What about the possibility of leaving a wall live due to the fault that has occurred? Just because the RCD has gone does not mean that the fault has does it?
Temporary Electrical Repairs
- Thread starter RMS
- Start date
What about the possibility of leaving a wall live due to the fault that has occurred? Just because the RCD has gone does not mean that the fault has does it?
Sponsored Links
I certainly agree that if 'temporary' really does just mean a few hours, then the level of risk is probably pretty low. However, it's not the lack of RCD protection for those few hours which would worry me but, rather, the fact that a circuit had been left energised with a persisting fault of unknown cause.
Particularly now that we know the cause of the fault, it's not impossible that there is a developing L-E fault as well as the N-E one - and don't forget that a B32 MCB can pass something like 36A indefinitely (or something like 47A for an hour) without operating - more than enough to result in a fire in the right (or should I say wrong!) circumstances.
Kind Regards, John.
I love all this holier than thou stuff on here.
Some of us actually live in the real world and have been faced with these situations for real, and I've assesed risk against inconvenience and I've left circuits off RCD as a temporary fix.
Don't forget all those years where RCDs weren't around and millions of people somehow managed to survive.
Some of us actually live in the real world and have been faced with these situations for real, and I've assesed risk against inconvenience and I've left circuits off RCD as a temporary fix.
Don't forget all those years where RCDs weren't around and millions of people somehow managed to survive.
I agree, I mean how long does it really take to whip a few socket fronts off and megger out the legs to find the faulty bit. Worse case (I have found) is when there is a JB serving all the socket (or a bunch of them) under the solid wood floor. But what I did on that occasion was to map the live wire to that bunch and disconnect them. This meant that the dining room had no sockets overnight. But at least I could sleep well. 
It is not holier than thou and it is not just "not using the RCD" it is leaving a fault that could be dangerous. I might hunt down the picture of what I found under that floor above the next day....then you would agree that I was right to eliminate it.
It is not holier than thou and it is not just "not using the RCD" it is leaving a fault that could be dangerous. I might hunt down the picture of what I found under that floor above the next day....then you would agree that I was right to eliminate it.
Sponsored Links
No one is disputing what you say here. However, we are talking about a circuit with the fault as previously described.
RMS,
Some questions to clarify,
1, What was/is the agreed degree of repair the out of hours electrician is supposed to do?
I take it as i state previously that it is to do everything that is suitably and sufficient as to leave the installation in a safe manner??
(If so in my opinion no matter what is stated by others i do not believe they have left either scenario in a safe state. And therefore have not achieved what is asked and what they have been paid to do.)
2, As you say these are tenanted i presume by your employer? If so what is there view of the way these installations were left?
Surely they would not accept it being left overnight due to insurance issues blame/claim society etc as i previously stated.
3, Is the tenant charged for these repairs or is it included in the tenancy?
4, Do these tenanted houses reguarly have jobs done and are they tested and inspected?
Adam151 surely if the tenant didn't want someone splitting a ring at 10pm or whatever time then they probably wouldn't have phoned at that time in the first place?? I wouldn't expect these are huge houses although i may be wrong so splitting a ring etc surely shouldn't take to long to identify the fault?
Some questions to clarify,
1, What was/is the agreed degree of repair the out of hours electrician is supposed to do?
I take it as i state previously that it is to do everything that is suitably and sufficient as to leave the installation in a safe manner??
(If so in my opinion no matter what is stated by others i do not believe they have left either scenario in a safe state. And therefore have not achieved what is asked and what they have been paid to do.)
2, As you say these are tenanted i presume by your employer? If so what is there view of the way these installations were left?
Surely they would not accept it being left overnight due to insurance issues blame/claim society etc as i previously stated.
3, Is the tenant charged for these repairs or is it included in the tenancy?
4, Do these tenanted houses reguarly have jobs done and are they tested and inspected?
Adam151 surely if the tenant didn't want someone splitting a ring at 10pm or whatever time then they probably wouldn't have phoned at that time in the first place?? I wouldn't expect these are huge houses although i may be wrong so splitting a ring etc surely shouldn't take to long to identify the fault?
As I said, it's not the temporary lack of RCD protection which would worry me (except, perhaps, if it were a TT installation) - as you say, we survived for decades without them - but would you not have concerns about leaving a circuit with a known fault (of unknown cause) energised?
Indeed, what if the cause were known? If you were called out at 10pm because a householder had just drilled in a wall causing an immediate (and persisting) RCD trip, if your tests indicated an N-E fault but (so far!) a satisfactory L-E IR, would you be happy to transfer that circuit to a non-RCD supply until the next day?
As for 'holier than thou', dare I say that (probably in common with many here) I have done far worse temporary things than we're talking about (no, I'm not going to say what!), but in my own home. I think the goal posts move when it's a customer's installation!
Kind Regards, John
Restore power so far as reasonably necessary.
We wold certainly not expect the electrician to leave the installation dangerous. The electrician has imposed duties under the 'Electricity At Work Regulations'.
But the electrician may consider the result of his actions 'safe'. So in your opinion, can you comment on the electrician's actions with regards with the 'Electricity At Work Regulations'?
