campsite electrics

[JonoPashley]

And for refrence whats the name of this camp site so i can avoid it?

 

[Spark123]

OK, just ignore any advice given. What was the point in asking?
I hope for your sake that nothing untoward happens.

 

[woody2]

OK, just ignore any advice given. What was the point in asking?
I hope for your sake that nothing untoward happens.

im not ignoring any advice except people who don't know what they are talking about

proper designed system for the job and not having to pay a sparky to plug in 5 cables which you seem to be more miffed about

 

[Spark123]

I don't see the funny side, camp site electrics are a specialist subject.
Who doesn't know what they are talking about?
Plugging it together and then testing it to ensure it is safe and correct before being put into service is a must.

 

[ericmark]

We all know 9 times out of 10 nothing goes wrong and know one knows the wiser.

Only if someone is injured will anyone likely to cause problems even look at the site.

Hope this is not your 10th year?

It does not matter which trade we have all done something wrong and have not even thought of it really being wrong until we read about someone who has been taken to court and had large fine or prison sentence.

We then look and say "here by grace of god go I".

I remember reading about some poor guy who had only switched off a panel at the isolator on the panel before working on it and had been not only injured but fined by HSE. And I realised that is exactly what I have done every time I have worked on a consumer unit.

To change a consumer unit I would draw the fuse but not to add circuits and looking at that court case I should draw the main fuse before I remove the consumer unit lid.

However I would also be breaking regulations if I did as fuse is sealed.

So we take a chance. But hopefully a calculated chance and we do all we can to ensure if it goes wrong we don't carry the can.

In your case I would insist on an Electrical Installation Certificate and then if something goes wrong you can say you did all you could to ensure it was OK. Even if you know it's not.

I had a problem with my last job where I had to tell my boss if I go to a certain job I will have to isolate and lock off as I hold a C&G 2391 and I could not argue in court I did not know it was wrong. The semi-skilled bloke however could argue he was unaware of it being wrong.

So with your qualifications could you really argue you did not know it was wrong?

Hope nothing goes wrong. But I was not so lucky. I have not worked since. Good luck you will need it.

Spelling corrected

 

[bernardgreen]

im not ignoring any advice except people who don't know what they are talking about

How do you judge who does and who doesn't know what they are talking about. To be able to make that judgement accurately then you have the knowledge you need for the task.

By setting up this installation you have a massive responsibility to the people on that site. Yet you have to come to a DIY forum to ask for advice and then decide to accept only that advice which fits your existing plans.

Were you perhaps apprehensive of the safety of your installation and were here looking of assurance it would be OK to go ahead with those plans.

It doesn't matter at all that it is only used for 12 weekends a year and must be cleared after the event. If it is there it must not present danger to those using it at any time.

From the RUB4202 specification

Box should be used with 400A protection at source.

What protection will you provide for the cables between the incoming supply and the first of your distribution units ?

 

[1john]

You campsite people are all the same, extortionate prices for a 'pitch', inadequate and poor facilities and so tight that you all constantly squeek when you walk.

Electrical equipment outdoors is VERY DANGEROUS. There are TOO MANY external influences to be considered. this is NEVER a diy job. Electricity can kill you in miliseconds, what has 12 weeks got to do with it????????

Have it done properly, there are companies that specialise in campsite wiring and there is reason for that. Won't you sleep better at night knowing that you arn't responsible for the installation, and knowing that it is done to the book and that should something go wrong that you will have details of the installer and the certificate of installation to state that it conforms to BS 7671?

Dont forget that once up and running the system needs to be periodically instected and tested by a qualified person/s.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

will look into why the sparks said PAT test

Maybe he was one of the people who doesn't know what he's talking about, and whose advice should be ignored.

the sparks where surprized we fitted them as they normally run the cables on the floor

Maybe they are some of those people who don't know what they are talking about, and whose advice should be ignored.

 

[ricicle]

In your case I would insist on an insulation certificate .

 

[ericmark]

In your case I would insist on an insulation certificate .

OK spell check got it wrong. But it is serous.

631.1 Upon completion of the verification of a new installation or changes to an existing installation, an Electrical Installation Certificate, based on the model given in Appendix 6, shall be provided. Such documentation shall include details of the extent of the installation covered by the Certificate, together with a record of the inspection and the results of testing.

