Counterfeit and Illegal Plugs and Leads

I agree, counterfeit components are a problem.

We had a recent discussion on this very subject. Click this link to go to that discussion.

Sounds like China is in the plug business

Wecome aboard FF.

Tony

You get what you pay for.

If you buy from a reputable supplier, and pay the price for legitimate products and their utliity, your customers will come back.

These things are being sold by supposedly "reputable" dealers. The faults have been pointed out, but they delete unfavourable comments from their site and continue to sell.

Profit before safety!

The problem is that many (or most) consumers cannot see any difference, don't understand how certain aspects of the design can affect safety, and know nothing about BS regulations. As TonyS says, these items are also often sold through apparently reputable dealers. As far as many consumers are concerned they are getting the same for less money. It is difficult for the buyer to beware if they don't know what to beware of (pardon the terminal preposition). As FatallyFlawed correctly points out, it is down to the authorities to clamp down on this.

Sorry,

I misinterpreted the question. I was not considering common consumer goods.

Another good example of two nations separated by a common language.

Half the "real" stuff is crap, anyway,... including items that somehow manage to achieve UL listing.

Customs does not inspect these, they just sniff them for drugs and count them

The situation of the household UK plugs is that they are superrrr..... heavy duty and the real stuff has some solid pieces of copper in it. To produce this, compared to other countries must be very expensive, especially if you vision the high prices for US plugs that only last a fart. The UK plugs serve 4 lives. I understand that they can be build in much cheaper versions. Any copy of a US plug on the contrary can probably have an improvement to the parent stuff in it? Maybe BS 1363 needs modernization.

Its a problem that the earth shielding is not needed (nor is it specified) for any reason at all and could possible cause a failure to connect to earth properly when the plug is fully inserted.

Phase & Neutral are partially shielded so that it is impossible to have contact with them when they have contacted their respective connections.

Many accidents happened with the older plugs with small fingers, or as in the case of my nephew - small fingers and a big penny!!! It removed large pieces of copper from the old English penny, but he/it appears to have been in contact with the earth pin first and he never felt a thing!!

So it could be a danger to the user if a leak to earth happens....

One or two concerns here, the first being the use of the word counterfeit. Counterfeiting is the process of copying another manufacturer's design. Non-compliance with BS 1363, however reprehensible it may be, is not of itself counterfeiting.
Second, the issue of the partial sleeving of the earth pin. While it seems to be pretty pointless, I am not sure that it is actually prohibited by BS 1363. Maybe you can give us the relevant wording. The partial sleeving on the current-carrying pins is not a problem because the contacts in the socket (receptacle) meet the pin all the way down, and there is no reason for the earth contact to be different.
Third, I detect a whiff of vested interest here. There is an identical photo on the website you point us to and on the Wikipedia entry for BS 1363. Is it your website? Have you perhaps contributed both entries?

"One or two concerns here, the first being the use of the word counterfeit. Counterfeiting is the process of copying another manufacturer's design. Non-compliance with BS 1363, however reprehensible it may be, is not of itself counterfeiting."

What they are counterfeiting is the approval marks, usually you will find that it is the ASTA mark that is counterfeited, in the case of the fuseless plug shown in 9 of the ebay listings on the website it is a CE mark, but as a CE mark is specifically not applicable to UK plugs then it is doubly wrong.

"Second, the issue of the partial sleeving of the earth pin. While it seems to be pretty pointless, I am not sure that it is actually prohibited by BS 1363. Maybe you can give us the relevant wording."

BS 1363, clause 12.16 states "Sleeves shall not be fitted to any earthing plug pin."

Aside from being non-compliant, a sleeved earth pin is a certain indicator of an illegal plug, one which is likely to have other issues.

I can see the point of having the power pins partially sleeved: If a conductor (coin, tableware, etc.) is slid under a partly dislodged plug, it will be prevented from contacting live metal.

I also see no need to sleeve the earthing pin, which should not be live even if contacted by metal objects. (I can envision scenarios in which it could be live, however.)

But where is the danger of having a partially sleeved earth pin? Maybe there is such a danger, but I don't recall an explanation. Thus I can't tell if you are trying to prevent a real danger, or merely quibbling over words in a regulation.

That said, if the regulation calls for something, any item purporting to comply should actually comply.

