Consumer Unit Replacement

[scousespark]

Of course, and that was my point - that although Part P does not apply to non-domestic situations, BS7671 and many other laws/regulations do - which is why I was surprised than non-exhaustive inspections/testing were acceptable in such environments.
Indeed - and although you seem to believe that (1) id the most common cause of EICR findings, (3) remains a possibility, no less in non-domestic installations than domestic ones - so I'm surprised that it is not considered necessary to look for such problems, on all circuits, during an EICR. As I have just written, 'deteriorations over time' (which are not necessarily apparent to the user) do happen in electrical installations, whether one calls that 'wear and tear' or not.

Kind Regards, John

This is painful. You complain that electricians follow the rules like sheep, until somebody says they don't and then they are cowboys leaving the people of the uk in perpetual danger. I have NOT said installations are not inspected exhaustively. I have pointed out that where there are trustworthy records it is an industry practice to test a sample of the installation.

Of course, and that was my point - that although Part P does not apply to non-domestic situations, BS7671 and many other laws/regulations do - which is why I was surprised than non-exhaustive inspections/testing were acceptable in such environments.
Indeed - and although you seem to believe that (1) id the most common cause of EICR findings, (3) remains a possibility, no less in non-domestic installations than domestic ones - so I'm surprised that it is not considered necessary to look for such problems, on all circuits, during an EICR. As I have just written, 'deteriorations over time' (which are not necessarily apparent to the user) do happen in electrical installations, whether one calls that 'wear and tear' or not.

Kind Regards, John

The 1-3 list is not meant to rank the causes, it is just my personal list. The wear and term comparison refers to the differenece between an MOT and an EICR.

 

[JohnW2]

This is painful. You complain that electricians follow the rules like sheep, until somebody says they don't and then they are cowboys leaving the people of the uk in perpetual danger.

Nonsense. I don't complain about electricians following rules like sheep. Most of them (at least those registered with CPS schemes) are constrained to 'follow the rules', whatever they think of them.

I sometimes question the rules, but that's a different matter, and no-one can complain about electricians following whatever rules we/they are currently stuck with.

I've said nothing about 'cowboys', nor have I said anything against the electricians who undertake these EICRs (presumably within the applicable rules/regs/laws). I have merely expressed my surprise that the rules/regulations/laws regard it as acceptable for an inspection/testing of a non-domestic electrical installation to be undertaken which does not involve inspection and testing of all the circuits in the installation.

I have NOT said installations are not inspected exhaustively.

We must have different understandings of "exhaustively". Anyway, to use wording which you presumably can't dispute, you HAVE said that all circuits in a (non-domestic) installation are not necessarily inspected/tested during an EICR.

I have pointed out that where there are trustworthy records it is an industry practice to test a sample of the installation.

You have. However, reliance on 'records' cannot guarantee that a circuit remains safe. On your own admission, one of the reasons why a circuit might 'fail' an EICR, if it were tested, is a situation in which a circuit has been 'damaged' (e.g. connections come lose, cable mechanically damaged etc.) since the last inspection/testing (hence since the last creation of any 'records') - something which would not be detected if the circuit were not inspected and tested.

The 1-3 list is not meant to rank the causes, it is just my personal list.

I've never suggested otherwise. Your cause (3) is there, no matter what its rank.

The wear and term comparison refers to the differenece between an MOT and an EICR.

Indeed, and I have pointed out that changes which can (and sometimes do) happen over time in an electrical circuit are, in terms of safety considerations, just the same as the more conventional "wear and tear" phenomenon which are relevant to MOTs. An electrical connection coming loose (which is not unknown!) is of a similar significance to a brake pipe union becoming loose.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You complain that electricians follow the rules like sheep, until somebody says they don't and then they are cowboys leaving the people of the uk in perpetual danger.

The more I think about this, the more I come to wonder whether you have understood what I have been saying, and why you think I am criticising or complaining about electricians.

I am assuming that what you are telling me is correct - i.e. that it is, at least in some circumstances, an accepted practice (and acceptable in terms of 'rules, regulations and laws) for an electrician to undertake an EICR without inspecting/testing all circuits.

If that is the case, then there is no way that anyone could criticise or complain about electricians who were following that accepted (and regs/law-compliant) practice. The surprise I have expressed is therefore in relation to the fact that the 'rules, regulations and laws' regard that as an acceptable practice, and nothing to do with the electricians who adhere to that 'accepted practice'.

