Jobsworth

[JohnW2]

An EIC or MWC covered in get out clauses is a worthless document.

I don't see why it is 'worthless'. It is merely a documentation of the fact that the electrician 'is not to blame' for doing, at the request of a customer, things (which don't make the installation any less safe than it was) that, having been advised otherwise, the customer still wants done - which I would have thought was what both electrician and customer would want of the document.

Is it any different from a builder saying/writing "I've replaced your broken tiles, as requested - but, as I told you before I started, the whole roof is iffy, not up to regulations, and really ought to be sorted out"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You would struggle to find any reputable firm that would happily replace a room full of accessories with shiny chrome ones if the installation was not up to a reasonable standard.

I could understand that if we were talking about work that might impact adversely on the safety of the installation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

Replacing one broken switch is a bit like replacing three or four switches though, isn't it?

Does the householder really have to break every old switch in order to get his way?

Now I myself hate working on dodgy installations, and have ended up checking and re-doing every single connection on some, at no profit whatsoever, just for peace of mind.

So I do agree with the principle of walking away from jobs, but then again, it was mentioned about if the installation was 'reasonable standard'.

Are you willing to turn a blind eye to single cores buried in plaster?

On one hand it's extremely bad practice.

On the other hand they are still going to get drilled through as easily as sheathed ones.

There's no conduit, so you're not really going to want to put new ones in, as the time and trouble presumably ain't going to get paid for.

 

[JohnW2]

You would struggle to find any reputable firm that would happily replace a room full of accessories with shiny chrome ones if the installation was not up to a reasonable standard.

If what you say is true, then the risk is that the houseowner may thereby be forced to turn (for this work which would be 'harmless' if done properly) to a 'non-reputable' electrician or (as in this thread) DIY the work - in neither case would the work necessarily be undertaken competently. Is that really a 'better' situation (for anyone) than having the work done properly?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Changing a damaged switch is different to swapping a load of fronts from white to fancy chrome.

Changing a damaged switch is maintenance. Swapping a load for chrome is not.

Does BS 7671 allow you to sign an EIC to say that you'd complied with the regulations when replacing a damaged switch when it would not have allowed you to do so if you had replaced it for aesthetic reasons?

 

[flyingsparks]

I'm done with this.

If you feel it correct, that's fine.

You would struggle to find any reputable firm that would happily replace a room full of accessories with shiny chrome ones if the installation was not up to a reasonable standard.

I think that's were this sits - REASONABLE STANDARD.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I could understand that if we were talking about work that might impact adversely on the safety of the installation.

Me too.

There has been drift, introducing problems, e.g. no earths and metal switches, but that's a very different situation.

What I posted about was switches wired with unsheathed single-insulated singles, no suggestion that there were no functioning cpcs, and an electrician who didn't say "I don't really want to replace these switches because I don't like the look of the wiring"; he said "I'm not allowed to replace them unless you have the circuits rewired".

 

[stillp]

an electrician who didn't say "I don't really want to replace these switches because I don't like the look of the wiring"; he said "I'm not allowed to replace them unless you have the circuits rewired".

Might it be that his scheme doesn't allow him to replace the switches when he is aware of other problems with the installation?

 

[JohnW2]

Might it be that his scheme doesn't allow him to replace the switches when he is aware of other problems with the installation?

That's certainly a possibility (or and insurer, or an employer, if the electrician was employed). However, if so, I wonder how far that 'not allowing' goes, because there are probably 'problems with the installation', of one sort or another, in quite a high proportion of installations.

Kind REgards, John

 

[stillp]

Quite John. The problem is that we haven't seen the installation in question, and I don't think BAS has either. The single insulated singles, and the cut-back sheath, might be minor examples in a whole plethora of faults, in which case the electrician concerned might have been perfectly correct in what he said. Perhaps the insulation was damaged when the sheath was cut back - we just don't know, so I find it hard to agree or disagree with BAS' OP.

 

[JohnW2]

Quite John. The problem is that we haven't seen the installation in question, and I don't think BAS has either. The single insulated singles, and the cut-back sheath, might be minor examples in a whole plethora of faults, in which case the electrician concerned might have been perfectly correct in what he said. Perhaps the insulation was damaged when the sheath was cut back - we just don't know,

As I understand BAS's OP, its "either/or" - it appears to be single-insulated singles, but it could be T+E with the sheath cut back too far (although I'm a bit confused, because the nature of the CPC ought to distinguish between those two possibilities!). It was also my reading of the OP that the electrician is happy to do all the other electrical work, but is 'not allowed' only in relation to the switch replacements - it therefore sounds as if he is 'happy' (happy enough to 'be allowed' to do other work) with the installation in general.

... so I find it hard to agree or disagree with BAS' OP.

Yes, as I said in my very first response, I was not convinced, since one hears of far more Jobsworth-like stances than this one - which seemed to relate to a rather naughty installation, which (on the basis of what little we know) quite possibly was never compliant. However, the more I've been involved in the discussion, the more I've become inclined to the view that, since changing the switches, per se, (if it's done competently!) can't possibly make the installation any less safe than it was, that to refuse to do it (or to be 'not allowed' to do it) is perhaps a bit 'unnecessary'. It seems particularly ironic that the situation means that BAS's friend is seemingly going to do the work himself - which may or may not be as 'safe' as having a professional do it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Then again, there's the EAWR to consider. Suppose the insulation is damaged, and the installation is currently de-energised. Would the electrician be permitted to re-energise the circuit after changing the switches, having reason to believe the circuit to be potentially dangerous?

 

[JohnW2]

Then again, there's the EAWR to consider. Suppose the insulation is damaged, and the installation is currently de-energised. Would the electrician be permitted to re-energise the circuit after changing the switches, having reason to believe the circuit to be potentially dangerous?

Yes, but that's all hypothetical isn't it. We have no reason to believe that the insulation of the circuit in question is damaged, any more than we know whether any insulation on any other circuit the electrician may be working on may be damaged. If the electrician were concerned about that, he could undertake an IR test ... and, in any event, what if (as seems probable) the circuit is already energised, and working satisfactorily, with no smoke, flames or bangs?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

We also don't know that it isn't damaged, so it's all supposition. Anyway, an IR test would not prove the absence of damage to the insulation.

 

[JohnW2]

We also don't know that it isn't damaged, so it's all supposition. Anyway, an IR test would not prove the absence of damage to the insulation.

It wouldn't - but it would indicate that any damage to the insulation was not presenting any immediate danger to life, limb or property - so it would probably be a 'reasonable risk' for the electrician to re-energising the circuit without having to have too much concern that something catastrophic would result, to the displeasure of EAWR!

Kind Regards, John