Tornado, "I can see the point of having the power pins partially sleeved: If a conductor (coin, tableware, etc.) is slid under a partly dislodged plug, it will be prevented from contacting live metal."

It is also to prevent live pins be touched while the plug is inserted/removed. This is common in other European plug types also, and would be a great improvment to the NEMA plug. (I speak with feeling, as I have homes on both sides of the pond.)

"But where is the danger of having a partially sleeved earth pin? Maybe there is such a danger, but I don't recall an explanation. Thus I can't tell if you are trying to prevent a real danger, or merely quibbling over words in a regulation. "

BS 1363 line and neutral socket contacts must be set back at least 9.6mm from the face plate, so contact with the plug pins is always made to the metal part. However, the earthing contacts are usually set closer to the face plate, and in some implementations they are brought out to the plane of the face plate. (This ensures that an earth contact is made as soon as the plug comes into contact with the socket.) If a sleeved earth pin is inserted into a socket with such earth contacts there will be no resulting electrical contact, therefore a complete lack of earthing. Yes, it does matter!

So why not redesign the earthing pin sleeve so that it touches the pin everywhere from zero to full depth of the pin?

Tornado: "So why not redesign the earthing pin sleeve so that it touches the pin everywhere from zero to full depth of the pin?"

Let me make sure that I understand you. You appear to be suggesting that to accomodate illegal counterfeit plugs and remove the danger of non-earthing which sleeved earth pins cause, that all the sockets installed in the UK should be replaced with a modified version?

And do you have any suggestions for how the sockets should be modified to accomodate all the other faults displayed by counterfeit plugs?

No, I am suggesting that U.K. design may be faulty in the first instance (or at least suboptimal). For one thing, a ground fault in an appliance might actually result in energizing its ground pin. If the pin is unsleeved in its proximal portion, an unseated plug could allow conductive objects to encounter a live pin.

It really behooves you to think about such matters, rather than just pontificate on them.

But the situation you describe is surely what earthing is for, and the earth pin must be in contact with the earth of the socket before the power pins are engaged, so where is the problem?

Then, pray tell, how does a partial sleeve on the proximal portion of an earthing pin prevent the distal portion from first contacting a full-length earthing sleeve?

"Then, pray tell, how does a partial sleeve on the proximal portion of an earthing pin prevent the distal portion from first contacting a full-length earthing sleeve?"

Tornado, We are talking about illegal plugs which exhibit a multitude of contraventions. Your arguments are circular and ridiculous, you clearly have no understanding of the issue and I cannot waste further time on responding to you.

Then don't. But I will continue responding to you, as long as it takes to shut you up.

How uncouth.....

DUUUUHHHHHHH?

If you don't understand the terms, then get a dictionary.

I think everyone here understood what he was trying to say, except you yourself.

You are totally off topic with your comments about something you know (obviously) nothing about.

That is simply not the way to go as several people have already mentioned in a reasonable manner......so why not simply give up gracefully......?

In addition to a dictionary, get a spine, Anonymous Coward.

I am fully aware that my post #17 was truculent, but I had just been insulted by the terms "circular" and "ridiculous". It may be that I did not understand fully some feature of the UK plug design, which might nullify my argument (though not make it circular or ridiculous). But my questions were raised in good faith, and I still suspect that good as the UK design may seem, there may be some vulnerabilities in it.

By now, some of the wording of the BS has been given, which helps. I do not have easy access to the Standard (so far as I know, anyway); a dimensional drawing would also help.

Earlier you made the comment "If the pin is unsleeved in its proximal portion, an unseated plug could allow conductive objects to encounter a live pin." I suspect that it was that statement that completely lost any credibility you thought you had. If you would explain how the ground pin of a plug could become live before the supply pins make contact then you might not seem so "ridiculous".

Your comment "So why not redesign the earthing pin sleeve so that it touches the pin everywhere from zero to full depth of the pin?" shows ignorance of the British system. Their ground pins are flat, not round, so there is no "earthing sleeve" (you would have known this if you had bothered to look at the pictures on the referenced website). You must know that sprung contacts designed to connect with a flat pin will only make contact at one point, multiple individually sprung contacts would be required to "touch the pin everywhere from zero to full depth of the pin", that does not sound either practical or economical.

You do our nation no service by projecting your ignorance of others in this way. You might like to ponder on the fact that the brits started using tamper proof sockets in the 1920s, and codified their use in 1947, somewhat earlier than the 2008 NEC Article 406.11! This is an area where we have nothing to teach the brits.

