shed wiring and electrics

[DeadBeat]

Im currently purchasing parts to wire up my shed as a workshop. im in contact with an electrician who has instructed me on a number of parts to buy. however i dont like to keep bothering him with constant questions and would like to have some of the materials ready for him when he comes to wire it up. he has agreed to let me buy the bits and do the donkey work as long as he can see everything and sign off on it.

ill be using this consumer unit in the shed

http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=PL1066407

I want to wire up 4 - 6 double sockets around the work shop, for various tools. and lights of course

I plan to insulate the shed with either ply wood or osb, and a layer of perhaps loft lagging between the shed wall and the inside layer, the shed will be water proof.

would I be able to flush mount the sockets into the wall using dry lining boxes, or should i be using surface mountable back boxes?

Id like to sink them in for a neater look, but i dont know if this is a risk in something like a shed especially if in lagging?

thanks

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What do you and this electrician understand by him "signing off on it"?

Have you got Building Regulations approval, with your LABC expecting an EICR from him? Or are they expecting an EIC?

Are you ignoring the law regarding Building Regulations notification, and he is going to give you an EICR?

Are you ditto, but expecting an EIC?

Are you conspiring together for him to falsify documentation and lie to your LABC about him having actually done the work?


What's going on has a direct bearing on whether you have no choice but to ask him the questions.

 

[ericmark]

An electrician can have an apprentice or mate and he can of course employ his client but he needs to be in control of all work if he is going to issue certificates.

The word sign off are rather open we have minor works, installation, installation condition reports, completion and compliant certificates with some you need to inform local authority building control before you start others use scheme membership to inform after. You need to know exactly what he is doing.

Likely you would need to allow some one to see the first fix so if running wires behind lining he will need to see them before lining goes on. You can use dry lining boxes but the cables may need to be uprated the consumer unit you link to is not populated and you have not said what size supply or what size MCB's are going to be used.

Electricians can normally buy materials cheaper than you so does not make sense for you to buy them. Specially for the small quantity items like earth sleeving.

Likely he will want the cables clipping to the shed before the insulation is put in so they are held against the cold outer wall so there will be no need to upgrade likely it will be installation method 101 or better.

Personally I would use a metal consumer unit in a shed as easier to fit the SWA gland into. These from Screwfix may need a RCD or RCBO adding but it seems you will latter be able to swap front plates to make them amendment 3 compliant and easy to fit a SWA gland into.

Did your electrician explain why he wants you to fit a consumer unit which will be obsolete in a year?

 

[JohnW2]

Are you conspiring together for him to falsify documentation and lie to your LABC about him having actually done the work?

This is always coming up. As eric has implied, in most walks of life it is accepted that a person who "signs for" work which has been done has not necessarily been personally physically responsible for undertaking all (or necessarily any) of the work. It's a matter of an adequate degree of supervision, the person doing the signing then 'taking responsibility' for the work. By your reckoning, anyone who signs an EIC for work which has involved more than one worker would be "falsifying and lying", which is a silly idea.

Similarly with 'design'. It is again, IMO, silly to saying that someone is "falsifying and lying" if they sign as 'designer' when what they have in fact done is 'checked and approved' someone else's design. If a person is happy with a design, and prepared to put his/her name to it, then it doesn't matter if someone else had 'thought of it first'.

I presume that these things have never been tested in a court but, if that ever happened, I would hope that the court would not regard either of these things as "falsifying and lying".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Did your electrician explain why he wants you to fit a consumer unit which will be obsolete in a year?

Are you certain about that? It does claim to be "BS EN 60439 compliant" - although, admittedly, I'm not sure whether that means/includes 60439-3.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DeadBeat]

hi guys, sparky will be present before wires are covered up i might not even run them, by grunt work i meant more digging the trench outside drilling the holes in the right places.

the two consumer units he sent me are on offer for half price on CPC you may have to look at the catologue to see them

but £23 inc vat for the shed one and a home one on offer http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=PL1067003 for £25 he said even his wholesales place couldnt do that.

really the question im asking is is there any point me asking my electrician to source the dry lining back boxes, or should i expect just to use surface mount. were just in the planning stages at the moment. but i keep coming up with ideas to put to him and i dont want to annoy him by sending him text after text. (im sure he wouldnt actually get annoyed but you knwo what i mean)

Also what do you mean by obsolete, would that cause me trouble in future?

thanks

 

[JohnW2]

Also what do you mean by obsolete, would that cause me trouble in future?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'trouble'. Apparently as a consequence of a number of house fires which originated in CUs in recent years, as of 1st January 2016, regulations will require all newly installed CUs to be constructed of 'non-combustible material' - although exactly what that means is currently being debated.

A current CU will obviously never be any less safe than it is today, and there will not be any requirement to update to new 'compliant' ones next year (so many of the 'old' ones will probably remain in service for decades). However, strictly speaking, a CU which is not constructed out of 'non-combustible' material will not be 'up to current standards' after 1st January 2016 - if that concerns you.

Having said all that, as I responded to eric, I'm not convinced that the CU you mentioned would necessarily not be compliant with the new regulation. The manufacturer could presumably clarify.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

By your reckoning, anyone who signs an EIC for work which has involved more than one worker would be "falsifying and lying", which is a silly idea.

What's silly is your flawed interpretation.