I am putting a lot of trust in what you have been telling me. I don't think we have yet received confirmation from other electricians who undertake non-domestic EICRs that they would also regard what you have been describing as 'accepted and acceptable practice'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gazzer23]

Hi Guys
Sorry I have been out of it for a long while mainly because of not being able to do a lot as my right arm was a bit useless for quite a while and my work was overloaded.

I got another Electrician in to do the rewire for me and I hoped that would be the end of it. The first day he rewired the lighting in the existing conduit which was good as I really didn't fancy having all my walls and ceilings chased. The cable pulled through relatively easy.

Unfortunately it went a bit downhill after that (for many reasons) as he couldn't remove the cables for the ring from their conduit so he decided to lay T&E under the floorboards.
If you look at the following photo and ignore the data cables for the moment even though the melted fiber optic is interesting.
Does the mains cable only need mechanical protection when it goes through the joist ?

My whole floor is concrete and the joists laid down are none structural and just there for the floorboards to rest on. unfortunately they are only about 4 - 5 cm above the concrete so there is not much room to play with and in particular have problems when the central heating pipes meet the electrical conduit.

 

[sparkwright]

You don't have much luck do you?

If you can't rewire a conduit system
a) There's a hidden joint in the wiring, such a redundant socket jointed and plastered over.
b) The conduit was badly installed in the first place.
c) The conduit was never designed to be rewired.

In the picture, those nail guards don't give anyone a chance to nail the floorboard back down.

Data cables should not be run parallel to mains cables, you need a gap of AT LEAST two inches, if not much more.

Rule of thumb is to run mains cables below pipework, theory being the cable is less likely to touch the pipe. Not always possible within such a shallow void though.

I don't know for certain what the rules are for protecting data cables from nail damage and the like, but I always treat them the same as mains, mainly because I don't want to ever repair them.

 

[Gazzer23]

Yes i agree with you about the safe plates but they were what he put down.
As far as data cables go for the flat Ethernet cable that is a good idea but for fibre optic I think its OK to run along with the mains cable as it can't interfere with the signal nor can any voltage be carried by it.
The data cables were there first as I had done that myself previously, the Electrician just reused the notches in the joists. I hadn't put down safe plates as I knew the data cables were there and wasn't going to put a nail in it.

I have since disconnected these mains cables as I managed to pull out the singles in the ring circuit conduit and pull through new cables (with the additional earth cable).
They were just stuck because of a bit of dust/plaster had fallen down into the conduit and jammed it up in the bend, I don't think he tried very hard when he did it as he decided to lay the T&E a few minutes after trying.
Additional I did squirt a little WD40 into the conduit down at the bend which freed it up. I was worried about using WD40 as I have seen the debate about people using it to pull cables through and everyone saying about over time it reacting with the cable insulation. SO I did google it and checked on the WD40 website and the can itself and it says it is safe to use with cables. Also the bulk of the WD40 came out with the old cables and the new cables had Yellow77 as lubricant for pulling through.

But my living room is still done this way as new sockets were put in, so I was just curious if the safe plate over the joist meets regs?

As too my kitchen which is still only half done as I asked the Electrician not to come back as he told me to put back the kitchen cabinet as it was done but when I looked it hadn't been touched at all.
The same crappy single socket on the wall with black insulation wrapped around with 2 cables going into the one plug which was plugged into it. none of the earth wires had sleaving on inside the sockets, all he had done was put one of the terminal blocks inside a neat little junction box, the other one he had left as it was and pushed it behind the cooker. When I went to have a look one live wire fell out.

He did manage to pull through 6 singles into the kitchen from the CU so at least one side of the kitchen had a proper ring with an earth and when I said about extending it to the other side of the kitchen for the few sockets there he was very reluctant and wanted to do a separate circuit and said about having them on separate RCD's in case one tripped. Seriously for a tiny kitchen like mine it seemed like a not very good idea too me, I don't think he wanted to have to remove cupboards and run cables under the floor.

The strange thing is he had so many good reviews etc on the web site, people saying that he cleaned up etc.
I had to pull everything out and get everything ready before he came and then in the evening put it all back etc as well as clear up his mess that he left everywhere. he made no attempt to pick anything up at all.
Then add to that, the times he told me he was coming but never turned up after I got everything ready for him and then had to put it all back again (9 days in total). that is a substantial loss of earnings for me being self employed.

