Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable

[RF Lighting]

Can I prove that this is not good workmanship?

I take it that's a no then?

Dear God.

If you say that it is then either you are saying that for the sake of creating an argument, or if you really do think it is good then I pity you, and even more I pity anybody who has the great misfortune to be on the receiving end of work done by someone with such abysmally low standards.

Is a pull cord isolator outside of the bathroom zones permitted?

Is twin and earth clipped direct permitted?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is not good workmanship, and you know that.

Keeping on claiming that it is, because I can't "prove" that it isn't is just making you look a more and more pathetic fool who has decided to try and pick a pathetic fight.

 

[RF Lighting]

Why won't you answer my two very simple questions?

Is a pull cord isolator outside of the bathroom zones acceptable?

Is twin and earth clipped direct acceptable?

This is not good workmanship, and you know that.

Isn't it? Or is that just your opinion?

If it really isn't good workmanship then you'll be able to offer me proof that it isn't.

Keeping on claiming that it is, because I can't "prove" that it isn't is just making you look a more and more pathetic fool who has decided to try and pick a pathetic fight.

What if I was the client who had ordered the EICR and asked you to justify your findings? Would you call him a pathetic fool too just because you can't actually justify your stance?

I live in the real world of carrying out real EICRs for real paying clients, and pulling up something which isn't actually wrong just will not wash.

 

[JohnW2]

This is not good workmanship, and you know that.

Isn't it? Or is that just your opinion? If it really isn't good workmanship then you'll be able to offer me proof that it isn't. ... I live in the real world of carrying out real EICRs for real paying clients, and pulling up something which isn't actually wrong just will not wash.

Needless to say, I'm on your side. I suppose that, in some senses, BAS is giving 134.1.1 'what it deserves' for having been written in such vague terms. His view of 'good workmanship' is an everday one, which encompasses concepts of aesthetics ('prettiness', 'niceness'), "taking pride in one's work" etc. I suspect that most of us agree that the shower switch/cable in question is not very 'nice' or 'pretty' and is not something we would want in our own houses - but, as you say, there is nothing wrong with it electrically, or in terms of safety, or in terms of any explicit regs, and I therefore don't believe that 134.1.1 was meant to 'catch' such situations as this.

Rather than talking just of 'good workmanship', hence allowing BAS to take such a view, 134.1.1 probably should have talked about "workmanship good enough not to detract from safety", or something like that. Unless/until the wording changes to something like that, I think we have to rely upon electricians to exercise common sense, as you do, in the knowledge that the Wiring Regs are really all about safety, not aesthetics or professional pride.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

At the end of the day, it's a dog of a job that none of us pro sparks here would do, but all of us would find difficult to condemn on an EICR and justify it to the client.

It's not to my standard, hell, most of the work I see isn't, but I can't pull it up just because it looks like a pig's breakfast.

 

[Wolfie1969]

Not a certified electrician but a competent DIYer and have various occupational radio/electronic qualifications... so no idea of the current regs, etc.

But how can a 240v switch/isolator that isn't waterproof or water resistant and can be easily sprayed with the shower head be permissible or safe?

Surely the justification for writing it up as unacceptable is that you could stand there and spray it with water?

W.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is a pull cord isolator outside of the bathroom zones acceptable?

Is twin and earth clipped direct acceptable?

Utterly irrelevant, and has no bearing on this issue. The question is, if you were standing there commenting on the work, would the phrase "Yes - he did a good job there", or "Yup, that is good work" etc, pass your lips?

Would you really use the word 'good'?

If you had an apprentice, and he presented you with that, would you say to him "Good job, lad"?

Isn't it? Or is that just your opinion?

Yes, it's my opinion, and I am gobsmacked that it isn't yours too.

If it really isn't good workmanship then you'll be able to offer me proof that it isn't.

Proof?

How can there be any proof?