Of course, with an EIC, someone can be responsible for something they haven't personally, physically done.

But I was talking about self-certification of Building Regulations compliance, and the wording in the regulations is not "the person who was responsible for", it's "the person carrying out". The "person" can be a company - they are also legal entities, but what it can't be is an electrician who comes along after an untrained person of unknown competence has done design and construction and says to Building Control "I did that".

 

[JohnW2]

By your reckoning, anyone who signs an EIC for work which has involved more than one worker would be "falsifying and lying", which is a silly idea.

What's silly is your flawed interpretation. ... Of course, with an EIC, someone can be responsible for something they haven't personally, physically done.

Quite so.

But I was talking about self-certification of Building Regulations compliance, and the wording in the regulations is not "the person who was responsible for", it's "the person carrying out".

Much the same difference as far as I am concerned. Are you saying that you feel that is unlawful for an individual to self-certify if any of the work concerned was "carried out" by some helper, apprentice, or whoever?

The "person" can be a company - they are also legal entities, but what it can't be is an electrician who comes along after an untrained person of unknown competence has done design and construction and says to Building Control "I did that".

As I said, as far as design is concerned, I really don't think there is any issue. Confirming and approving someone else's design is effectively no different from producing a design from scratch oneself. What matters is not the semantics of the declaration but that the person 'signing for' the design is happy with it. As regards construction, as I said, it comes down to the degree of supervision which the certifying person feels necessary in order to be happy to certify the work as if they had done all of it themselves - a decision which will presumably be strongly influenced by the 'nature' of the person actually 'doing' most/all of the work.

Albeit somewhat different, I very frequently 'put my name to' documents, both as author and 'signatory', when an appreciable amount of the content has been produced by other people. The extent to which I look over the shoulders of those other people and/or check or repeat their work will depend upon my assessment of 'need', decided on a case-by-case basis.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are you saying that you feel that is unlawful for an individual to self-certify if any of the work concerned was "carried out" by some helper, apprentice, or whoever?

An individual, as in Fred Bloggs the person? Yes.

Fred Bloggs signing as an authorised signatory for a legal entity, such as Fred Bloggs Electrical, which employed the labourer or the apprentice? No.

As I said, as far as design is concerned, I really don't think there is any issue. Confirming and approving someone else's design is effectively no different from producing a design from scratch oneself.

Apart from what the law actually says.

What matters is not the semantics of the declaration but that the person 'signing for' the design is happy with it.

Actually, I think you'll find there that what you are arguing for is that the semantics, i.e. the meaning, is very much what matters.

And you would have a case, were it not for the fact that the wording in the Building Regulations does not admit the possibility of someone being responsible for the work - it unambiguously talks about the person carrying it out.

As regards construction, as I said, it comes down to the degree of supervision which the certifying person feels necessary in order to be happy to certify the work as if they had done all of it themselves - a decision which will presumably be strongly influenced by the 'nature' of the person actually 'doing' most/all of the work.

Again, that would require the person signing to say that they were responsible for it. But they have to have carried it out.

 

[JohnW2]

... part from what the law actually says. ... And you would have a case, were it not for the fact that the wording in the Building Regulations ... it unambiguously talks about the person carrying it out. ... Again, that would require the person signing to say that they were responsible for it. But they have to have carried it out.

As I've said, although we're probably never going to know, my suspicion (and hope) is that a court would take a more sensible and pragmatic view rather than one obsessed with the semantics of the declaration that had been signed. It will often be apparent that more than one person has been physically involved in 'carrying out' work and, if just one (individual) 'signs for it', the clear meaning and intent is that this person is 'taking responsibility' for all of the work just as if they had carried it all out themselves.

Kind Regards, John

 

[davelx]

Well, if we are arguing semantics ...

Fred Bloggs the person/individual cannot be a member of a scheme (only enterprises can be members of the schemes). Fred Bloggs the Sole Trader can - the Sole Trader is the legal entity, and as such it can employ whomever it likes to actually do the work and Fred Bloggs the individual can sign it off as Qualified Supervisor and notify it via the scheme.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, if we are arguing semantics ... and Fred Bloggs the individual can sign it off as Qualified Supervisor and notify it via the scheme.

That all makes sense, but I imagine that BAS will probably have a problem with him signing the declaration that he 'carried out' the work if he didn't!

Kind Regards, John

 

[davelx]

Well, if we are arguing semantics ... and Fred Bloggs the individual can sign it off as Qualified Supervisor and notify it via the scheme.

That all makes sense, but I imagine that BAS will probably have a problem with him signing the declaration that he 'carried out' the work if he didn't!

Kind Regards, John

Probably. However, the individual is not 'carrying out' the work. The work is 'carried out' by the enterprise, not by the individual, and the schemes are specifically designed to allow one Qualified Supervisor to notify work done by any individual employed by the enterprise.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, if we are arguing semantics ...

Fred Bloggs the person/individual cannot be a member of a scheme (only enterprises can be members of the schemes). Fred Bloggs the Sole Trader can - the Sole Trader is the legal entity, and as such it can employ whomever it likes to actually do the work and Fred Bloggs the individual can sign it off as Qualified Supervisor and notify it via the scheme.

Competent person self-certification schemes (commonly referred to as competent person schemes) were introduced by the Government in 2002 to allow individuals and enterprises to self-certify that their work complies with the Building Regulations...