Armoured cable using steel for earth.

I've been asked if I can have a look at some remedial work following a rental inspection, most is little things like earths for metal accessories and problem with a socket.

The big one seems to be an armoured cable feeding garden socket and lights, I haven't been there yet but from the description over the phone, from PIR docs, it's a 3G1,5mm² and sounds like common neutral core, L core for socket fed from RCD FCU with 5A fuse and a SP switch for SL for 6 lights on the 3rd core.

There are test results for the socket and RCD which I've been told are good.

The use of a common neutral is marked a C3 and the armour as earth conductor as a C2. Neither of those scream at me.

Accompanying the pir was quote to replace armoured cable, fit earth links to C2 accessories and move a C2 kitchen socket:

It seems obvious to the landlord the prices are inflated and his agent has asked for a second opinion.

At this point it is just for a second opinion.

Am I behind the times to think a 1.5mm SWA is good for a common neutral on a 5A fuse and the armour is also good for the earth and that the biggest part of this is a work creation scheme? That is assuming it's good of course.

Are both of these 'circuits' fed from the same protective device? If so then the neutral isn't shared - its ONE circuit that has a perm. live & a switched live, just like a bathroom fan does or a lighting track that has two lives & a single neutral - no code.

Nothing wrong with using the armour of SWA as the earth, provided that its terminated with the correct glands - certainly not a C2.

I guess we'd need a bit more info to decide whether 1.5mm is good for voltdrop (the circuit seems to be in the order of 50m long) but if its only 6 'lights' that the load cant be huge.

I'm inclined to agree - this is a work creation scheme. I think we should create a new code - C0 - the inspector is talking out of his ar*e!

AdrianUK said:

Are both of these 'circuits' fed from the same protective device? If so then the neutral isn't shared - its ONE circuit that has a perm. live & a switched live, just like a bathroom fan does or a lighting track that has two lives & a single neutral - no code.

Nothing wrong with using the armour of SWA as the earth, provided that its terminated with the correct glands - certainly not a C2.

I guess we'd need a bit more info to decide whether 1.5mm is good for voltdrop (the circuit seems to be in the order of 50m long) but if its only 6 'lights' that the load cant be huge.

I'm inclined to agree - this is a work creation scheme. I think we should create a new code - C0 - the inspector is talking out of his ar*e!

Click to expand...

I haven't been there yet, maybe tomorrow depending on confirmation. As I understand it the socket and lights are fed by the same 5A RCD FCU I've deliberatly called it 'common neutral wire' to distinguish it from the typical shared neutral landing light scenario as I don't see an issue with what's been described from the paperwork.

I got to this one at 11ish this morning a really nice elderly couple about 70 years lived in the place for 30 years, it is immaculate and to used eastate agent terminology decorated to a high standard.

Double socket under the sink for washing machine 45mm backbox with 2x 2.5mm² T&E secured in the cable clamp.

One room has 4 metal plate accessories 2 have T&E earths terminated to plate, other 2 have T&E earths terminated to backbox.

Outside lights; electrician explained to tennant that the SWA was not allowed to have spurs and the cable was too small and not enough wires. All of the SWA needed to be replaced which meant digging 3 trenches, 2 of which meant cutting into concrete which they'd had laid 2018 and they showed me pictures of the works including what looks like 50mm duct buried deeper than I'd have bothered digging.

So what is your "second opinion"?

On the shed wall in a vertical row:
Inside the garage is a RCD FCU with 5A fuse.
In house a 2 way switch.
Cables run in shed and garage in 20mm white tube mostly T&E/3C&E.
The original 2W work was nice and tidy but got a bit scruffy with the alterations


4mm² SWA used to run to the green house at the extreme left of the sketch. The armour without earth connexion at the shed but yellow core and armour linked at the other end in the first Bollard.

Altogether there are 6 Bollards and 3 matching wall lights on fence and 2 bulkheads on shed/garage.

I lifted the covers off some bollards, 2 nearest shed have 3 SWA's each where the 4mm² armour is earthed by yellow wire. I believe wireing layout is as shown in red having seen the pictures during landscaping. Standard of workman ship in the new lights is beautiful using 2C1.5mm², 3 part glands, heatshrink idents.

Althought the wiring in the shed accessories is untidy having been altered over the years, I don't see anything wrong other than no marker sleeves. I'd have preferred to see the armour earthed at the 13A socket.

While looking the boss phoned and I explained my observations, he came out and between us we added ident clips where missing, verified the kitchen socket is part of the ring and plate earth links.

He will report our findings to inspectors 2 scheme operators.


As an aside to this the inspector told the tennants he is on youtube and sure enough they soon identified him when the boss showed them some videos.