No.
I assume not.
I'm not aware of this. What difference would this make?
They will not have considered any of that when there's no power at all on the sockets - they'll have just rung to say the "sockets are off", and probably a whole lot else as well. So sockets and lights off - yes I think they'll call for that rather than thinking "it might be inconvenient, I'll manage without heat, light, power until morning"
Besides, to a tenant, everything is possible immediately (if not sooner), and failure to fix a problem before they even reported it is just being awkward.I've had tenants demand the impossible - ie stuff they'd not get (or at the very least, not be prepared to pay for) if it was their own property.
But of course, for all the "risks", the fault would not have been known about had it been a pre-17th edition installation - possibly for several more years when the next EICR was done and the 'poor' IR found.
My house had a N-E short when I got it - and I have no way of knowing how many years it had been like that. I'd guess back to when the boiler was replaced as it was the classic "screw through the insulation" when the FCU was put back over the box full of chock blocks where the backbox was the wiring centre for the CH.
Well as stated IMO they may have restored power but not safely therefore he has failed in at least regulation 4 of the EAWR and would have to prove he had taken all reasonable steps as stated in regulation 29 (off hand?) and that is where i believe he/she would have serious difficulties proving that they did.
Sorry i dint explain one of the questions correctly i meant....... are these properties rented by your employer to the tenants?
As for the question about tested and inspected etc i was merely asking as i would expect if they were that the likes of nasty surprises would be reduced with regards to degraded cables/ joints etc just for finding the fault quicker.
I know this isnt always the case just wondering.
Sorry i dint explain one of the questions correctly i meant....... are these properties rented by your employer to the tenants?
As for the question about tested and inspected etc i was merely asking as i would expect if they were that the likes of nasty surprises would be reduced with regards to degraded cables/ joints etc just for finding the fault quicker.
I know this isnt always the case just wondering.
Of course, but everything changes once one knows about something - whether it's a bulging brake hose, a knocked-through wall with no RSJ/lintel or an unsuspected cancer. Even though it might have gone undetected for years (maybe without causing any problems) and, indeed, might not give problems for years even after being detected, once a professional becomes aware of it, I would say that an 'obligation to act' (or, at the least, advise) arises.
Kind Regards, John.
They will not have considered any of that when there's no power at all on the sockets - they'll have just rung to say the "sockets are off", and probably a whole lot else as well. So sockets and lights off - yes I think they'll call for that rather than thinking "it might be inconvenient, I'll manage without heat, light, power until morning"
I've had tenants demand the impossible - ie stuff they'd not get (or at the very least, not be prepared to pay for) if it was their own property.
.
Simon please read thread properly as there are two different scenarios one is lack of lighting the other is loss of sockets not in the same house at the same time. And i would presume there would be at least another circuit of sockets to use and possibly one incorporated into the cooker control unit.
With regards to your statement about N-E faults going undetected before RCD's were introduced the difference here is the electrician knows about therefore should not leave the circuit with a fault AND unprotected this contravenes the EAWR.
To summarise IMO the electrician had many choices other than what he done in both cases.
Do you actually work on electrical installations?
Have you ever been faced with a loss of power at 10pm with kids in bed and a homeowner panicing about the freezer defrosting and the boiler not working?
It's great following the regs to the letter of the law, and in an ideal world that's what we'd all do, but unfortunately when you get out there in the real world doing real jobs for real customers, sometimes you have to use your judgement and not follow regulations.
All we are talking about is leaving a circuit off RCD, something which is permitted by the regs if the sockets sre for use by instructed persons, and you can instruct the homeowner to what is safe usage until the fault can be repaired.
Have you ever been faced with a loss of power at 10pm with kids in bed and a homeowner panicing about the freezer defrosting and the boiler not working?
It's great following the regs to the letter of the law, and in an ideal world that's what we'd all do, but unfortunately when you get out there in the real world doing real jobs for real customers, sometimes you have to use your judgement and not follow regulations.
All we are talking about is leaving a circuit off RCD, something which is permitted by the regs if the sockets sre for use by instructed persons, and you can instruct the homeowner to what is safe usage until the fault can be repaired.
As several of us are saying, that's not 'all' we are talking about.
However, I agree that one often has to make risk/benefit (or risk/ convenience) decisions, and I also agree that, in the situation we're talking about, you would stand a very high probability of getting away with it. However, in the (extremely unlikely) event that the house burnt down during the night and the full facts were revealed, I suspect that your position would be essentially indefensible.
Fortunately, not being an electrician, I don't have to make such deciusions about other people's electrical installations!
Kind Regards, John.
Well it is. You've still got overcurrent protection for the circuit, and whist theoretically possible in a vanishingly small chance (like all your threads seem to end up with) there could be a fire, that is a risk I may willing to take, because my knowledge, judgement and experience will allow to make an assesment as to whether it's safe to do so as a temporary measure.
Maybe it's because you are not practicing in this field that you don't have the experience to know how little risk this temporary fix has actually exposed the electrician and the homeowners to.
Maybe it's because you are not practicing in this field that you don't have the experience to know how little risk this temporary fix has actually exposed the electrician and the homeowners to.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