 

[JohnW2]

The strange thing is he had so many good reviews etc on the web site, people saying that he cleaned up etc.
I had to pull everything out and get everything ready before he came and then in the evening put it all back etc as well as clear up his mess that he left everywhere. he made no attempt to pick anything up at all. ... Then add to that, the times he told me he was coming but never turned up ...

Not necessarily all that strange. Did you make any attempt to check whether any of those 'good reviews' had actually been written by anyone other than himself, his friends and his family?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gazzer23]

Well there was a lot of reviews over a period of time and to me they all looked genuine.
I think maybe he is OK for small simple jobs but not for something bigger like a rewire.

 

[JohnW2]

Well there was a lot of reviews over a period of time and to me they all looked genuine.

Unfortunately they can be pretty good at making the reviews 'look genuine' even when they are not very good at their trade!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well there was a lot of reviews over a period of time and to me they all looked genuine.
I think maybe he is OK for small simple jobs but not for something bigger like a rewire.

Sadly it is possible to become registered with woefully inadequate qualifications and zero practical experience. You don't have to spend long here to see people cropping up who are registered and "qualified", but who are clearly seriously incompetent in reality and who should not be charging for their services.

It may surprise and dismay you (or maybe not, now) to learn that it is quite possible to become a "Competent Person" without ever having done one single rewire or CU replacement before, and without having acquired any of the practical skills needed to do it without half-destroying the property in the process.

I feel sorry for people who have been misled by training organisations and (shamefully) the Competent Person scheme organisers into thinking that a 5-day training course, a couple of trivial examples of their work and some basic understanding of how to use test equipment will make them an electrician, but not sorry enough to agree with them trying to sell their services to Joe Public.

 

[Gazzer23]

in this case I think it was more the case of can't be bothered to do a proper job than practical experience as apparently has over 20/30 years experience and I did quiz him when he first came round to look along with the other Electrician, third one i asked for quote never bothered to come to look so I didn't bother chasing him.

I am a very curious chap and probably very annoying as I ask a lot of questions as I like to understand things and increase my knowledge.
I noticed that once he started work that his answers seemed to be more based on trying to do less work than being correct.
Like when I said about metal conduit needed to be earthed when he was redoing the lighting circuit through the existing conduit and he said it was OK it didn't need to be earthed as it was buried in the wall. My concern was because the light switch back boxes are the very old style black ones which don't have an earth terminal on the box it self and the conduit isn't connected properly to the CU.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Earthing is not a good thing in its own right; it is a necessary evil where parts are conductive and touchable.

I would agree with the electrician in regard to the conduit being buried.
Metal back-boxes don't have to be earthed (although virtually every one thinks it a good idea) if the face-plate is - although the earth-wire (CPC) must be terminated somewhere.

Neither the conduit nor back-boxes are exposed-conductive-parts.

I don't see the relevance of "because the light switch back boxes are the very old style black ones which don't have an earth terminal on the box it self and the conduit isn't connected properly to the CU".

 

[Gazzer23]

I don't see the relevance of "because the light switch back boxes are the very old style black ones which don't have an earth terminal on the box it self and the conduit isn't connected properly to the CU".

What I meant that if the back box had an earth terminal then the earth wire can be connected and this would earth the conduit itself because the conduit isn't earthed properly at the CU end.
I thought I read somewhere that it had to be earthed, it looks like I misunderstood it.

 

[JohnW2]

I would agree with the electrician in regard to the conduit being buried. Metal back-boxes don't have to be earthed (although virtually every one thinks it a good idea) if the face-plate is - although the earth-wire (CPC) must be terminated somewhere. Neither the conduit nor back-boxes are exposed-conductive-parts.

I'm a little confused. Whilst I would agree that fully buried conduit is not 'exposed' and therefore, per se, probably does not need to be earthed, if installed properly it will usually be in electrical continuity with back boxes which, in turn, will commonly be in continuity with exposed-c-ps (if only faceplate screws). In that situation, the conduit presumably would have to be earthed, directly or indirectly, wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Gazzer23]

That is what I thought because the screws holding the face plate will be connected to the back box which is connected to the conduit.


Mind you that said, where the screws go through the face plate is normally connected to the earth terminal on the face plate, so it will be earthed while the face plate is on and not when the face plate is unscrewed.