I have two LEDJ 56 black par cans. They are 9 months old now.

I have had my equipment all PA Tested and these lights failed, and miserably.

The tester sent an email to Prolight about this and they have responded that there is a recall on these - there was a batch they imported last year that have this problem. Apparently they posted a notice to this effect on their web site.

As many people, like me will be coming up to their first PAT since buying them, they may experience the same problem.

The more important point is that any from this batch are therefore dangerous to use and should be returned to Prolight for replacement, via your retailer, I guess.

The lights in question are these http://prolight.co.uk/item/ledj30/

As the recall notice is no longer on the Prolight site, I think it is essential to let anyone who may have bought these know so that they can check if theirs are affected.

Phil

Just an observation regarding one of your comments:

Quote:
"As many people, like me will be coming up to their first PAT since buying them"

I believe all equipment should be tested before first use, not wait until you've had the equipment for a year.

This would allow potentially dangerous faults like the one you describe to be detected before an accident occurs - just because the equipment is new doesn't mean it is fault-free, as you've discovered.

Anyhow, glad Prolight have acted upon the information they have recieved.

Yes, and I count this as a lesson well learnt.

I do not suppose I am the first or the last to discover this.

Lets hope this thread educates in two ways, 1st re. the LEDJ lights and 2nd re. PA Testing new equipment before first use.

surely this is another reason manufacturers should pat test equipment and issue a cert before selling.we shouldn't have to check new equipment for manufacturing faults.

Just a thought.....

Say a peice of equipment you'd bought a month ago caused someone to get a shock at a gig?

Would it be you, or the manufacturer, or the dealer that would be liable?

Surely it's not practical to have someone out to test every new peice of gear you use?

manufacturers will have some form of test facility at some point in their process and it comes under quality control, obviously this fault is not one which is present all of the time otherwise they would never have been allowed onto the market, it seems that its only after a period of time that the problems have occured and hence the recall. This to some extent proves how useless the PAT test is, and how its existance is more about satisifying the paper work fiends and jobsworths rather than proving anything in the long term. Its just like the MOT certificate, yes your car may have passed the MOT but on the way home you may have driven it into a ditch and bent the suspension meaning that it is no longer roadworthy and the MOT is meaningless. PAT or no PAT, the onus is on us to physically check wiring and electrical appliances on a regular basis and not become too reliant on a piece of paper which may be 11 months old.

Danno, I would think that if you were purporting to have a valid PAT certificate for your equipment and an item electrocuted someone, and it was shown that you had been using items that had not been tested, I would suspect the blame would land squarely on your shoulders. The HSE would have a field day.

It amazes me how many people think that a new item has some sort of grace period after purchase. Many items new and old fail the standard PAT tests, usually due to poor manufacturing processes (excess paint, corners cut etc) and are not discovered until they are tested or cause an accident.

I think so. The buck stops with you!

Well this is sort of confusing me.

I stupidly - yes, I admit stupidly, thought that when I buy something new it has been tested by the manufacturer and it is fit for purpose. Now I know that 'fit for purpose' is a legal issue for consumers, which in this instance I am not, but it accurately describes the situation.

Someone else suggested that it was an 'after sometime of usage' issue. It is not, the powder coating was done first leaving no earth connection when they riveted on the earth strap.

As I said a lesson learnt for me, but I hardly think it is amazing. I would think the majority of DJs buy kit and haven't in the past had it PA Tested before first use for the same reasons of expectation of new equipment I had. Ok, yes, I know there's an issue with many DJs and PAT in general but for the purposes of this conversation they make no difference.

I would've thought in this day and age with so much regulation that you could walk into a shop and buy an electrical appliance that is safe.

Let's forget our profession for a moment and look at the millions of items purchased every year for domestic use. None of these are ever PAT'd so if they are dangerous from the outset there's only one person to blame - the manufacturer. Why should it be any different for us.

Many of the internet DJ directories allow listed members to submit evidence of PLI & PAT certificates. One thing that is evident is how few have PLI and even less who have PAT. Of those few who have PAT how many would submit a new item for testing upon purchase compared to wait until the next annual test of all their equipment

Realistically very few of the few I suspect.

Dunno about the rest of you but most of the equipment I get these days comes from online shopping and nearly all the retailers I use offer free PAT testing on said equipment before dispatch.
Maybe we should encourage the local DJ stores to offer a similar service.

Essentially, you are right and new equipment for sale in UK would be deemed to meet regulatory standards. However, that alone does not totally absolve you from responsibility - see later. Strangely enough, I discussed this very subject with a Health & Safety Enforcement officer just a few weeks ago and, of his own volition, he stated that new equipment would be deemed to be covered in terms of PAT.

So, now to the nitty-gritty.

Legally, you are expected to exercise a "Duty of Care" in your actions. What that actually means is somewhat open to interpretation and two enforcement officers could take a different view on it.

It might boil down to a kind-of "Due Diligence" defence i.e. first you have a system of control and second, that system was (demonstrably) in operation.

But you will find the term "reasonably practical" creeps in here. Is it reasonably practical for every user (DJ or otherwise) to PAT every new piece of equipment? Or is there a reasonable expectation that by placing it on the market a manufacturer has done this, and the PAT then falls to covering the wear and tear as it ages and gets heavily used.

Is there a chance we could end up chasing our own tails?
OK, so you had PAT done on your kit last week, but have you had it done this week?

