are these electrics compliant with part P?

[shardy]

Hi all,
our loft conversion failed the building inspection because of the dormer roof.
the building inspector didn't know if the electrics were compliant so he asked the project manager who shrugged his shoulders.
The wiring running down from the loft is chased in to the wall on the 1st floor landing. It takes a feed off the existing light socket on the landing wall. The vertical run is 160 mm from the right edge of the existing light socket.
Based on my own research I thought the wiring had to run directly vertically above and below the existing socket or within 150 mm of a corner.
Also the wiring is hardly chased into the wall at all and is visible even after plastering. The electrician said he couldn't chase it in any deeper. In that case, shouldn't it be in metal conduit?
The wall is 1930's block and I think it is about 80 or 90 mm thick so he could've chased it in a bit more in my opinion.
Also looking at the fusebox, the new wiring goes into the right hand side and the RCD is on the left. I thought all newly installed wiring had to link to an RCD?
The new switches on the fusebox do look slightly different and I wondered if they had their own individual RCD's?
I've attached images which hopefully show what I'm going on about

thanks in advance for any wisdom shared

 

[Iggifer]

You're quite right, the cables should be in safe zones, which they're not.

The cable doesn't need to be super deep in the wall, but it should be a) in a safe zone and b) underneath the plaster at the very least.

That bit from behind the skirting board to beneath the floorboard is downright disgusting too.

And those are RCBOs, they're a combination of an MCB and RCD. That's about the only bit that is acceptable.

 

[sparkwright]

RCBOs have been used at the consumer unit, which provide RCD protection.

The cables down the landing wall are NOT in a safe zone.

Clearly he chased the plaster, but too lazy to chase the brickwork.

The cable at the very bottom of the skirting board looks nasty too.

Plastering looks rubbish too.

 

[deadshort]

Yes, they are P.ss poor ! The butchery on the skirting is perticularly attractive.

DS

 

[shardy]

thanks for replies folks. This loft conversion by Central London Lofts is pretty shoddy from top to bottom. The plumbing is appalling too.
It should've been finished months ago but they've had nearly all the money now so unsurprisingly are off site and no longer communicating with us.
We've been advised by a solicitor that the only option is to take them to court.
Low end work at high end prices

 

[sparkwright]

Shame.

Feel free to send more pictures of the rest of the new wiring, I'm sure we can find more problems.

 

[deadshort]

thanks for replies folks. This loft conversion by Central London Lofts is pretty shoddy from top to bottom. The plumbing is appalling too.
It should've been finished months ago but they've had nearly all the money now so unsurprisingly are off site and no longer communicating with us.
We've been advised by a solicitor that the only option is to take them to court.
Low end work at high end prices

Sorry to here that. I hope you kick ass. The money is one thing, the stress and upset can't be quantified.

Hope all works in your favour.

Regards,

DS

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Regarding the original question (is the wiring Part P compliant) the photos show work that doesn't follow the requirements (and is shoddy but shoddy is not an automatic fail). If your contractor had issued you with a certificate for the wiring then Trading Standards (and whichever self-certifying scheme the electrician was a member of) would be very excited. Sounds like an addition to the court proceedings..... (google Statutory Demand for an alternate path)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There are basically two ways to make laws effective.

One is to ensure that transgressors are detected and held to account.

The other is to make the penalties for transgression really hideous.

The first costs money which society does not necessarily have. The second can be self-funding if fines are high enough, and irrelevant once people get the message.

the building inspector didn't know if the electrics were compliant so he asked the project manager who shrugged his shoulders.

The project manager simply CNBA, because he knew that nothing would come of it.

Based on my own research I thought the wiring had to run directly vertically above and below the existing socket or within 150 mm of a corner.
Also the wiring is hardly chased into the wall at all and is visible even after plastering. The electrician said he couldn't chase it in any deeper.

The "electrician" CNBA either.

He knew what he was supposed to do, but he DGAS.