Without that bit of paper if anything goes wrong "woody2" could be looking at a custodial sentence with the paper he may only get fined.

My foreman and I do feel sorry for him told us we had to do the job when we tried to back-heal it. And asked us to do work which was not electrical. Had everything gone well he would have got pat on the back. But I was injured and then it really got nasty for him. Don't know whole story his solicitors told him he must not contact me. But he lost his job and I am sure it was not easy to find any future employment and he did not get compensation. The Spark working with me blames himself he was very close to becoming an alcoholic because of this. He removed to lock and did not replace it and turned the machine on while I was working on it.

And like "woody2" it was not really our job but we were through circumstances drawn into it. Had it been our job we would have known the method that should have been followed. (Method statement) we would have also have carried out a risk assessment. Likely there would have been no accident. Also like most accidents there were other faults. Isolator in wrong place. Wrong colour switches used for personnel safety,

314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:
(i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault

Was the main fault.

But no one could have foreseen the result.
I like many others have worked on jobs were you just do as your told. Connect wire A to box B following plan and you have no idea if the installation complies or not you are just another cog. But as soon as someone says I want you to complete an "Electrical Installation Certificate" this all changes and you may it your business to ensure it complies. I have many times been employed and sent to a site to work where my employer has no idea what I am doing he is just supplying labour. So you could get a load of electricians arrive on site who just do as they are told and think the foreman is an electrician or electrical engineer and will do as they are told within reason. They would expect the person in charge to sign any paperwork and would not consider the job as a whole.

So only by ensuring there is an "Electrical Installation Certificate" can you be sure some one other than yourself has taken responsibility for the work and that they have the skill and knowledge required. Both my son and I have worked doing nothing else but check other peoples work and there have been times when an admin error has resulted in work not being checked and we have had to return to a powered up site which has been done by electricians without a 2391 and I have been dismayed at some of the work I have found. But normally they have done exactly what they have been told to do. Not bad workmanship just done without considering the installation as a whole. Often due to not having a test set so they were unaware what they had done was wrong. Had they been issued with test set even without a 2391 likely they would not have made the mistake.

So again someone must take responsibility and if I was asked to sign an "Electrical Installation Certificate" without having access to a test set I would refuse and this would then highlight that testing was not being done.

Sorry to go on so. But it is serous

 

[ricicle]

I wholeheartedly agree Eric. The trouble in today's working society even though there are those who try and enforce H+S there are those who flaunt it and see it as a waste of time. For years they get away with with no repercusions but as you imply it only takes that once.
And also for every genuine guy who says no it is beyond me or that is too dangerous there are ten willing to have a go at being Dan Dare for that 'pat on the back'.
It is everyones duty at work to comply with H+S law. Those who don't, some might argue, deserve all they get but as with lots of things the innocent suffer as well.

 

[bernardgreen]

there are those who try and enforce H+S there are those who flaunt it and see it as a waste of time.

There are some people who promote excessive restrictions on activity under their own un-informed mis-conception that they are improving the safety of the workforce. They may be improving safety for a percentage of the workforce of the country but for some they may be introducing obstructions to working.

My experience is that some H+S rules are counter-productive because they are in that workplace un-necessary but are rigidly enforced leading to contempt for H+S in general. As a result the H+S rules that are essential to that workplace are also treated with contempt which can result in increased danger from specific sources.

The contempt for the un-necessary rules arises when those rules either insult the intelligence of the safety minded workforce or seriously and un-necessarily reduce productivity in the work place.

 

[ericmark]

Of course "bernardgreen" is right and where one is fined for wearing glasses instead of goggles for example and all around one can see real danger it does seem some people have lost the plot.

The working on live circuits really wound me up. Seems you are allowed to test live but not work live and I can't really see the difference to me testing is working? It to me would be better to say you need to be accompanied or some other way to define what is permitted.

To be fair HSE do take what is reasonable into account. But not removing the main incoming fuse where an independent isolator is not available before removing the cover on a consumer unit because of supply regulations is unlikely to be accepted as reasonable safety should come first. The provision of isolators by supply companies reflect this and I think they realise they would be on a very sticky wicket if they tried to prosecute.

But when I was taught health and safety we were taught that PPE should only be used as last resort. In other words make it safe for everyone for example better to fit hand rails than to require the use of a harness.