Just throwing this into the melting pot

(aside) Is this discussion in the wrong place?

just a couple of scenarios then
you go into a disco shop and they got a new light,you ask for a demonstration do they need to pat test it before plugging it in,if i touch it and get a shock who is responsible. i don't get a demonstration of the light because i've seen one in action i pick it up take it home and go to a gig no time to check it out so i shouldnt use it because it might not be safe(that don't seem fair to me)
andy

Um, OK. It is my belief and has been for many years that NO equipment, new or old, can be used by an employee or in the vicinent of the public without being tested to the HSE Regs.

Andy, please read above for the answer to your shop question.

Ana lyst, PAT is the simplest way of meeting the HSE Regs, but it should never be considered as the be all and end all. As far as the tester is concerned he can ask for a peice of kit to be brought back every week if in his opinion it is borderline. Duty of Care, I like this one as it puts everything on the shoulders of the equipment owner. Everytime you unpack your kit to set up you should do a comprehensive visual inspection, and anything that looks as if it might have any damage regardless of severity should be removed from service until it is fixed and re-tested.

Never assume anything is safe.

My personnal belief is, that all equipment should be tested at piont of sale. You can't rely on the manufacture, as it could be tested packed bounced around on the ocean waves, something becomes loose and be a failure on arrival. Or should the Importer / distributer be responsible for it.

For those of you with short memories, near all the Martin range failed PAT about 10 or so years ago.

Mikee, that is pretty much my take on it.

It was I, who last April brought the problem to the notice of Prolight. I had bought four and they all failed PAT. I had modified one and was preparing to modify the others when I reported it to Prolight, as I felt it was more urgent than just a minor overpaint problem, they collected all of them the next day and made the mods for me. I also got another free Parcan for my trouble.

The problem is not only with the rivetted end of the earth wire within the casing, the other end of the wire also makes contact with a painted surface, What makes this worse is the Earth wire from the mains is attached to the rear half of the PAR can and the live and neutral wires are attached to the transformer which is in the front half of the case.

The solution therefore is not only to drill out the rivet, grind away the paint and re-attech the earth connection with an unpainted machine screw, but also make up a new earth bond lead and attach it from the same connection and take it to the other half of the case after making sure that it is attached to an area free from paint.

What annoys me, is that this week was the first that I had heard of the recall, and no one from the retailer where I purchased them from has ever contacted me to warn me. If I had not bothered to test my kit, I would have none the wiser. A recall is only any good if the purchasers are actually aware there may be a problem.

Moving this on, what we are talking about here (Prolight) is actually another context in that they have actually sold an illegal import, and it strikes me that they were damn lucky to get away without bringing much more grief upon themselves.

Imported goods, be they lights or kids crayons, are required to comply with UK legislation, clearly these didn't. So, the real answer is not PAT, its in the importation controls. The importer is equally bound in this Duty of Care and should have had them tested, (a representative sample) and it looks to me that this wasn't done otherwise the fault would have come to light (get it? ) And the so-called product recall sounds shambolic too.

Now I know we could argue till the cows come home about things which could go wrong, but I'd say the principle remains that you should be able to purchase a new electrical appliance and be confident of its compliance. It is implicit in UK regulations that to place a product in the market it must comply. Maintenance thereafter is another matter.

Peripheral to this debate, personally I don't let anyone touch or go near my kit - for any reason whatsoever. I put it up in a manner which creates a kind-of "defensive zone" or call it a no-go area, and I run separate power leads to music and lighting respectfully, each with its own RCD.

Um, whats the current on the 12v line and how much barbed wire do you use

Well I've never heard of that and have bought many different items online.

That being said, I emailed the retailer that I bought these from to ask for the arrangements for return and also suggested he might like to PA Test all new equipment he sells as a marketing tool/sales advantage.

He hasn't replied yet as it was about 17:45, but will be interested to see what he says.

a lot!
Not to mention the machine-gun turrets at each corner, anti-tunneling steel plates, guard dogs patrolling and of course, the odd blazing car on its side just for the right effect



methinks we digress somewhat (slap wrists)

To keep you all up to date (I know you rknuckels are white from holding onto your chair waiting for the next instalment!)

Just had a phone call from Prolight.

Clive from Entertainment House (where I bought the lights) contacted them about this issue adn they are going to collect them on Thursday and repair or replace them.

They told me there are about a dozen more from this bad batch still out there, so check yours asap.

I had a similar painted earth problem some years ago on some unbranded flower effects supplied by others but brought to us for non-warranty repair. Most manufacturers (at least in the UK) have (used to have) end-of-line industrial PAT testers where every item was tested before packing. (I used to service them). To be fair, the better quality stuff has the safety 'designed-in' (so for example the earth tags might be brazed or spot-welded rather than rivetted...you get the idea). And so-on for other similar manufacturing process anomalies.

I suppose in general, alot of cut-price imports are cheap because they cut corners at various levels. That's no excuse for poor safety, (I just say what I see) but maybe we should be prepared to pay a little more for a better product! Customers vote with their wallets after all. I would say that just as many UK importers take chinese designs 'as is' as many as those who are involved in the design and manufacturing stages from start to end. After all, we know that much disco equipment is 'generic' and merely branded by a glue-on/paint-on/clip-on badge or cheap design flourish such as a different plastic moulding, faceplate or colour.

UK Trading standards no doubt have their hands full enough as it is. (Visit their recall list for fascinating reading).



PS Just a thought about the LED units, the powder-coating may well fail on a PAT earth bond test as the PAT testers usually inject only a few volts for this test, (eg 6V AC at several amps) yet for a genuine mains-to-earth fault, the coating is unlikely to resist 240V and will probably go bang and blow a fuse or trip a breaker.