"Proof" of what? That it is not good workmanship? If you can't see that with your own eyes then there really is something wrong with you.

What if I was the client who had ordered the EICR and asked you to justify your findings? Would you call him a pathetic fool too just because you can't actually justify your stance?

I might do if he persisted in trying to say that because it was compliant with the regulations, because it was safe, because it was "acceptable", it must necessarily be good workmanship. If he carried on wilfully ignoring the difference between "acceptable" and "good". If he kept on trying to tell me that because it didn't actually contravene any regulations I must be forced to describe it as good workmanship.

I live in the real world of carrying out real EICRs for real paying clients, and pulling up something which isn't actually wrong just will not wash.

Like I say - unless you really would use the term "good workmanship" to describe that, not "it complies with the regulations", not "surface clipped cable is acceptable", not "a switch in that zone is allowed", but "good workmanship", then in your opinion it is not good workmanship.

 

[Jackrae]

I'm with wolfie on this one
It doesn't take prescriptive rules to identify a cr4p installation
Switch is subject to spray damage, cord when wet can act as a conductor and the top entry twin and earth provides a route into the enclosure for water seepage.
But what do i know

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Needless to say, I'm on your side.

So your reaction on seeing that really was "That's good workmanship"?

I suppose that, in some senses, BAS is giving 134.1.1 'what it deserves' for having been written in such vague terms. His view of 'good workmanship' is an everday one, which encompasses concepts of aesthetics ('prettiness', 'niceness'), "taking pride in one's work" etc.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Is there something wrong with that view?

I suspect that most of us agree that the shower switch/cable in question is not very 'nice' or 'pretty' and is not something we would want in our own houses

Simpe question - do you look at that and think "Yup - the installer did a good job there"?

Do you suspect that most of us would look at that and think "that's good"?

- but, as you say, there is nothing wrong with it electrically, or in terms of safety, or in terms of any explicit regs,

Utterly irrelevant.

Is it good workmanship?

and I therefore don't believe that 134.1.1 was meant to 'catch' such situations as this.

Whether you believe it or not, that's what it says.

Rather than talking just of 'good workmanship', hence allowing BAS to take such a view, 134.1.1 probably should have talked about "workmanship good enough not to detract from safety", or something like that.

But it doesn't say that.

It says "good workmanship".

Is the workmanship in the case of that shower installation actually GOOD?

Unless/until the wording changes to something like that, I think we have to rely upon electricians to exercise common sense, as you do, in the knowledge that the Wiring Regs are really all about safety, not aesthetics or professional pride.

That particular regulation is about good workmanship.

Is the workmanship in the case of that shower installation actually GOOD?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

At the end of the day, it's a dog of a job

So, not GOOD workmanship then?

that none of us pro sparks here would do, but all of us would find difficult to condemn on an EICR and justify it to the client.

If in your professional opinion it is a dog of a job then in your professiona opinion it is not good workmanship.

It's not to my standard, hell, most of the work I see isn't, but I can't pull it up just because it looks like a pig's breakfast.

You can, because you are employed because of your expertise and being asked to give your professional opinion.

Is it GOOD WORKMANSHIP?

Yes or no?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Wow, nice job RFlighting, don't spose you'd let us in on how you did it?

You need to spend years working with really skilled electricians as well as other trades too like builders, joiners, plasterers etc, working on a really wide variety of building types, whilst building up a comprehensive tool kit of both shop bought and home made tools.

Why?

None of that is necessary for you to be able to do good work.

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose that, in some senses, BAS is giving 134.1.1 'what it deserves' for having been written in such vague terms. His view of 'good workmanship' is an everday one, which encompasses concepts of aesthetics ('prettiness', 'niceness'), "taking pride in one's work" etc.

Sounds reasonable to me. Is there something wrong with that view?

No, nothing wrong with the view, in other contexts - but I do not believe that is was intended (or is sensible) that 134.1.1 should relate to those aspects of good workmanship.

