C U main cable SWA

[petend]

Due to distance from meter the cable supply is armoured swa how is this terminated aft c u entry point

 

[pete01]

With an swa gland?

 

[petend]

Thks

 

[AndyPRK]

Badly usually

 

[petend]

Hope not I'll ask for discount

 

[petend]

EICR next week full price of c u with any remedials next week, he uses wylex mostly

 

[Murdochcat]

EICR next week full price of c u with any remedials next week, he uses wylex mostly

So post a redacted copy of the issues

 

[morqthana]

Why?

Whatever he's put in the report can't be effectively challenged, he won't change anything, and petend is still going to have to pay.

 

[JohnD]

Due to distance from meter the cable supply is armoured swa how is this terminated aft c u entry point

Is the CU made of metal?

 

[AndyPRK]

He’s having a new cu installed I believe, so yes.

Always interesting what happens at the other end though.

 

[SimonH2]

Why?

Whatever he's put in the report can't be effectively challenged, he won't change anything, and petend is still going to have to pay.

Err, so you've forgotten the number of threads here (and in other forums) where the EICR claims lots of stuff must be done, but in fact it's a made up excuse for fleecing the customer - or at least, somewhere between that and reality. Not saying that's the case here, but there is certainly scope for challenging EICRs if they are "bad".
But in answer to the OP, SWA needs to be terminated using the proper gland, and properly connecting the wire armouring at each end. Connecting the SWA gland to earth/chassis can be done by scraping paint off to allow the gland to contact bare metal, or using a banjo to connect it to a wire tail, or using something like a Piranha nut - the "best" option varying with the installation. All that is down to the electrician doing the work - but it can be good to have some knowledge and be able to spot if it's being bodged.

 

[JohnW2]

Err, so you've forgotten the number of threads here (and in other forums) where the EICR claims lots of stuff must be done, but in fact it's a made up excuse for fleecing the customer - or at least, somewhere between that and reality. Not saying that's the case here, but there is certainly scope for challenging EICRs if they are "bad".

That used to be the case, when EICRs had no teeth at all. However, if it's a rented property, then the legislation we now have brings that into question. The legislation requires the landlord to provide the tenant with a copy of any inspection report, and also triggers the requirement for any C1s or C2s to be remedied within 28 days - without any apparent mechanism for challenging/appealing against the EICR (hence the need for 'remedial action'), even if it is "bad".