As it happens total cost of remedials is less than quoted for the earth links.

EDIT: the plan for the kitchen socket was to relocate it above the worktop and washing machine, surface mounted with trunking and drilling a hole in worktop for machines cable and replacing plug.

SUNRAY said:

He will report our findings to inspectors 2 scheme operators.

Click to expand...

Who will do .... SFA ?
Wants reporting to trading Standards as well. They'll do SFA, but AIUI they do monitor things to see if there's an emerging trend, or if there's a repeat offender.

Would also be a useful reference to cite if you wanted to respond to the Scottish consultation on whether to impose further regulations on the electrical industry - i.e. to "licence" electricians. I responded to that, citing the sort of threads we've had here where it's clear that charlatans are fleecing landlords thanks to the new rentals rules - as the sort of problems that regulations usually result in (I also cited the similar issues around the 2005 Build Regs).
In your case, you're a qualified person with first hand experience of looking at a "dangerous" installation, only to find that it a) wasn't dangerous, and b) the proposed remedy was way overpriced.

SimonH2 said:

Who will do .... SFA ?
Wants reporting to trading Standards as well. They'll do SFA, but AIUI they do monitor things to see if there's an emerging trend, or if there's a repeat offender.

Would also be a useful reference to cite if you wanted to respond to the Scottish consultation on whether to impose further regulations on the electrical industry - i.e. to "licence" electricians. I responded to that, citing the sort of threads we've had here where it's clear that charlatans are fleecing landlords thanks to the new rentals rules - as the sort of problems that regulations usually result in (I also cited the similar issues around the 2005 Build Regs).
In your case, you're a qualified person with first hand experience of looking at a "dangerous" installation, only to find that it a) wasn't dangerous, and b) the proposed remedy was way overpriced.

Click to expand...

That particulr 'Boss' is sh1t hot on this sort of thing, and is often 'having meetings' at IET Niceic, Napit, ELESCA etc. So I suspect he has involvements at higher level than I know about.

SimonH2 said:

the proposed remedy was way overpriced.

Click to expand...

It certainly didn't require the work quoted for and despite the tennants description of the inspectors proposals I still struggle to understand what he intended doing, especially running along the garage wall when conduit exists inside. 53m of cable/5 gland packs is nowhere near enough to replace all of it and totally flumoxed by 5core.

But you don't know what his next job is - might be wanting the cable for that
Turn up with loads of stuff, make a big show of "doing stuff", put materials back in van while no-one's watching - profit

EDIT: Thinking about it and allowing for it being incompetence rather than malice ...
If the guy really doesn't understand stuff, he'll be thinking separate N&E for the "2" circuits, and an earth core. After the circuits are separate, it only needs 3 core - so the whole installation doesn't need 5 core cable.

SimonH2 said:

But you don't know what his next job is - might be wanting the cable for that
Turn up with loads of stuff, make a big show of "doing stuff", put materials back in van while no-one's watching - profit

EDIT: Thinking about it and allowing for it being incompetence rather than malice ...
If the guy really doesn't understand stuff, he'll be thinking separate N&E for the "2" circuits, and an earth core. After the circuits are separate, it only needs 3 core - so the whole installation doesn't need 5 core cable.

Click to expand...

From the moment I started looking at the garden I actually thought the quote he included may have been for or confused with another job as the quantities just didn't add up.

None of the SWA has shared uses, that's all done in plastic conduit, but he did indicate he would be running cable along the building. which is something I simply cant comprehend in the situation.

As it is all of the lights apart from the bulkheads on the building are wired in 2 core SWA apart from the first feed. All of the 'ends of line' tests are fine, both his and ours, there are variations but nothing to get concerned about.

He probably wanted to do another 'look how good I am' video for Youtube but now I know for certain...

I'm really interested to know who this is.

securespark said:

I'm really interested to know who this is.

Click to expand...

And I'd love to tell but let's get this clear from the beginning, I'm not going to name.

The progress of the job was an EICR on a rental property in which a number of codes were raised.
When quoting the inspector tried to inform the tenant how good he is and demonstrates his skills on YT.
When my boss was on scene he started showing tenant YT videos on his phone. First several were a categoric 'No'. Tenant physically reacted and then said 'think that's him' to one in particular.
I have seen 2 videos by that person where he says radials don't have branches/spurs.

I'm not going any further, specifically as the word think was there.

Sorry but... I'll let Johns legal family connexion explain that one.

No apologies needed. I understand the position fully.

Of course, it would be interesting to know who it is, but I understand you can't let the cat out of the bag.

...but was it a good outcome for the tenant?