Welcome aboard. If you stick around a while, you will find I'm not so ignorant as you presently think.

The whole problem motivating this thread is the lack of contact that might result from a partially sleeved earthing pin or blade. But there are also possible geometries (or defects in them) that could result in lack of earthing contact. In such (admittedly speculative) cases, if power contact was made, but earthing contact was interrupted, the proximal portion of an earthing pin/blade could indeed become energized. And if still exposed, this live would-be earth would be a hazard. In any event, a partially insulated earthing contact should not be reflexively ruled out of court.

By the way, a flat spring against a flat blade is a linear contact, not a point contact. The term "sleeve" does not necessarily imply "round"; it could also be a rectangular sleeve. Also, pin-and-sleeve schemes can achieve area contact, rather than merely linear or point. As yet another alternative, I think it is Entrelec that uses a spring-loaded button contact scheme, not much different from motor starter contacts.

For what it's worth, the UK system looks like a good one; but that does not necessarily make it bullet-proof.

Assuming that the plug is not broken in any way, and they are very difficult to damage as they are really solid, its impossible for a ground pin to "NOT" touch ground. As it goes into the ground pin hole, before any other pin, it is larger than the neutral and phase pin holes, where it cannot possible fit into, it also releases two strong shutters covering neutral and phase.

As far as I am aware, no other system does this.

Also, due to the physical size differences between pins and their geometry, it is impossible to fit it the wrong way around.

The phase is always on a particular pin, which is also fused, hopefully with a fuse of the correct size for device being powered.

Also, each ring main is covered with a breaker.

It has been in usage for more than 60 years as the British Standard.

All houses built in the last (more than!) 40 years must have an Earth Leakage Main Breaker, many older houses have been retrofitted, but sadly not yet all.

Here in Germany, there is a dangerous system, with no legal requirement for ELCBs, plugs can be inserted 180° or at 0° with no problem.

I have 3 ELCBs in my house, one on each phase!!! But no legal requirement to have that.

The holes are large enough for small fingers. No shutter requirement.

This is the so called "Continental System". It is over most of Europe with minor changes.......it is pure crap.

It is in many ways electrically similar as far as I can see (I am not an expert on US electrical systems) to the US system, which is also unsafe and badly designed, the US voltage may appear to be better, but there is nothing preventing fatalities like an ELCB can as far as I am aware, no legal reason to install such safety devices.....eg. 110VAC kills almost as well as 230VAC can.......

Often the US system allows pins of a plug, that is not fully inserted, to be touched by metal objects of even small fingers......many devices are only two pins and have no earth connection. Phase and neutral can then be on either pin, depending on how the plug is inserted.....dangerous.

The US should concentrate its energies on making certain legal requirements to improve the safety aspects of their electrical system, if that is at all possible, it may be not......

<...All houses built in the last (more than!) 40 years must have an Earth Leakage Main Breaker...>

Not true.

It would be correct, however, to state that all installations since the current edition of British Standard 7671 will have the various levels of earth leakage protection called for in that edition downstream of the main breaker on the basis of the earth protection provided at that location, otherwise the respective safety certificate issued upon completion in compliance with current Building Regulations Part P would be invalid.

More words. Different meaning. Regulations are not retrospective.

I was pretty sure that it applied after some time in the 70's, when I still lived in the UK. I have been here since 1981. When I rewired my UK house in 1976, I had one put in, due to the law I thought.......but maybe I was simply clever, I forget now.....

It appears that most countries have actually only fairly recently mandated them.....this Millennium in fact, wow, wasn't I ahead of my time?

I agree with you entirely Andy. The UK system is excellent, and very reassuring when you've lived in other places. Some electrical systems are downright scary.

You say: "...the US voltage may appear to be better...", and quite correctly add that "...110VAC kills almost as well as 230VAC can...". What many people forget is that, at 110v your domestic appliances will be drawing twice the current, so for example more than 20 amps for a typical kettle. That's a lot of current, enough for the plug and adjacent cable to get quite hot in the short time it takes the kettle to boil. I can vouch for this from having lived in Canada, and I'm sure I once read that many housefires in Canada were down to poor electrical systems and timber-framed houses. I'm surprised I never got burnt or electrocuted, being one of those curious kids that just had to find out what would happen if...(and live plug prongs were so easily exposed).....

