Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable

[sparkwright]

I'm trying to decide if this is good workmanship.

If it's ok to have the switch where it it is, and it's ok to clip a cable down a bathroom wall, and the cable entering the shower unit passes through some kind of baffle to prevent water entering, then that makes it acceptable, which is a pass, which makes it more good than bad.

It does look tidy as well as looking ugly.

It looks like it's done on the cheap.

I think a look at the connections give us more of an idea on the workmanship.

If it complies to the regs, is functional, is watertight, is tidy yet ugly, and has sound connections, can you actually say it's bad?

I haven't actually made my mind up here, but one concern is the cable entry of the shower. You can't have water pouring into it, and wouldn't want to rely on just sealant stopping it. Some showers are designed for top entry, so the water cannot get inside. If this shower has been butchered, I would certainly call this bad workmanship.

 

[seasickstevie]

The top entry, in my experience, doesn't actually take the cable into the 'business' compartment of the shower unit. Instead it takes the cable down through a rear channel which goes behind the molded back of the shower unit, then turns up into the 'business' compartment, so the water can run down behind the molded back plate and down the wall.
The cable then goes up towards the terminals. Just as it would if it were a bottom entry.

The most I could say to describe the installation . . . assuming it was intended as a cheap job . . . 'acceptable'.

'Good workmanship' are words I wouldn't use.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it complies to the regs, is functional, is watertight, is tidy yet ugly, and has sound connections, can you actually say it's bad?

Cab you actually say that has admirable, pleasing, superior, or positive qualities?

Can you actually say it does not have qualities which are negative, or bad, or mediocre?

 

[EFLImpudence]

If, as RF said, that was what the customer wanted and was only able to pay for, would you say that, given the limitations, it has been done well?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1) He's rationalising.

2) When doing an EICR, installations are judged according to the current regulations, not the ones which were in force in the past - the same apples to this.

3) No.

 

[securespark]

Ban

You have here on DIYnot a better class of professional electrician.

We have spoilt you with our top-class finishes and perfectionist eye for detail.

However, perhaps also you have an issue with 7671 itself. It is, as you know, a minimum standard. You can, of course, exceed it.

7671 allows cable clipped direct.

7671 allows a standard electrical accessory to be fitted outside the zones (assuming it is).

Assuming the shower installation instructions have been followed correctly, surface top cable entry is acceptable.

What you appear to be demanding from the installation in question are:

1. concealed cable, rear entry.

2. switch mounted away from the bath/ cubicle.

These are not "must-haves" in order to comply with regulations, not even your worn-out "good workmanship" clause.

What you are bemoaning are extras over and above 7671!

 

[RF Lighting]

All this twisting and turning just makes you look more and more pathetic.

I'm not twisting at all. I've never changed my stance throughout this thread.

There is no way to dress up that workmanship as good, but you are so desperate to try that you are making yourself look a fool.

It doesn't need any dressing up. It IS good workmanship. As has been pointed out to you several times by several different posters, there's nothing actually wrong with the installation, so it can't be anything but good workmanship.

We are all agreed that it isn't brilliant or outstanding work like most professional electricians like to carry out, but that does not make it wrong.

I realise this doesn't fit your stance, so you've had to revert to trying to save face by attempting to discredit and ridicule me rather than actually coming up with any logical and reasoned points to support your argument.

You're also failing to answer simple questions I've asked you. Such as this:

I work on commercial jobs where all the wiring is LSF cable in steel containment. Is that good workmanship? I'd say so. Does that mean that anything less than LSF in steel is not good workmanship, and therefore is non compliant with BS7671?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What you are bemoaning are extras over and above 7671!

If all that is required for "good workmanship" is adherence to the letter of every other applicable regulation, which is required anyway, then what is the point of 134.1.1?

If the meaning, in the context of BS 7671 of "good" is not to be the one in common parlance, the one in the dictionaries, then why is it not given a special definition?

Whether you like it or not, whether you think it makes sense or not, the FACT is that BS 7671 DOES demand good workmanship, and the FACT is that "good" doesn't even mean mediocre.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not twisting at all. I've never changed my stance throughout this thread.

You've tried rationalising it with a "what if" suggestion about some single mother with no money (despite the fact that "well it was OK at the time" is not applied when doing EICRs).

Without any such rationalising, without there having been any special requests from the customer for a quick or cheap job, if you had an apprentice, and he presented you with that, would you really say to him "Good job, lad"?

You have taken an example of an environment where an installation technique applicable, maybe mandated by the designer, maybe mandated by the regulations is used, and tried to make out that if we are to have a concept of good workmanship we must therefore have to use that technique everywhere.

It doesn't need any dressing up. It IS good workmanship. As has been pointed out to you several times by several different posters, there's nothing actually wrong with the installation, so it can't be anything but good workmanship.

And as has been pointed out by several other posters it is "not ideal", "a dog of a job", "a pig's breakfast", "bl**dy ugly" and "'Good workmanship' are words I wouldn't use".