Not because he had learning difficulties, not because he had a drug addiction, not because he was desperate to feed his family, not because he was inflamed by something which had been done to him, not because he had mental health issues, but simply because he couldn't be bothered. A really significant factor in his adoption of that attitude was that he knew he was pretty much guaranteed to get away with it.

To make it far less likely that he would get away with it would cost more than we can afford. But making him lie awake in a cold sweat knowing that just if through some random whims of bad luck he did get caught then he would be utterly ruined, destitute, would see his family reduced to penury and would find himself banged up for years and years and years then I promise you he simply wouldn't take the chance.

And now, before long, some mealy-mouthed apologist will turn up here bleating on about how we mustn't punish cynical, thieving, lying con men who make peoples lives a misery to the extent that they actually fear (and I meant really, really fear) the punishment because somehow it is "disproportionate". In an ideal world he wouldn't dare do what he did because he knew he would get caught. Until that ideal world arrives let's have him cacking himself every time there's a knock at the door in case that's the knock which signals the end of his life as he knows it.

 

[ericmark]

Does it comply with Part P? I would have expected BAS to have listed what Part P requires. It does not lay out a list to regulations which must be complied with, but directs one to the IET/BSi set of regulations which it says by following would be one way to comply. However following any other set of European regulations would also likely comply with Part P. So if I wish I can wire my house with German sockets which don't comply with British regulations, but would still be allowed under Part P.

In essence it is up to the local authority building inspector as to what he feels is safe, he is the person who has to decide.

building inspector didn't know if the electrics were compliant so he asked the project manager who shrugged his shoulders

Of course the project manager shrugged his shoulders, he is not going to admit to the building inspector he knows the work is sub standard. However my father-in-law was Clark of works and then Project director for Liverpool hospital board, and on the few times I went around with him, that was his way of alerting the contractor he was not happy, he would then go back to car and check it see if it did comply with the spec given to the contractor.

If you have stipulated must comply with current BS7671 then clearly he is in breach of contract, if you have employed a scheme member also he is in breach of contract, if neither is true then the LABC inspector can require the electrician to do it again and do it properly, however it is not you who does the chasing, but either the LABC inspector or the scheme provider, the scheme provider if there is one, require their members to follow the current BS7671 so if a scheme member then he is in breach of his contract with the scheme provider, however he is not in breach of his contract with you.

There is a requirement to show a warranty of skill, if the installation does not work he is clearly not showing a "warranty of skill" however if it works then your looking at safety, bad as the work is to prove it is not safe is hard. If you in 5 years time drilled into the cable and were killed then it would be easy to show the electrician did not show a warranty of skill because the cable does not follow save zones. But until the event it is hard to prove.

Having said all that I personally would refuse to pay until corrected. Where the problem lies is where the electrician is a sub-contractor, you can refuse to pay builder, but he may have more of a problem he could have already paid the electrician. I had the reverse with my dads house, we paid the builder, but the builder did not pay electrician, we tried to get electrician back to correct work, he said no way until I've been paid. I can see his point. He said a contract is where two parties agree to do something for a consideration, without the consideration there is no contract.

So yes give it a go, try to get it corrected, but if you paid the builder then it is the builder you complain to not the electrician. The builder can decide to not deal with that electrician again and withhold payment. Where there are other problems as in our case the builder may do a runner.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does it comply with Part P? I would have expected BAS to have listed what Part P requires. It does not lay out a list to regulations which must be complied with, but directs one to the IET/BSi set of regulations which it says by following would be one way to comply. However following any other set of European regulations would also likely comply with Part P. So if I wish I can wire my house with German sockets which don't comply with British regulations, but would still be allowed under Part P.

Unless you can show that the way the electrician installed those cables constitutes making reasonable provision for safety (bearing in mind that there is at least one example of someone dying because of damage to a cable which wasn't where it should be) then it does not comply.

Of course the project manager shrugged his shoulders, he is not going to admit to the building inspector he knows the work is sub standard.

I wonder if he should refresh his knowledge of the CD&MR?