As far as UK plugs and electrical equipment are concerned, so much is now bought globally via the internet. It was much easier for the authorities to police quality standards when everybody bought their electrical equipment from high-street dealers and reputable manufacturers.

The standard is available on wiki for easy reading and explanation, it also includes pictures.

Look here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS_1363

You demonstrate a singular lack of knowledge about the safest plug and socket system for domestic and office use that there is in this world. It may not be perfect, it would be great if it was designed a little bit smaller, but that is the only problem that I know of.....

Also, UK homes are designed with separate lighting and power circuits, plus the power sockets are fed from a so called "ring main".......its really hard to beat it with regard to safety and efficiency. You do have to look at the whole package, not tiny parts of a well designed, tested and working system. I was born in '46, the system has been installed/available since 1947....my whole sentient life!!

By the way, the scenario you describe simply cannot happen.

The "thinking" in this system was made by some very clever people, many years ago.....it has only been occasionally refined since then.

Look here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS_1363

and you will read the following as well as much more detail:-

"In 1941 Lord Reith, the then minister of Works and Planning, instigated the establishment of a series of committees to investigate and report on the problems likely to affect the peace time rebuilding of Britain. One of these, the Electrical Installations Committee, was charged with the study of all aspects of electrical installations in buildings. Convened in 1942, they reported in 1944.^[3]

One of the most far reaching recommendations, still in effect in the 21st century, was the introduction of the ring circuit system (often informally called "ring main"), where, instead of each socket being individually wired, a cable was brought from the fuse or circuit breaker in the distribution board and wired in sequence to a number of sockets before being taken back to the distribution board and wired to the same fuse or circuit breaker. This provided considerable savings in the copper required to wire the circuit. Since the fuse or circuit breaker had to be rated for the maximum current the ring could carry (30 A or 32 A for breaker), it was required that the plugs used to connect to the ring each contained their own fuse rated for the appliance that it connected.

The plug and socket system defined in BS 1363 is a result of another of the report's recommendations. Britain had previously used a combination of 5 amp and 15 amp round pin sockets, where each had to be wired to the distribution board where it would be provided with its own fuse. In a supplementary report, published as an appendix to the main report (July 1944), the committee proposed a completely new socket outlet and fused plug should be adopted as the "all-purpose" domestic standard. A number of technical details were required of the new standard, first of which was that "To ensure the safety of young children it is of considerable importance that the contacts of the socket-outlet should be protected by shutters or other like means, or by the inherent design of the socket outlet."^[4] This requirement for a new system of plugs and sockets led to the publishing in 1947 of "British Standard 1363 : 1947 Fused-Plugs and Shuttered Socket-Outlets".^[5]"

So your suggestion is to change the British Standard to allow badly designed copies of British plugs to work, at least with earthing.

Remember, some do not have fuses either and some have badly made fuses that may not fuse when they should......somehow I do not see the logic in your suggestion.

Don't forget, there are many millions of homes, offices etc. with probably Billions of these sockets already installed, a retrofit to make them all safe with cheap Chinese badly made products would cost more than the US military budget!!!!

......and who would be helped?

....who will pick up the costs?

Your suggestion is at bet illogical and funny.....

On British sockets, the plug earth pin touches "earth" immediately when it is put in contact with the socket, the contact area is placed quite near to the socket face.

There is a simple mechanism in the earth socket that retracts "shutters" over the neutral and phase sockets, to prevent anyone pushing a pencil or anything in and making contact with the phase or neutral.

If the earth pin is sleeved, it must be possible that on some sockets, when the plug is fully home, the insulation only makes contact with earth of the socket, though I do not have the possibility to check this out fully myself, but if true, no earth connection for the appliance....

Firstly its forbidden by the electrical laws (BS = British Standards) of the UK and secondly it could be dangerous as well......

It demonstrates further how stupid Chinese manufacturing can be.....and dangerous......

If I remember correctly early UK sockets to this standard (normally known as "13 Amp") did not have shutters. Nor did the L and N pins have sleeves.

Effective as this system is, there was a rival system that appears to be better. I think it was called Dorman Long, and it was fitted in a lot of Suffolk council houses. It used the ring main/fused appliance idea, but the fuse was the live pin. Easily accessed and easy to check the rating. The pins were round, though I think the earth had a groove that prevented pencils etc being inserted in the socket. But the best bit was a groove around the earth pin which engaged with a mechanism in the socket and its on/off switch. You could neither insert nor remove the plug with the power on, ensuring there was no possibility of touching the live pins, the plug was locked in while in use, and every socket would be left Off after removal of a plug.

