse!

It has to be worded like that as it covers everything that is covered in the Act. Competency for individual tasks is defined by that task, and what is reasonable in the eyes of the law (or an expert witness(es) perhaps, in court).

If you designed a building, you would need to have a) some relevant qualification, b) some relevant experience, and c) some relevant knowledge.

But that would be different to the relevant qualification, experience and knowledge for electrical testing, as it would be for operating a dump truck, hand cart or pencil.

And it is defined as reasonable in relation to the what might be used as benchmarks - think of licenses that are given out for machinery, or having done a training course as a manual handling instructor as examples.

Peregrinus

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I have never heard of a legal obligation to provide a kettle.

I would investigate a non-legal method of obtaining a kettle.

Find out who is responsible for kitting out the rec room, let them know that you seem to be short a kettle and see if they can sort it out for you.

Or, just bring in a kettle.