Has he done it right??? :)

[JohnnyG]

Is there anywhere though, something I can refer to which says something like ...
Thou shallt not do this:

He has made an alteration that has left the installation in a worse condition than it was before.

610.4 - For an addition or alteration to an existing installation, it shall be verified that the addition or alteration complies with the Regulations and does not impair the safety of the existing installation.

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks
Righty hoe.

I assume 134 was meant to be 314??

I found it I think in a Moeller CU article
http://www.moeller.co.uk/documents/17th_edition.pdf

314 Division of Installation
314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to
(i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit.
314.2 Separate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be separately controlled, in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.

where it goes on to suggest, , that a Partially Compliant Assembly, with lighting and rings on one RCD are shown, might be acceptable (Page 4, example B)

So let's be reallistic - Given that what he's done doesn't actually work, cos the light can't be used, and it isn't appealing to rewire the 2way lights, would this be a reasonable solution?

 

[JohnnyG]

134.1.1 = Good workmanship by competent persons or persons under their supervision and proper materials shall be used in the erection of the electrical installation. Electrical equipment shall be installed in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the equipment.

Reading the replies in this thread would suggest that good workmanship hasn't been used

 

[ChrisR]

AH, thanks again JG.

What about the suggested green addition above?
(I'm a gas bloke by the way so I expect you to be rude )

Could it be just one of these in a box:

here 1

or more likely one of these... has an MCB as well

here 2

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Would any of the standard tests pick up the cross-connection of neutrals between the lighting circuits? He obviously worked on, as in reconnected, the upstairs lighting circuit.

IMO no competent electrician working on an installation that old should not do a quick check - it's easy enough to do.

Should he have tested the RCD he'd connected it to?

Yes, but that wouldn't have picked up this problem - it's nothing to do with a faulty RCD. The opposite, in fact.

But what he should also have done were functional tests, and that would have picked it up, so clearly he didn't do those.

He's incompetent.

 

[ChrisR]

What about the green addition , 3 posts up. Would that be a reasonable thing to do?
AS there's no switch before it, would it be ok as just an rcd or would it need an isolator as well?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why are you trying to design this?

Let the dozy customer who doesn't notice that an RCD has tripped get a proper electrician in to sort it out, and steer well clear.

 

[ChrisR]

Because I'm interested, and involved.
I've done Part P, so have some understanding, but not a lot of knowledge.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Part P is one of the parts of the Building Regulations.

What do you mean you've "done" it?

 

[electronicsuk]

What about the green addition , 3 posts up. Would that be a reasonable thing to do?
AS there's no switch before it, would it be ok as just an rcd or would it need an isolator as well?

Whether or not you agree that so-called 'High Integrity' CUs are compliant with BS7671, what you propose in your diagram is functionally no different, so there shouldn't be any problem with it. However, you would want to at least move around some of the circuits between DBs, as there would be little point in having dual RCDs with both lighting circuits being on the same RCD. Once you start getting to this sort of stage, it would be far easier to install a new CU.

 

[ChrisR]

The electrician has now decided that he's done nothing wrong, would not have been expected to check the neutrals, or that the lights worked, and isn't responsible for anything.
So the householder has no landing light, and sparky's saying "tough".

Great way to get yourself trashed on CheckaTrade!

Apparently the bathroom lights are 1 metre from the airing cupoard, inside which is the FCU which provides the UFH (6mm from CU, old shower cable)

How about doing this then, split the bathroom lights off from the rest of the lights:

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The electrician has now decided that he's done nothing wrong, would not have been expected to check the neutrals, or that the lights worked, and isn't responsible for anything.

He is incorrect on every one of those.

NICEIC and Trading Standards should be involved, and the householder should slap him with a claim for the loss of freezer contents.

Great way to get yourself trashed on CheckaTrade!

Not likely to bother him much.

How about doing this then, split the bathroom lights off from the rest of the lights:

That'll do it, as long as there are no other strange interconnections.