If you want to see a really dangerous connector just look at an electric light bulb socket, either ES or BC!

Since is inception in 1942 BS1363 sockets have had shutters for the live and neutral

The "Dorman Smith" plug (not Dorman Long) was rejected as it had already been decided that a flat pin plug was preferable to round. Further, there was concern about adopting a single source patented item as the national standard (Dorman Smith were unwilling to release it). I believe that there were also concerns about whether a fuse pin would be sufficiently robust to withstand repeated insertions.

The requirement for the new socket to incorporate shutters was in the remit from the beginning, and the original name of the standard was "BS 1363:1947 Fused Plugs and Shuttered Sockets".

GA

Great Post.

You explained some of the reasons why their system was never used......many thanks.

Shuttered sockets go way back to the old 15 and 5 amp sockets used in the UK before the 13amp socket was designed.....

I found some interesting "Dorman Smith" Comments here:-

http://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?p=222956

Sadly, I have to disagree on some points, they are as follows (My comments are in heavy print):-

If I remember correctly early UK sockets to this standard (normally known as "13 Amp") did not have shutters. Completely False. It was so "speced" and designed from day 1. Read here for full details:-BS 1363

Nor did the L and N pins have sleeves. True, this came much later, good change.

Effective as this system is, there was a rival system that appears to be better. I think it was called Dorman Long, and it was fitted in a lot of Suffolk council houses. It used the ring main/fused appliance idea, but the fuse was the live pin. Easily accessed and easy to check the rating.

Possibly OK. I am unconvinced. They appear to make Bridge and Bridge Suspension systems nowadays (at least since 1875). Listening to you, their system sounds expensive and has far less safety than the present system. I could not find any pertinent references to be 100% sure....but it obviously lost out somewhere.....

The pins were round, though I think the earth had a groove that prevented pencils etc being inserted in the socket. So. the only SAFE pin to touch is made even SAFER!!! WOW!!!

But the best bit was a groove around the earth pin which engaged with a mechanism in the socket and its on/off switch. You could neither insert nor remove the plug with the power on, ensuring there was no possibility of touching the live pins, the plug was locked in while in use, and every socket would be left Off after removal of a plug. Sounds as though this extra complication would have made the socket too expensive for general usage. Pin insulation or proper shutters would have fixed the problems.

Furthermore, possibly locking a plug into a socket if the On/Off mechanism is somehow damaged sounds very negative and then difficult to remove and repair......

If you want to see a really dangerous connector just look at an electric light bulb socket, either ES or BC! Why is a bayonet light bulb dangerous? Its not connected to power (neither phase or neutral), in fact its earthed when plugged into a correctly connected metal socket.....but not dangerous when plugged into a plastic socket.

Now you do have a valid point for any Edison Screw bulbs...which is rather sad as the ONLY system where they could be relatively safely used, is the UK (which does not use them because they are too dangerous!!).

In the UK, the phase would/could be applied to the middle pin only and neutral would go on the screw. It is laid down in the UK spec which wire has phase and which has neutral, the plug being polarised of course is also a great security/safety feature, whereas most other systems do not bother, or some for low current devices only (US?)....The screw can be phase or neutral in many countries.....and with possible access to unwary fingers.....OUCH!!

I have never heard of this system you mentioned before, but nothing you wrote suggested in any way shape or form either better safety or lower production costs, the two most important points for a fairly universal system, that can be found in many countries today that once comprised the "Commonwealth", Australia, N.Zealand, S.Africa to name but a few....,.

Minor point, but ES fittings are regularly used in the UK, and ES lamps are readily available.

Interesting, how times change....

Do you by any chance know as to whether phase is correctly lead only to the center base contact or not? The one less likely to come into contact with a finger that is...

Is the screw properly shielded from fingers or not?

Here they don't care about phase or not, but all the ones I have seen are well shielded with plastic....but a damaged fitting could be really dangerous to life and limb....

I don't remember the exact arrangement - and I don't have any to look at (I don't like 'em) - but I assume that a correctly-installed lampholder would have phase to the center contact. IIRC there's a porcelain or plastics shroud around the outside of the screw.

