Builder set cable into concrete with no conduit.

[JohnW2]

522.6.2 & 522.8.7

JohnW2 this is your fault for encouraging BAS to get the green book

You can only blame me in relation to 522.8.7; 522.6.2 was present and unchanged in his BRB

These sections are typical examples of a catch all - that is just waiting to taken to the civil court - to earn someone lots of money! I suppose the builder should have anticipated that a fork lift truck might be used in this area and taken proper steps to prevent this incident. 522.8.7 is probably closest but still wide open to interpretation.

522.6.2 is actually about 'impacts', so I'm not so sure that's really applicable. 'Impacts' severe enough to penetrate a floor are not exactly common in a domestic environment! 522.8.7 is, of course, the reg I mentioned in the very first response in this thread and, as I said then, there clearly is scope for us (or lawyers) to spend plenty of time debating whether "damage caused by the intended use of the floor" includes drilling into it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Tayjen]

TWO junction boxes.

I checked with the carpenter this morning - yes two boxes are going in.

522.6.2 & 522.8.7

A link would be handy. Google is not helping much.

so who is at fault here? (which i think the op is trying to get at also) ... Builder / sparky has burred cable in what would be a daft place and its got no protection either (not that i can see the logic behind some thin metal protecting it as you will drill through without realizing anyway)

Sure, that's what the OP wants to know. However, if no regulations have been breached by the daft location of the cable, it could be that no-one (other thah the regulations!) is officially 'to blame'. I certainly think that the carpenter is blameless - he really had no reason to suspect that there would be a shallow cable there. In common sense terms, the builder (or whoever) who buried the cable is obviously the actual 'culprit', but if they can successfully argue that they haven't breached any regulations (some of which are 'debatable') the may well be able to get themselves off the 'responsibility hook'.

Kind Regards, John

Well, according to the carpenter the builder has apparently accepted responsibility and is sending the original electrician to fit the boxes tomorrow morning. Without seeing any regulations its difficult to apportion blame because there were 3 separate people involved - the electrician who left the cable loose, the builder's mate who applied the waterproofing and screed (and probably without instruction wouldn't have known where to lay the cable or to duct it) and then the carpenter.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

522.6.2 is actually about 'impacts', so I'm not so sure that's really applicable. 'Impacts' severe enough to penetrate a floor are not exactly common in a domestic environment!

Au contraire - the use of nailers on domestic floors is quite common.

And if this carpenter used a hammer drill, that's impact damage as well.

 

[Tayjen]

I found the regs...strangely the first link was an Irish site so I didn't check it at first.

 

[JohnW2]

Au contraire - the use of nailers on domestic floors is quite common. And if this carpenter used a hammer drill, that's impact damage as well.

I suppose so - but I still agree with riveralt that 522.8.7 (the one I mentioned at the very start) is probably a better, even if 'debatable', bet!

I'm rather surprised that you haven't yet mentioned 134.1.1 - or do you feel that what we are talking about is 'good workmanship'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well, according to the carpenter the builder has apparently accepted responsibility and is sending the original electrician to fit the boxes tomorrow morning.

That sounds like 'a result', and probably corresponds with a common sense view of 'blame' (particularly if the original electrician was working for,or through,the builder).

Without seeing any regulations its difficult to apportion blame because there were 3 separate people involved - the electrician who left the cable loose, the builder's mate who applied the waterproofing and screed (and probably without instruction wouldn't have known where to lay the cable or to duct it) and then the carpenter.

As I've said, I really don't think that anyone can blame the carpenter. Ultimately, I suppose, the most obvious blame attaches to the electrician, who should have taken the necessary steps to ensure the cable was adequately protected (including communication with the builder's mate). However, as we've been discussing, whether any regulations were actually breached, by anyone, is much more debatable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Tayjen]

That sounds like 'a result', and probably corresponds with a common sense view of 'blame' (particularly if the original electrician was working for,or through,the builder).

Well, we very happy with our builder and the original job his team did (very clean, even mopping at the end of every day) so this would be keeping to his standards.

We very much appreciate the time and advice everyone has given.

 

[rjm2k]

Is there an Earth in that cable?

 

[JohnW2]

Is there an Earth in that cable?

It would seem very unlikely that a cable installed, last year, for a sockets circuit wouldn't! Whether the CPC forms part of the 'temporary repair' is another matter - we can't really see from the photo provided.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Tayjen]

Is there an Earth in that cable?

I certainly doesn't look like it. However there is a gas pipe in the drywall right next to the socket that might have been used as an earth, if that is at all possible. I can't actually check that though.

 

[securespark]

I'm rather surprised that you haven't yet mentioned 134.1.1 - or do you feel that what we are talking about is 'good workmanship'?

Hang on, at least let me get the sand bags out...

 

[JohnW2]

Is there an Earth in that cable?

I certainly doesn't look like it.

As I wrote, if my understanding is correct, that the cable was installed last year and that it supplies socket(s), it is all-but-inconceivable that the cable does not have an earth - even if it is not visible and/or not connected as part of the 'temporary repair'.

However there is a gas pipe in the drywall right next to the socket that might have been used as an earth, if that is at all possible. I can't actually check that though.

No, that's not possible/acceptable. There would have to be (and almost certainly will be) an earth within the cable. If not, you've got far bigger problems than you thought (which I very much doubt)

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm rather surprised that you haven't yet mentioned 134.1.1 - or do you feel that what we are talking about is 'good workmanship'?

Hang on, at least let me get the sand bags out...

I don't think you need to worry, since I can't really see (m)any of us arguing that the buried cable constituted 'good workmanship', can you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm rather surprised that you haven't yet mentioned 134.1.1 - or do you feel that what we are talking about is 'good workmanship'?

And the value of doing that when this forum is full of shouty people who are firmly convinced that that regulation has no independent existence, and that as long as <whatever> does not explicitly contravene another regulation, it cannot by definition contravene 134.1.1 would be what?

 

[stillp]

But as part of the remedial work, I would expect the electrician to check the continuity of all conductors including the CPC and to document his test results.