Landlords test certificate.

[conny]

Recently my landlord arranged for an electrician to run a supply out to one of the sheds, (there are 4 in total. 2 are 8'x6' wooden, 1 is 6'x6' plastic and the last one is 10'x10' wooden). The supply was to the largest shed where he installed a 40A, 'Garage CU' with 30ma RCD.
From this he installed 3 double sockets on a 20A radial circuit and a 6A lighting circuit consisting of 2 small fluorescent fittings, (30w each), and a single switch.
The supply is taken from a house socket on a 32A mcb using 4.00sqmm swa cable. The house CU is also 30ma RCD protected.
All work was tested and signed off by the electrician and the certificate forwarded to the letting agent by ELECSA.

Today a different electrician arrived to carry out a full test on the house electrics whilst I was at work. He was very brusque to the disabled lady I house share with, (and for whom I am a carer), telling her he would be turning all the electrics off to carry out the tests. He further told her that he would be removing all the sockets to check each one individually and that he would need to turn the mains water off to check the bonding. Last, but not least, he asked if building regulations had been granted for the shed electrics. When my friend said she didn't know he was most insistent that she needed to find out as, if it hadn't been given, SHE was breaking the law!

She did allow him to visually inspect and test everything, which he did, (including going into both loft areas without her permission), but she drew the line at him taking all the sockets off and eventually asked him to hurry and finish.

Do any of you guys behave in this manner and is it necessary to remove every socket for this type of test? Also, is he right about the building regs if the electrician is a member of a scheme, (ELECSA), and therefore does not need to notify the LBA?

 

[flameport]

Removing sockets for inspection is normal, but generally a sample is removed, unless there was some compelling reason for inspecting all of them (such as the first one or two removed revealed some problem).
Turning off the power is required, as most of the tests can't be done with it on.

Never heard of anyone turning the water off to check the bonding, no reason to do so, the water is unrelated to the electrical installation.

If the shed work was notifiable and the person doing it belongs to ELECSA (or other scheme), it would have been notified through them. Not notifying would technically be breaking the law, but that is not something to be considered or even mentioned when testing/inspecting installations.

 

[EFLImpudence]

All work was tested and signed off by the electrician and the certificate forwarded to the letting agent by ELECSA.

 

[conny]

I would agree with the random socket check but he was insistent he had to remove all of them. This was before he had even started to work.

I think I have a copy of the shed test results somewhere. Will have a look to see if I can find them and post up.

 

[winston1]

Surprised he did not say the RCD in the shed was stupid as it was already protected by the one in the house CU. Two 30mA RCDs in line offer no discrimination and probably both would trip in fault conditions.

Also what does this mean, "The supply is taken from a house socket on a 32A mcb using 4.00sqmm swa cable"? Are you saying the whole shed circuit is a spur off an existing ring final? If so that is wrong.

I'll leave others to answer your questions.

 

[ericmark]

Suffolk is in England so as yet you are not forced to inspect and test by law, that is only Scotland. So what he tests is down to his contract with the landlord. You as the tenant don't need to have copies of test results these are presented to the person ordering the work, and for new work it is the owner who must ensure the LABC is informed. Using scheme members however he does not need to inform the LABC that is done by the scheme provider.

So for any electrician to request test sheets from the tenant is wrong. He should have in theroy been given these before he arrived by the person ordering the work, theroy is he checks for deterioration so needs last test results to compare.

It is unusual to remove all sockets unless faults found, in house testing all sockets were listed and every test would involve removing selected sockets that had not been removed last time, however where that socket was hard to reach i.e. furniture in front of it then it was swapped for another so there was a chance a socket had not been removed in 20 years.

The industrial was different from domestic with the latter one must leave the house inhabitable or find alternative accommodation. Turning off the power makes the home uninhabitable so you need permission from the occupants before one starts. It can result in a problem as clearly power must be turned back on, but as an electrician one can't power something up which is dangerous. So one needs to arrange as to what happens in the case where something fails. The normal way is a quick inspection first, and if you see something which is likely to stop you putting power back on you tell the person ordering the work BEFORE you turn off the power, so they can arrange for alternative accommodation. In some cases one can isolate circuits as they don't make the property uninhabitable, but you need some cooperation with occupiers so one is as polite as one can be. I can tell the IT crowd tough I'm turning it off even if it does power your server if it's so important you should have it on a UPS. But I can't do the same for the house occupier.

As to working where there are venerable or other people where there are special needs one has to be very careful, finding alternative accommodation is not that easy and it must start with a method statement and risk assessment. A general method statement and risk assessment is not good enough. It would need to include how the person would be moved. In the case of my mother one would need to find a taxi service able to transfer some one in their wheel chair.