I'll keep an eye open and let you know if I get a chance to have a good look at one.

Thanks John, it would be interesting to hear about.

I have a couple of light fittings in my house which use screw caps, one standard (27mm) and one small (14mm). I am pretty certain they are wired phase to central contact. You can see that in both cases the screw sockets are plastic. Whichever way it is wired, it would be impossible to accidently touch a live contact. It's been a while, but I'm sure the light fittings we had in Canada when I was there were nowhere near as safe as this.

Can you measure from the plug to the central electrode for us all please?Or did you wire them yourself? It really needs to be a lamp bought in the UK....with plug.

These are ceiling fittings, not table lamps (I'm not sure that I've ever seen UK table lamps with ES bulbs, but that's not to say they don't exist). They also have use spots rather than standard bulbs.

Plenty of ES and SES table lights around (my ex kept buying them, and then buying BC or SBC lamps as replacements when the "bulb went", and asking me how to fit them ). IIRC B&Q did a particularly good stitch-up job in this respect.

One of the main reasons I don't like them is that out of about ten lamps I've ever replaced in which the bulb came apart from the base on removal (meaning supply isolation + prob'ly wobbling around on a chair with long-nose pliers &c &c) I think only one was a BC - and that had had the glass smashed before I got anywhere near it, so it doesn't count .

Interesting.......manufacturer?

Assorted - both lamps and lampholders. There may've been a trend, but I didn't notice it. Most of the offending bit were SES based - common for ceiling fittings these days.

Think the SES is more prone to glass/base separation than any of the others. Prob'ly a torque thing.

OK, the problem probably does not exist in such units.....thanks for letting me know.

Thank you for the factual information, but where are these people going to end up in court? Counterfeiting is a civil offence, the hearing is in the civil court, and the aggrieved manufacturers recover damages. That is not going to happen, because it is not another manufacturer's design being copied. On the other hand these people are going to be prosecuted in the criminal courts by Trading Standards authorities for non-compliance with British Standards, and risk fines or imprisonment.
Please get your wording right, here and on your website(s).

Sorry I failed to respond to this earlier.

You will find that counterfit is the word used by both BEAMA and the UK government in relation to plugs which fraudulently claim to be to BS 1363, and fuses which fraudulently claim to be to BS 1362 etc, they often bear certification marks, but are not compliant and therefore illegal.

It is important when discussing this issue to use the established terminology, these items are counterfeit.

Sorry, but my reading of the situation is otherwise. The IEE wiring regulations (BS7671) are non-statutory, so do not make the use of counterfeit components illegal. The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 state merely "10. Where necessary to prevent danger, every joint and connection in a system shall be mechanically and electrically suitable for use." so a counterfeit item is illegal only if it is unsatisfactory. You may be confused by the fact that HMRC has the power to seize counterfeit goods imported for sale in this country, but only if an application has been made by the owner of the trademark or intellectual property rights.
There is a clear distinction between counterfeit goods, which infringe civil property rights, and goods which contravene statutory legislation, which are illegal. The only statutory legislation involving counterfeiting of which I am aware is the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which concerns itself with coinage, banknotes and important documents.

Please see:

"Electrical Equipment - Requirements for Plugs & Sockets etc
Guidance notes on the UK Plugs & Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations
1994 (S.I. 1994/1768)
February 2007" available here: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file38628.pdf

From page 3:" BACKGROUND
The Plugs and Sockets, etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 (the "Regulations") were introduced to provide a regulatory regime to address issues regarding consumer safety. There were concerns that consumer safety was compromised by the substantial quantity of counterfeit and unsafe electrical plugs and sockets being placed on the UK market....."

In effect, the regulations give statutory force to BS 1363
UK plugs must have the appropriate certification marks fixed to the plug to comply with the regulations, using these marks without the appropriate certification is counterfeiting. The same goes for fuses, fuses which claim to be BS 1362 but are not are also considered counterfeit.

BEAMA have a special website dedicated to the issue called COUNTERFEIT KILLS: http://www.counterfeit-kills.co.uk However, BEAMA's main focus of action is naturally on those items primarily used within the electrical trade (eg the fixed items in an installation) as opposed to those sold directly to domestic and business consumers (eg plugs and power leads, whether sold separately or part of a complete product). It is for this reason that consumer protection measures are so important.