 

[davelx]

but either the LABC inspector or the scheme provider, the scheme provider if there is one, require their members to follow the current BS7671 so if a scheme member then he is in breach of his contract with the scheme provider, however he is not in breach of his contract with you.

Actually he might well be in breach of his contract with you. Examine the quotation and any accompanying specification he provided, and look carefully for the (very common) phrase "all electrical work completed in accordance with BS7671" or words to that effect. If they are there, then he IS in breach of his contract with you if the work does not comply with that standard.

 

[ericmark]

The work clearly does not comply with BS7671:2008, but the electrician clearly knew that when he did the work, so simply telling him that is non compliant is not really going to achieve much.

Asking the LABC inspector does that comply, with a little prompting such as from what I can gather it does not, but would just like to check with you. Or something to that effect. Or may be straight out with it. Like I have been told that does not comply are you going to do anything about it? He has the power to insist that it is corrected.

It is not is it right or wrong it is how to get the electrician to correct it which is the problem. If a scheme member electrician then maybe the comment of I will be calling the scheme provider if you don't correct that wiring may buck him up. It would me but I would not do that to start with, so we are looking at some one who really does not care in first place.

 

[SimonH2]

Following on from BAS's suggestion that the penalties must be sufficient to act as a deterrent, the sparky's workmanship (or rather lack of it) is responsible for your building work not being signed off by BC.
As noted, there will be (at the very least) an implied term that the works will be carried out with due care and the goods/services supplied must be fit for purpose (Sale of Goods and Services Act, now replaced by something else IIRC). So, the OP would have a claim against the sparky (or against the builder if the sparky was a sub for them) for all costs incurred as a result of this breach of contract.
So one approach might be to put together costs for having the work redone - redo the electrics, make good anything that has to be disturbed in doing that, any redecoration, cleaning the place again, etc. Call the builders back in, give them (say) 14 days to put the work right or to at least make acceptable proposals for how and when they will - and tell then that if they don't then you'll just get others in to put it all right and make them pay for it. Have all the court paper work (Fast Track Service at the County Court, aka Small Claims Court) already done and "accidentally" show them it when you "accidentally drop your papers.
If they have any sense, they'll realise that it's cost them less to do the work properly than to pay someone else to do it.

But before you do that, most definitely get Trading Standards (and any relevant trade bodies - eg registered scheme for the sparky) involved. Trading Standards may or may not do anything (they don't have the resources to take up all the cases they hear about) - but it will alert them and they tend to work on a "people who get mentioned most get the most attention" basis. So if a builder and sparky get mentioned several times, they are far more likely to find themselves being "looked at".
And if the outfits concerned are "local" then perhaps the local papers would be interested in these "cowboys" putting lives in danger. In other words, name and shame them in every forum you can - as long as you are careful to be completely truthful so as not to commit libel.

Unfortunately, in the small claims court you cannot claim compensation for the hassle - only actual losses/costs. But do include EVERYTHING - have you had to store anything elsewhere while the work was done (rent ?), did you have to get any reports done, and I would include the cost of postage and phone calls (every little helps).

PS - if the block is anything like the brick in our 60's ex-council house then I can understand the sparky not wanting to chase it. It's almost unchasable it's that 'kin hard. If not careful, the brick will just move in the mortar and push the plaster off the other side of the wall - with barely a scratch on the brick. Takes me hours to chase out a backbox, working carefully-but-purposefully with a scutch.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In other words, name and shame them in every forum you can - as long as you are careful to be completely truthful so as not to commit libel.

Doesn't matter. Our obscene libel laws do not recognise truth - if you damage someone's reputation then it is libel, even if what you have said is entirely true.

As for the rest, I agree it's probably the best way for the OP to proceed. But in the wider scheme of things it is no deterrent - it still leaves the charlatans calculating that if the worst happens they'll just have to do the work again. Whereas if the worst that could happen is utter ruin and years and years in prison the calculations suddenly look a lot different.