It sounds as if the electrician was a fool. I suspect he was young and trying to please his boss by doing what he thinks the boss would want, however likely his boss would go spare if he found out how he was behaving. However removing all sockets is rather good rather than bad, what is more normal is a guy paid by the house and the more houses he can do in a day the more he earns so lucky if even one socket is removed. The IET has said today the loft space should be inspected and access problems are not an excuse for missing it out, however in read terms no loft hatch means no inspection the idea of making a hatch or removing roof tiles to inspect is crazy.

Personally I don't do house inspecting and testing, DIY work makes it so hard to ensure you don't miss anything like spurs from spurs and although the loop impedance meter and low ohm meter should ID all faults it is so easy to miss one. When doing my exam I noted the loop impedance was too high for the length of run and there must be a fault, it turned out the instructor had added resistors to emulate a house, it seems 100's of students had tested that board and I was the first to find that fault which he had not seen as being a fault. But he had to agree had some one used the socket it could have caused a fire.

So although the tester was being a pain, I would still prefer that tester to one who just gives the house a quick look and ticks all the boxes. If I tested a house like I tested the board in the college when doing my exam it would likely take me two days. We all have to use some common sense and adjust our testing to suit what we find. In the main we simply could not afford to remove all sockets.

 

[conny]

Surprised he did not say the RCD in the shed was stupid as it was already protected by the one in the house CU. Two 30mA RCDs in line offer no discrimination and probably both would trip in fault conditions.

Also what does this mean, "The supply is taken from a house socket on a 32A mcb using 4.00sqmm swa cable"? Are you saying the whole shed circuit is a spur off an existing ring final? If so that is wrong.

I'll leave others to answer your questions.

I understand what you are saying about no discrimination between the two RCD's and this was pointed out to me by the electrician who wired the shed. He basically said either one may trip if a fault occurred.

The swa is terminated in a box on the outside wall which is fed from an internal socket on a 32A ring circuit. Although the swa to the shed is a spur from the ring it terminates in a 2 way CU in the shed. This CU contains the second 30mA RCD. From this CU there is a radial circuit protected by a 20A mcb and a lighting circuit protected by a 6A mcb.

 

[JohnW2]

The swa is terminated in a box on the outside wall which is fed from an internal socket on a 32A ring circuit. Although the swa to the shed is a spur from the ring it terminates in a 2 way CU in the shed. This CU contains the second 30mA RCD. From this CU there is a radial circuit protected by a 20A mcb and a lighting circuit protected by a 6A mcb.

As winston has said, that is 'wrong', and certainly not compliant with regulations, which allow no more than one socket (and nothing else) to be fed from an unfused spur of a ring final circuit.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Isn't Appendix 15 merely 'informative'?

Could you not argue that the spur will be limited to a loading of less than would be the case if it were supplying one double socket?

 

[flameport]

A radial in 4mm SWA from a 32A ring is not necessarily unsafe or non-compliant.

 

[winston1]

Isn't Appendix 15 merely 'informative'?

Could you not argue that the spur will be limited to a loading of less than would be the case if it were supplying one double socket?

You can argue what you like, it is still wrong. If the shed supply is a spur off the ring it should be via an FCU fused at 13a. This makes the garage CU in the shed completely redundant. The 3 double sockets can be wired direct and the lights through a switched FCU fused at 5 or 3 amps.

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't Appendix 15 merely 'informative'?

Yes, literally it certainly is.

Could you not argue that the spur will be limited to a loading of less than would be the case if it were supplying one double socket?

One could indeed argue that, in appropriate circumstances - but do you really think that many electricians would be prepared to connect multiple sockets to an unfused spur from a ring final, no matter what they perceived as the (current) loading on those sockets?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

A radial in 4mm SWA from a 32A ring is not necessarily unsafe or non-compliant.

Agreed, provided that it does not originate anywhere near one end of the ring. However, as I've just written (or implied), and for whatever reason (Appendix 15 or otherwise), I frankly doubt (but may be wrong!) that many electricians would be happy to feed multiple sockets from an unfused spur from a ring, no matter where it originated or what the cable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, the point is the circuit protected by a 20A OPD. It's not unfused.

It does, indeed have 6A for lighting but this will not be a 6A load.
It's not likely but it could be run off the 20A.

 

[JohnW2]

No, the point is the circuit protected by a 20A OPD. It's not unfused. It does, indeed have 6A for lighting but this will not be a 6A load. It's not likely but it could be run off the 20A.

Yes, I know all that, and in my house I might do that, and might even decide that it would be OK with 2.5mm² cable; I might even say the same of multiple sockets if I 'knew' that they were going to be used for small loads (although there is always the problem of 'subsequent occupiers' of the house, who might load the socket(s) very differently).

However, I have to ask again, would you be happy to use 20A + 6A OPDs to protect such a circuit in a customer's house (or to connect multiple sockets to a ring final via a 20A (or 25A) OPD, rather than through an FCU)?

Kind Regards, John