Most likely, the uninformed counterfeiter and illegal plug maker though the two pins that had sleeves though it would be safer if all pins had sleeves. For not knowing the ground made contact first and the sleeve distance is how much further in that the live/neutral contact starts.

Or they though it looked good if all looked the same?

As to the fuse part, well if the plug burns up you will buy another one. The circuit "is" protected by a fuse in the panel. Right?

--------------------

Counterfeit products that compromise safety, IS one area governments should step in and investigate and try to educated the consumer on.

Unfortunately the consumer IS only interested in products as cheap as possible. So if someone can cut corners in manufacture products that are not safe there will be a market. BUYER BEWARE! that good deal may just cost you dearly....

Why don't you read up on the British Standard that I posted today. It will get you up to speed.

The ring main breakers for sockets are set for 32 amps I believe, lighting less but also the whole system is mostly covered with an ELCB for safety. At least for builds in the last 40 years or so.....

32 amps is a lot of current......I once tripped an ELCB by touching phase, it still hurt a lot and numbed.....but I lived......

<...At least for builds in the last 40 years or so...>

Not true. It is perfectly acceptable for a 1961-build installation to continue to operate in 2011 without modification since then. The rewireable fuseholder hasn't died yet.

However, any modifications to an installation would be carried out to the current verion of British Standard 7671 prevailing at any time. To illustrate:

• Were a 1961 rewireable fuse box to be encountered while installing new ring circuits back to the distribution point then the box becomes subject to replacement with current-BS7671-edition-compliant distribution boxes and the earlier fuse box gets junked; such things cannot now be installed new. The professionally-qualified electrician must either carry this out, or not touch the installation. As the new wiring would be in the post-2004 colours, a prescribed label must be displayed at the new distribution box.
• However, a new installation that comprises a simple spur off an existing ring that doesn't affect the 1961 fuse box would not require the changing of the fuse box to be compliant, as the untouched fuse box was compliant with the earlier version of BS7671 when published. The spur circuit in this case would be in the post-2004 wiring colours of brown-live, blue-neutral and green/yellow sleeved earth and will be connected to the earlier red-live, black-neutral and green/yellow sleeved earth conductors in the rest of the ring; the current BS7671 only requires a warning label of prescribed style and dimensions to be attached to the 1961 fuse box for the modified installation to remain compliant. However, there is a significant opportunity for the professionally-qualified electrician to advise and carry out the upgrading of the fuse box to current edition should the installation owner wish to pay for it in addition to the requested alteration.

Thanks for the clear update.

Sorry my wit/sarcasm did not catch.I was talking in terms of the counterfeiters making there plug & socket. Though they either did not know about codes or care about them. But to make a part that "looks like" the correct part at a cheap price to "undercut" the good parts. Hoping the consumer would "buy" there part by paying a little less for something that costs a lot less to make. Hens by making money from the uninformed.

---------------

I understand and have read some of the code. Though most of my experience deals with the NEC here in the states. There is a move to using shuttered outlets on the standard U.S. outlets. I do like some of the British system in theory.

My sarcasm was directed at/as the counterfeiter.

I have been looking closely at one of the counterfeit plugs fitted with the counterfeit BS 1362 fuses (similar to the one shown at www.bs1363.org.uk ).

Although the fuse does have continuity, it turns out that the plug wiring bypasses the fuseholder, so it is actually another version of an unfused plug.

Digging deeper finds more issues!

What is a PAT tester? Do you mean a PA tester?

PAT tester is the standard terminology, despite being tautologous.

We are making some progress, with the help of my local Trading Standards department. All but two of the illegal listings on ebay which were originally published at www.bs1363.org.uk have been deleted! A further batch has now been published on the site (the deleted items remain there for reference).

Amazon continues to fail to respond to my messages, and has also not acted on the Trading Standards approach! A further batch of Amazon listed products has now been posted on www.bs1363.org.uk , these are laptop chargers for which the power cord is shown as having sleeved earth pins. Some of these have comments posted on their site indicating power lead problems.

Of course, not all counterfeit plugs will have sleeved earth pins, but it is the most obvious identifier.

In the absence of proper measures by government I urge UK members to contribute to the effort.

Six deaths in the tragic fire in Neasden last weekend reminds us of the possible consequences of an electrical fire, and why legislation such as the Plugs and Sockets Regulations is so important.

eBay has been a bit slow in reacting to reports in the past few weeks, but Amazon takes the biscuit for lack of response.

