cooker lid

[BLOD]

What would you class a cooker as , where the glass fold down lid has been removed along with it's hinges so the safety shut off valve can no longer work ?

 

[JAH HEATING]

ID it, the safety valve has been tampered with

 

[stani]

The safety valve is only needed for the lid, no lid, no need for safety valve. Sounds so simple, I would defo ask the manufacturers.

 

[lame plumber]

well you know what the manufacturer will say, bit like asking ford if its ok to remove the brakes on their car!

 

[Ermintrude]

GIUSP 10.4 ID and riddor

 

[hammers4spanner]

safety devive inoperative ID

 

[Resolute]

Depends who removed the lid, was it someone approved to carry out the amendment by the manufacturer? If not then ID.

How'd you know some clown isn't going to try putting the lid back on?!

 

[BLOD]

Thanks for the replies,
I did id it this morning but it was playing on my mind most of the day.

Regards blod

 

[PETE 123]

Is it unsafe no is it a danger no is it right not really (not to correct standard) just my thoughts

 

[lame plumber]

does it still work as designed by the manufacturer when the original item was supplied. not at all!!!!!!!

 

[Phil_Plumb]

playing devils advocate here, say the lid and its hinges were removed, so that no other lid could ever be put on. Now we know why the shut off valve is there so that it turns off the gas if some muppet closes the lid.

Now what lid is there to close if there aint one to close.

Now it can and has been seen as tampering with a gas appliance and quite rightly so, but if the lid could never be reinstated then why does the gas shut off valve (for the lid) even matter?

 

[Ermintrude]

When lid is up pin is up ?? Ok until some one puts pan at back and it shuts off gas as pin down, pan removed gas left on at control knob .... Uncontrolled gas escape. Singed eyebrows when relights.

 

[Nostrum]

Its a technicality really, I don't really agree with ID but that's how it stands in the unsafe procedure so that's how it gets dealt with. It goes against the grain a bit, is it an immediate danger? No. is there a potential to be, yes. I would have said it were at risk if I was making the rules up..... But I don't.

 

[GasmanxxxR1]

is this a paradox?

 

[REDSAW]

its ncs,
but a paradox either way.lol

 

[Ermintrude]

How u deduce that?

 

[REDSAW]

its not immediately dangerous of injuring killing any one!.

its not at risk of injuring or killing anyone!

the safety device is there to stop the glass plate from being lowered onto the frame.= no glass plate safety device redundant..

the cut off can still be tested and if it works then it works!!.

 

[Ermintrude]

See your point but it's a defaced safety device/ wouldn't want to argue that with a man from GSR . It's a bit oTT but think 10.4 is Ames to cover all bases.

 

[Killy Bing]

......personally my cooker at my house (parents house), lid got dropped, smashed and oh hey you cant get the lids anymore!

so do i go and get a new range cooker or do i pin open the redundant safety device?
being competent and wanting hot food!
The lid safety shut off is just that, so when the glass goes down it doesn't get blown into a million pieces across the room

we do now have a new cooker for the new kitchen btw!

 

[Ermintrude]

What's your details so I can riddor you? Ha ha watch out watch out HSE snooping about! (Yeh right)

 

[Killy Bing]

I find hse only appear to cover their own backsides!

i have to admit if i went to that situation i would have contacted the manufacturer.
say if they do two models and the only difference is the lid + shut off.
If i was able to remove the shut off device itself lets say bringing it to the other models design.

but hey if i was to do that i would want it in writing from the maker first!

i was told today at my training centre riddor has been updated in the past week.

maybe its because now you can do it on your phone people are actually using it and suddenly they have some work to do!