We are all agreed that it isn't brilliant or outstanding work like most professional electricians like to carry out, but that does not make it wrong.

I realise this doesn't fit your stance, so you've had to revert to trying to save face by attempting to discredit and ridicule me rather than actually coming up with any logical and reasoned points to support your argument.

I just wish that you would stop thinking that you have to have some special set of standards for "good workmanship" because the phrase appears in BS 7671.

I just wish you would, without any "ah yes but what if it was done because...", without any "ah yes but it doesn't contravene any other regulations", but with your normal standards, the sort you'd apply if you were looking at some plumbing, or some painting, or some wallpapering, or some joinery, look at that work and think about whether "good workmanship" (with the normal definition of "good") is applicable.

You're also failing to answer simple questions I've asked you. Such as this:

I work on commercial jobs where all the wiring is LSF cable in steel containment. Is that good workmanship? I'd say so. Does that mean that anything less than LSF in steel is not good workmanship, and therefore is non compliant with BS7671?

If you went to a restaurant for a meal, and the food wasn't so bad you couldn't eat it, it didn't make you ill, the service was acceptable, but there was nothing actually enjoyable about any part of the experience, would that be all you needed to say to your friends "you should go there, the food is good"?

Forget for a moment anything to do with the Wiring Regulations - if you were standing there commenting on the work, would the phrase "Yes - he did a good job there", or "Yup, that is good work" etc, pass your lips?

If a child of yours just scraped a pass in some exams, would you say "he got good results"?

And BTW - I'm sure it's perfectly possible to install LSF singles in steel containment using carp workmanship too.

 

[seasickstevie]

7 pages and counting . . .

 

[sparkwright]

There's only a choice of good or bad.

Pass or fail.

Acceptable or unacceptable.

 

[RF Lighting]

I'm not twisting at all. I've never changed my stance throughout this thread.

You've tried rationalising it with a "what if" suggestion about some single mother with no money (despite the fact that "well it was OK at the time" is not applied when doing EICRs).

The scenario I mentioned was to try and get you to understand that we can't always do the very best job, because some customers don't want to, or can't pay for cosmetic work which is not actually required.

This does NOT make an installation non compliant.

Without any such rationalising, without there having been any special requests from the customer for a quick or cheap job, if you had an apprentice, and he presented you with that, would you really say to him "Good job, lad"?

That's entirely irellevant. If the job was specced for surface cable by the client it would be compliant. We don't know the spec of the OPs client when the work was ordered, so by default the work is compliant. The point of an EICR is to assess electrical safety, and compliance with the regs. The OPs installation passes both of these.

You have taken an example of an environment where an installation technique applicable, maybe mandated by the designer, maybe mandated by the regulations is used, and tried to make out that if we are to have a concept of good workmanship we must therefore have to use that technique everywhere.

Can you try and rewrite that into comprehensible English?

It doesn't need any dressing up. It IS good workmanship. As has been pointed out to you several times by several different posters, there's nothing actually wrong with the installation, so it can't be anything but good workmanship.

And as has been pointed out by several other posters it is "not ideal", "a dog of a job", "a pig's breakfast", "bl**dy ugly" and "'Good workmanship' are words I wouldn't use".

That's nice.

We are all agreed that it isn't brilliant or outstanding work like most professional electricians like to carry out, but that does not make it wrong.

I realise this doesn't fit your stance, so you've had to revert to trying to save face by attempting to discredit and ridicule me rather than actually coming up with any logical and reasoned points to support your argument.

I just wish that you would stop thinking that you have to have some special set of standards for "good workmanship" because the phrase appears in BS 7671.

I just wish you would, without any "ah yes but what if it was done because...", without any "ah yes but it doesn't contravene any other regulations", but with your normal standards, the sort you'd apply if you were looking at some plumbing, or some painting, or some wallpapering, or some joinery, look at that work and think about whether "good workmanship" (with the normal definition of "good") is applicable.

I've done jobs with cables clipped along a wall, I've done flush T&E, surface steel containment, and flush steel containment. All good workmanship. (safe, compliant, customer happy, contractor happy)

You're also failing to answer simple questions I've asked you. Such as this:

I work on commercial jobs where all the wiring is LSF cable in steel containment. Is that good workmanship? I'd say so. Does that mean that anything less than LSF in steel is not good workmanship, and therefore is non compliant with BS7671?

Still haven't answered it have you.

If you went to a restaurant for a meal, and the food wasn't so bad you couldn't eat it, it didn't make you ill, the service was acceptable, but there was nothing actually enjoyable about any part of the experience, would that be all you needed to say to your friends "you should go there, the food is good"?

I'd say the food was not brilliant, but it was OK.

Forget for a moment anything to do with the Wiring Regulations - if you were standing there commenting on the work, would the phrase "Yes - he did a good job there", or "Yup, that is good work" etc, pass your lips?

Yes. I can't stand there and say he did an unsafe job, or a bad job can I, because he didn't.

If a child of yours just scraped a pass in some exams, would you say "he got good results"?

