I Don't Belieeeeeeeeeve It!

[securespark]

Both 32A breakers connected to undersized cable. Same with the 50A breaker!

What you can't see is that there is no earthing conductor connecting the cut-out to the installation.

There is a connection to the gas pipe, though...

I came to this property last week. I found a light fitting removed by a neighbour in an attempt to put a new (Class I) fitting up. To his credit he had abandoned the job, but left the cpc-less rubber sticking out of the ceiling & no lights working. I made this safe. I also found an old Wylex box, with no bond to the water & an undersized one to the gas.

I recommended a rewire & came back yesterday to quote.

I found this CU in place of the Wylex. The rubber wiring I had made safe was dangling out of the ceiling. The dead side of the loop had chock blocks on it, as did the switch, but the live loop cable was bared ready for connection & dangling once more out of the hole in the ceiling. It was live.

I was perplexed so the customer gave the number of his "fully qualified" electrician.

He claims he made the lighting wiring safe.

He claims he was worried about the old Wylex fusebox. Remember this was the old Wylex fusebox that had an earth connection from the cut-out and fuse sizes correctly matched to the cables.

So he replaced the Wylex board "with RCD's" so "it would be safer."

When I pointed out they were not RCD's, he argued they were.

When I pointed out there was no main earth to the installation and that the earth connection was via the gas pipe, he claimed he knew that it was unsafe but, "I'm coming back tomorrow to sort it all out".

"What it needs," he said knowingly, "is all ripping out and starting again: I'm putting in a quote soon." He continued, "That unprotected clipped cable in the cellar is a nightmare & once that is all enclosed in trunking, I'll feel a lot better."

Righto, removing the main earth, declining to fit RCD protection, not bothering with upgrading gas PEB's or the water at all, fitting incorrectly sized MCB's & not testing at all is totally acceptable, but naked clipped cable in the cellar oh, no!

May the Lord help him.

I wonder which quote the customer will accept?

 

[Steve]

Who needs RCDs anyway?

I hope you told the customer that his "qualified electrician" was a complete nut job and didnt have a clue what he was doing . . . Then you might get a chance at the job.

How did you get involved if the customer has their own "electrician"?

 

[securespark]

I believe the customer is not convinced about this guy's skills, but has only realised that after he started work...

 

[RF Lighting]

The choice of CU says it all really

 

[Spark123]

CGD - no expense spent

Bet the EIC for it is in the post too?

 

[securespark]

What defies belief in this case is that the guy knew it was all unsafe, but said "I'll sort it out tomorrow". How could he have left the building knowing it was unsafe? Criminal, just criminal.

 

[Spark123]

Yes - criminal and prosecutable under part p too.

 

[sparkyspike]

Criminal because he is working without being qualified and Part P approved?

Or criminal because somebody enabled him to become qualified and Part P approved?!?!?

 

[securespark]

He's not approved, I'm sure of that.

Call me naiive but I cannot believe someone (even someone who has been through a "Become A Fully Qualified Electrician In Just Five Minutes" course) could make that many mistakes.

The mistakes he has made are so elementary. And to think he thinks he would be improving on safety by trunking all the cables in the cellar is the bitter icing on his rancid cake.

 

[sparkyspike]

I bet he gets away with it though. Some people have a knack of walking away from these sort of things.

 

[Spark123]

Criminal because he is working without being qualified and Part P approved?

Or criminal because somebody enabled him to become qualified and Part P approved?!?!?

Criminal as even if he was a member of a Part P competent person scheme he knowingly left it in a dangerous state which contravenes P1 of part p and contractual law if he signed anything to say it was compliant.
He was also blatantly negligent so there'll be some laws broken there too.

 

[dingbat]

Forget Part P and all of that.

This guy is not competent - he's demonstrated that by his actions.

He is, therefore, in breach of Regulation 16 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, which is a well-established statutory requirement.

He should be pursued under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, and a good place to start would be to get Trading Standards involved.

Nobody wants to deprive honest tradesmen of their means of making a living, but if you sparks want to defend the reputation of the trade, you need to consider dobbing in those whose work is dodgy.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Be there when they guy turns up.

Take his photo.

Go to the authorities.

 

[Steve]

Dress up as Matt Allright.

 

[DCC]

Must be someone you can usefully shop him to?