There are countless things which most of us would agree would be bad (if not awful) workmanship in that 'everyday sense' (crooked or non-aligned accessories, non-matching accessories, a mixture of cable clips of different colours) but it would, IMO, be both crazy and unhelpful to say that the installation was non-compliant with the Wiring Regulations for such reasons. If they so wish, someone who undertakes an EICR is free to give the client (separate from the EICR) their opinion about an awful 'aesthetic' standard of workmanship, then they are free to do so, but that's very different from recording a non-compliance with the Wiring Regulations on the EICR for those reasons. People don't commission EICRs in order to find out how pretty/tidy/whatever their installation is.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm with wolfie on this one. It doesn't take prescriptive rules to identify a cr4p installation

Indeed it doesn't. However, nor does the fact that an installation is cr4p mean that it is necessarily non-compliant with the Wiring Regulations. A builder can (and some do!) produce a building which looks awul and has a very poor standard of finish, but that does not necessarily mean that there is any non-compliance with any Building Regulations.

Switch is subject to spray damage, cord when wet can act as a conductor ...

That was discussed on the first page or two of this thread, and largely dismissed as a significant hazard. For better or for worse, the explicit regs have deemed that anything more than 2.25m above floor level (even if over a shower) does not require any particular IP rating. However, if an electrician truly believed (and was prepared to justify) that this was a significant hazard, (s)he could cite a specific regulation which they believed had been violated (e.g. 522.3.1), without having to rely on the vagueness of 134.1.1 ('not good workmanship').

... and the top entry twin and earth provides a route into the enclosure for water seepage.

I can't speak for this particular one, but most showers come with provision for cable entry on any side, including the top. If the cable had been installed in such a way that the required degree of ingress prevention (at least IPX4) had not been achieved, then that would be a non-compliance with explicit regulations.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, nothing wrong with the view, in other contexts - but I do not believe that is was intended (or is sensible) that 134.1.1 should relate to those aspects of good workmanship.

Whether it was intended or not I cannot say, but I can say, with absolute certainty, that the regulation mandates good workmanship.

And I do believe that that is sensible.

There are countless things which most of us would agree would be bad (if not awful) workmanship in that 'everyday sense'

In the absence of any special definitions, "everyday sense" is the only way to find definitions of words used in the regulations.

(crooked or non-aligned accessories, non-matching accessories, a mixture of cable clips of different colours) but it would, IMO, be both crazy and unhelpful to say that the installation was non-compliant with the Wiring Regulations for such reasons.

Well, if you believe that then you are free to lobby the IET for a change.

But until it is changed, we are left with the fact that 134.1.1 mandates good workmanship. That you wish it were otherwise does not, I submit, mean it is wrong for people to take note of it.

If they so wish, someone who undertakes an EICR is free to give the client (separate from the EICR) their opinion about an awful 'aesthetic' standard of workmanship, then they are free to do so, but that's very different from recording a non-compliance with the Wiring Regulations on the EICR for those reasons.

Actually, if they wish they are free to record something which they believe to be a contravention of the regulations as such.

People don't commission EICRs in order to find out how pretty/tidy/whatever their installation is.

No - they commission them to find out if it complies.

If the workmanship is not good, then it does not comply - it really is that simple.

 

[JohnW2]

... (crooked or non-aligned accessories, non-matching accessories, a mixture of cable clips of different colours) but it would, IMO, be both crazy and unhelpful to say that the installation was non-compliant with the Wiring Regulations for such reasons.

Well, if you believe that then you are free to lobby the IET for a change.

Fortunately, there is, in practice, no real need for a change (even though it would be better if it were changed to reflect reality) - since, AFAICS, virtually everyone is being sensible in interpreting that regulation. I think you are probably in a tiny minority (maybe of one) in believing that purely aesthetic issues should be considered as non-compliance with 'the Wiring Regulations'.

Kind Regards, John