A pass is a pass. Good lad.

Next you'll only be celebrating if your football team wins by 10 goals or more.

And BTW - I'm sure it's perfectly possible to install LSF singles in steel containment using carp workmanship too.

But if it was done properly, that's good workmanship, so according to you, anything less is not acceptable. Should we ban twin and earth, and mandate steel on every job?

 

[securespark]

What you are bemoaning are extras over and above 7671!

If all that is required for "good workmanship" is adherence to the letter of every other applicable regulation, which is required anyway, then what is the point of 134.1.1?

For Christ's sake, Mike, put this to bed once and for all.

Ring the IET and ask THEM how THEY define "good workmanship" and then come back here and tell us what they said, word for word.

Because I reckon I know what they'll say.

But let's have a cease-fire until then.

 

[JohnW2]

For Christ's sake, Mike, put this to bed once and for all. Ring the IET and ask THEM how THEY define "good workmanship" and then come back here and tell us what they said, word for word. Because I reckon I know what they'll say. But let's have a cease-fire until then.

Amen! I suspect that, although he does not seem to recognise it (or, at least, admit that he recognises it), he actually may well agree with what I said way back about the unfortunate choice of words used in 134.1.1 - which is just "asking for trouble" when confronted with someone who insists on interpreting them in terms of dictionary definitions.

If we pretended, for a moment, that 134.1.1 didn't exist, and asked BAS whether he thought that compliance with the Wiring Regulations should require a very high aesthetic level of work, as well as being electrically safe and compliant with all the explicit regs, he might even say 'no'. I think that all of us, probably including BAS, 'know' that BS7671 never intended to require 'beauty' as well as safety - but they have chosen to use words that simply feed those who are looking for something to be pedantic about!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The scenario I mentioned was to try and get you to understand that we can't always do the very best job, because some customers don't want to, or can't pay for cosmetic work which is not actually required.

This does NOT make an installation non compliant.

Apart from not being good workmanship.

Even it it was requested, it is still not good.

That's entirely irellevant. If the job was specced for surface cable by the client it would be compliant.

Apart from not being good workmanship.

Even it it was requested, it is still not good.

We don't know the spec of the OPs client when the work was ordered, so by default the work is compliant.

Apart from not being good workmanship.

Even it it was specced, it is still not good.

The point of an EICR is to assess electrical safety, and compliance with the regs. The OPs installation passes both of these.

I have never suggested that it fails to comply with any regulations except 314.1.1

Can you try and rewrite that into comprehensible English?

Sorry.

You have taken an example of an environment where a particular installation technique was used, maybe because it was mandated by the designer, maybe because it was mandated by the regulations, and tried to make out that because in that environment you would describe it as good, then if we are to have a concept of good workmanship we must therefore have to use that technique everywhere.

That's nice.

Indeed.

It also shows that your argument that I must be wrong because as has been pointed out to me several times by several different posters, there's nothing actually wrong with the installation, so it can't be anything but good workmanship is fatuous. There are also several examples of people saying that it is not good workmanship.

I've done jobs with cables clipped along a wall, I've done flush T&E, surface steel containment, and flush steel containment. All good workmanship. (safe, compliant, customer happy, contractor happy)

Not necessarily all good.

You're also failing to answer simple questions I've asked you. Such as this:

I work on commercial jobs where all the wiring is LSF cable in steel containment. Is that good workmanship? I'd say so. Does that mean that anything less than LSF in steel is not good workmanship, and therefore is non compliant with BS7671?

If you went to a restaurant for a meal, and the food wasn't so bad you couldn't eat it, it didn't make you ill, the service was acceptable, but there was nothing actually enjoyable about any part of the experience, would that be all you needed to say to your friends "you should go there, the food is good"?

Still haven't answered it have you.

Nor have you answered my question about the restaurant meal.

Regarding the steel containment - earlier you claimed that you've installed cables clipped to a wall, and that that was good workmanship.

Would you claim, therefore, that cables clipped to a wall would be good workmanship in all cases? Or might you claim that different environments might require different installation techniques?

I did point out that it would be entirely possible to take your spec for LSF cables, and steel containment, and construct it so that it complied with all the applicable regulations except 134.1.1.

But then, no doubt, you'd regard runs of conduit or trunking which were not parallel when they should be, with malformed bends, wonky double sets etc as good workmanship.

Yes. I can't stand there and say he did an unsafe job, or a bad job can I, because he didn't.

Apparently not.

Apparently you have abysmally low standards.

A pass is a pass. Good lad.

You haven't answered my question.

If he only scraped a pass, e.g. straight G's in GCSE, would you say "he got good results"?

But if it was done properly, that's good workmanship, so according to you, anything less is not acceptable. Should we ban twin and earth, and mandate steel on every job?

See above, and stop pretending that you are so stupid, and so unable to follow what I'm saying (even if you disagree) that you think the logical conclusion of my argument is that because a particular wiring method is needed in some instances it must be needed everywhere.


Edited to correct some malformed quotes.