Electrician to test sockets? Scam or not??

[martinxxxxxx]

Thank you

As far as I am concerned the circuit I have been contracted to work on and the circuit that I have actually touched is undeniably my responsibility.

Other circuits in the same street or even the same house are not.

Until I have some mandate to interfere with them I shall not.

I may suggest that they are checked if in my opinion there might be a site wide problem.

I sound really pompous but in fact I am just trying to establish a clear demarcation of the limits to where my responsibilities end on a job.

I welcome and appreciate any thoughts you have?

Regards

Martin

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As far as I am concerned the circuit I have been contracted to work on and the circuit that I have actually touched is undeniably my responsibility.

If you've done a PIR, or (as in this case) replaced a CU, you have touched every circuit.

I welcome and appreciate any thoughts you have?

I'm not criticising you, or RF - just trying to understand what the logic is, i.e. what principles/rules/assumptions are consistently applied.

I can see the logic which says "If I've found one loose connection at a socket then there could be others."

What I can't see is the logic which says "Those others will only be on the same circuit as the one I found."

 

[martinxxxxxx]

As far as I am concerned the circuit I have been contracted to work on and the circuit that I have actually touched is undeniably my responsibility.

If you've done a PIR, or (as in this case) replaced a CU, you have touched every circuit.

I welcome and appreciate any thoughts you have?

I'm not criticising you, or RF - just trying to understand what the logic is, i.e. what principles/rules/assumptions are consistently applied.

I can see the logic which says "If I've found one loose connection at a socket then there could be others."

What I can't see is the logic which says "Those others will only be on the same circuit as the one I found."

I agree with that I was referring to fault finding in general which is a fault normally on one circuit, if you have changed a CU then you are correct.

After rectification of the fault on one circuit, personally I would find it hard to say to a customer - look I have found the fault you have called me to sort out and it is this socket here which I have fixed - now I'm going to need you to pay for a few more hours while I do the test on the lights, cooker, shower and other circuits that may have problems that have not come to light yet. Unless there was a specific reason that I should expect there to be a site wide problem.

Regards

Martin

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[martinxxxxxx]

After rectification of the fault on one circuit, personally I would find it hard to say to a customer - look I have found the fault you have called me to sort out and it is this socket here which I have fixed - now I'm going to need you to pay for a few more hours while I do the test on the lights, cooker, shower and other circuits that may have problems that have not come to light yet. Unless there was a specific reason that I should expect there to be a site wide problem.

Bizarre

So if you were a GP you would send all your patients for every medical test available, or if you were a car mechanic you would strip down every customers car just in case theres something else wrong.

No I wouldn't as I said above personally I would find it hard to say to a customer....


A quik re read of what I said will reveal the opposite of what you think I said is a the case



Martin[/b]

 

[densamember]

A periodic inspection report is recommended by the scheme providers, before changing a distribution board,

Is it? Which scheme provider?

Try NAPIT, the NICEIC .......... and the ESC document: -

http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/electrical-industry/BPG6_09.pdf

Regatds

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Oh yes & I use that document too.

Martin

 

[sparkiedave]

Firstly,
1, the guy should have spotted the main bonding issues whilst having a quick look round for quoting purposes, I ALWAYS CHECK!
2, I also always suggest a PIR before swapping a CU, many of the same tests would be performed anyway for the EIC
3, I usually offer a reduction on the price of the CU swap if I perform (and
charge for) a PIR first so that, in effect, the PIR & CU swap come in at a fairly reasonable price.
4, I stress to the customer that having done the PIR, I can offer a fixed, guaranteed price on the CU change
5, without the prior PIR, I quote a price but stress that the price is based on finding no major faults whilst doing the CU swap
6, If they don't want me to do the PIR first, I test a couple of circuits as I start the CU swap, if they test out ok, I continue cos at least I know I can get those back on that day safely, and I test as many circuits as I can as I disconnect them from the old board.

these methods work well for me and so far I've not had the arguments with customers half way through the job that some people seem to get into

 

[ebee]

So far as bonding is concerned.
I would visual to see A/ it is not there or B/ it appears to be correect and present but will be confimed (continuity check etc ) once work starts.