The worst example (so far) is an amazon.co.uk listing for a Cloverleaf Computer Power Lead - on that one listing they have 31 suppliers, I have test bought from several of these, some have been legal, others not. The cables supplied through Amazon by "Star e-shop", and "eBlink" have to be seen to be believed, this is what I found:

· Counterfeit fuse ( a very crude imitation with no approval marks, no sand filling, loose end caps)

· The fuse was cosmetic and not connected to anything, the line wire is connected directly to the line pin

· Partially sleeved earth pin (resulting in intermittent or no connection to socket earth)

· All pins are the wrong size (and one sample has severely misaligned pins)

· The moulding of the plug/cable assembly has taken place with the fuse carrier and fuse in place, with nothing to prevent the moulding material flowing into the fuse chamber, one of the samples was almost entirely filled in this way completely sealing in one end of the fuse.

· The plug is marked: " KING CORO", "APProved bY BSI" and "Licence No 41231" with a counterfeit Kitemark

· The C5 connector is wired in reverse

· The flex cable is marked "CCC YF 227 IEC 53(RVV) 3x0.75mm² 300/500V GB5023.5-1997 MADE IN CHINA"

· The resistance between plug and C5 connector is unusually high, suggesting that the conductors are far smaller than the 0.75mm² claimed - confirmed by inspection. The actual conductor cross section is less than 10% of the rated value!

· The outer covering of the cable is so weak (approximately the consistency of liquorice) that it can be easily peeled off using the force of finger nails only.

· The colour coding of the wires is not in conformance with any known standard, the current carrying conductors are slate grey, and the earth is slate grey with a stripe of greenish white.

· The insulation on the conductors is of a similar consistency to the outer covering, very easy to pull off with the fingers.

I find it difficult to express just how bad these cables are!

Some extracts from customer reviews on the Amazon site confirm that the fire danger is very real, and has been reported to them for over one year:

"After only a couple of weeks use, the cable started to burn and melted through while it was being used by my daughter, thankfully no harm came to her or the house!"

"The cable started sparking then caught fire and burned a hole in the carpet. It was only the sound of the sparking that alerted me as I was not in the room. Very cheap but extremely dangerous. If the house had been empty this could have been a disaster. The thick cable is deceptive, it looks like good quality but the wires inside it are very thin, a bit like fuse-wire. This product should be taken off the market. I am reporting this hazard to Amazon and trading standards."

"Cheap yes but as I type I can smell a distinct burning smell coming from my powerpack."

"After two weeks it started to spark and strong burning smell came from it. Wouldn't advise buying. Tried it once more just to make sure and it exploded with a large bang and now has a small hole in the connector."

Amazon continue to sell these dangerous cables, they clearly believe themselves to be above the law!

Since last posting I have ordered and received a further three of the "KING CORO" models described earlier, and have now also received, from an Amazon seller in Hong Kong, another type with a counterfeit fuse.

You can see a photograph of the plug on the website www.bs1363.org.uk - (the picture is on the homepage and is the one shown against a blue background). The sample just received was of an even lower quality than the previous sample evaluated, it has very bad plating on the pins (looking somewhat like lumpy solder tinning) and the moulded material had been allowed to flow over all four sides of the red plastic fuse carrier, thus it was impossible to remove the carrier until that excess material had been cut away! Other features of this lead are:

• Counterfeit fuse ( a crude imitation, impossible to remove due to having been sealed into the fuse chamber by excess moulding material)
• The fuse was cosmetic and not connected to anything, the line wire is connected directly to the line pin
• Partially sleeved earth pin (resulting in intermittent or no connection to socket earth)
• All pins are the wrong sizeThe C5 connector is wrongly labelled "10A", the C5 standard rating is 2.5A
• The plug is branded: "guida", with a counterfeit ASTA approval mark.

Is this really an Amazon problem? They really can't even be considered re-sellers like a brick and mortar store. It would be nice if they carried something the "Amazon Seal of
Approval". (a paraphrase on a USA magazine from the '60's, the magazine actually required advertisers to prove their claims.)
This seems to be more of labeling issue. I think it should be addressed on diplomatic level, as UK statutes are being compromised

Yes, there is no question that Amazon is breaking UK law by offering them for sale. Both Amazon and the seller are committing a crime.

this video is all about combating counterfeiting . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-rcWNv53k