Wrong colour cable used

[wesj]

Just finished plastering an outbuilding workshop and got my electrician back to second fix and self certify.After much cursing about his own stupidity he informed me he had used 1.5 twin brown instead of blue and brown for the lighting lool.I have worked many times with him befor and never had a problem and certainly do not want to cause him the problem of re doing loop. he said if I would accept it he would bell out all feeds and sleeve neutrals blue securely tape blue sleeve to stipped back outer and make a note on installation papers. Customer is OK with this as am I but is it OK re regs for new installation . many thanks.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would say it is not, but if your electrician is convinced that to the best of his knowledge and belief stupidity qualifies as reasonable skill and care, and that the use, with no justification whatsoever, of a cable which the regulations say he should not have used counts as proper materials, then nobody can stop him issuing an EIC.

What happened to your plans to achieve Competent Person status?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh well - there you go wesj - your electrician isn't the only one who, to the best of his knowledge and belief, thinks that stupidity qualifies as reasonable skill and care, and that the use, with no justification whatsoever, of a cable which the regulations say should not be used counts as proper materials.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

514.3.2

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

514.3.2 says "Every core of a cable shall be identifiable at its terminations and preferably throughout its length...."

Quite clearly the ops installation complies in every respect.

Quite clearly it does not.

If something is preferable, it means it is what you should do.

So by going against it you are doing something which you have been told you should not do.

There are instances where the preference cannot, or cannot reasonably, be implemented, e.g. 3-core SWA used for L/N/E, or 3C+E used for 2-way switching, but if it is perfectly reasonable to adhere to the preference it is unreasonable to deliberately go against it for no mitigating reason whatsoever.

All I can say is that if you genuinely believe that stupidly and carelessly doing something which the regulations say you should not do is consistent with good workmanship then you have terribly low standards.

 

[CortinaV8]

Preferable = More desirable, not mandatory.

It doesnt say you should not do it anywhere in the regulations at all, stop making up regulations that don't exist.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Preferable = More desirable, not mandatory.

It doesnt say you should not do it anywhere in the regulations at all, stop making up regulations that don't exist.

I'm not making any up.

I'm using "should" in it's contemporary sense of meaning "ought", and one meaning of ought is to express a desire or wish, not a demand.

Nowhere have I said that you must do it, only that it is preferred that you do it, and there is nothing wrong with rephrasing "it is preferred that you..." as "you should..." or "you ought to...".

But if you don't like to see the word "should", we'll stick with the one in the regulations; prefer.

Do you consider that through stupidity doing something which the regulations say they would prefer you not to do qualifies as good workmanship?

 

[Chri5]

Wouldn't a simple heat shrink sleeve exercise and a departure note on the EIC / MWC cover the bases ?

The cable is fit for purpose, as in 1.5m TE and it's only an issue with the core id. Last time I saw twin brown, it had a marking on 1 x core to distingush between the cores.

So it won't need belling out, just the routine new circuit tests.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, if you take your incorrect interpretation as being correct, it would mean that any cable containg identical cores would not comply. Such as MICC and 2 core brown, the cores of these cables cannot be indiviually identified.

No - they cannot, and therein lies the difference between being able to do what is preferred and being unable to.

And as you know you are on a loser, you start with the insults. t****r

I'm not on a loser, but if you want to regard the use of insults as indicating such knowledge I'm happy to agree with you on that.

But back to the OP's situation - do you consider that through stupidity doing something which the regulations say they would prefer you not to do qualifies as good workmanship?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Wouldn't a simple heat shrink sleeve exercise and a departure note on the EIC / MWC cover the bases ?

The cable is fit for purpose, as in 1.5m TE and it's only an issue with the core id. Last time I saw twin brown, it had a marking on 1 x core to distingush between the cores.

So it won't need belling out, just the routine new circuit tests.

You have a choice of two cables for a particular part of a circuit.

The regulations say they would prefer you to use A, not B.

Do you consider that through stupidity using B qualifies as good workmanship?

 

[electronicsuk]

Do you consider that through stupidity using B qualifies as good workmanship?

Yes, because, unlike yourself, the poor guy is only human and has made a mistake, something that happens to even the best of us, yourself excepted of course.

Faced with rewiring the entire loop and destroying brand new plastering and decor, it is my opinion that it would not reasonably be practicable to rewire the loop in blue and brown, therefore the electrician must unfortunately take the less preferable step of sleeving the conductors. It is compliant with BS7671 for him to do so, and clearly he does have some concern for his workmanship, otherwise he could have simply kept tight lipped and not even bothered to sleeve the conductors at all.

So, yes, given the circumstances, I cannot see your justification for your disputing his workmanship.