If changing a CU then periodic beforehand.

Defects priced accordingly prior to starting CU change.


Just this week I had one -can I put a socket in pantry for freezer?

It was on the the side of a wall from an existing socket.
Zs Good.

So I opened the existing socket to find 2 x T&E cables.
Right lets check ring continuity . LL = OK, NN = OK , Good EE Non Whoops.

Explained to customer it would have been relatively simple if not for the break on the EE, since this is fault finding I can not estimate, it might take half hour to find or all day to find and correct as it might be a poor connection behind an existing socket but it could be in a hiiden JB or a pierced cable in wall. Explained that it should be corrected anyway and got the go agead to do it next week, it will be on a time and material basis and I hope to find and correct it witthin a couple of hours.

The T & E was 2.5/1.0 with a BS 3036 fuse so I will need to add a type B breaker too.

 

[roberta1000]

CU this week in a freezing cold house. Initial tests (R, leakage) seemed OK and it seemed that there'd been a rewire sometime in the not too distant past

Took over half a day to find and fix that a thermostat had sometime been changed from a mechanical one to one that needed a neutral, and the necessary neutral had been taken from (yes, you got it) a nearby wall light and chased along the wall. The original thermostat used the black (!) core as the switched live so it was a new run with concrete floor and brick walls.

Much cursing (but it kept me warm).

So - without proper testing and analysis up front there's often something lying in wait.

 

[RF Lighting]

Why not just swap the thermostat for one that doesn't need a neutral or a wireless one?

 

[RF Lighting]

Just this week I had one -can I put a socket in pantry for freezer?

It was on the the side of a wall from an existing socket.
Zs Good.

So I opened the existing socket to find 2 x T&E cables.
Right lets check ring continuity . LL = OK, NN = OK , Good EE Non Whoops.

Explained to customer it would have been relatively simple if not for the break on the EE, since this is fault finding I can not estimate, it might take half hour to find or all day to find and correct as it might be a poor connection behind an existing socket but it could be in a hiiden JB or a pierced cable in wall. Explained that it should be corrected anyway and got the go agead to do it next week, it will be on a time and material basis and I hope to find and correct it witthin a couple of hours.

The T & E was 2.5/1.0 with a BS 3036 fuse so I will need to add a type B breaker too.

This probably sounds odd, but it wasn't for an old lady possibly called Mrs Jenkins who lives in Blackburn was it?

 

[roberta1000]

Why not just swap the thermostat for one that doesn't need a neutral or a wireless one?

Yes indeed - partly a senior moment, and partly because I couldn't decide how the complicated-looking controls worked and there was noone to ask.

And actually most of the time was spent finding quite what the problem was!

 

[ebee]

"This probably sounds odd, but it wasn't for an old lady possibly called Mrs Jenkins who lives in Blackburn was it?"

What an amazing coincidence,
unbelieveable,
small world or what. Well actually no it wasn't (that got yer going didn't it RF? LOL).
But it was for somone nearer to you than Blackburn is anyway (say half way between Blackburn & Skipton ie Nelson)

Good us Norfs aren't we?



Hey stop comming over (and past) my stomping ground - I don't get over to yours

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Why not just swap the thermostat for one that doesn't need a neutral or a wireless one?

Yes indeed - partly a senior moment, and partly because I couldn't decide how the complicated-looking controls worked and there was noone to ask.

And actually most of the time was spent finding quite what the problem was!

Hi
As we have strayed off topic a bit , let me continue by saying that my heating engineer mate tells me that the neutral is only for the biasing resistor anyway. And that the thermostat will work without it. Al the biasing resistor does is adds a bit of ambient heat so that the thermostat is immune to cold drafts from clicking it on and off constantly. Now I have not delved too deep into this so perhaps someone in the know could confirm this is the case

Martin