I have employed a cowboy electrician: What now?

[JohnW2]

There is a corrigendum just issued, did you know?
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-regulations/updates/index.cfm

I didn't know - so thanks! However, it looks as if the Corrigendum might need correcting ....

Amend as follows: 442 PROTECTION OF LOW VOLTAGE INSTALLATIONS AGAINST TEMPORARY OVERVOLTAGES DUE TO EARTH FAULTS IN THE HIGH VOLTAGE SYSTEM AND DUE TO FAULTS IN THE LOW VOLATGE VOLTAGE SYSTEM

[red indicates struck-through]. Unless I'm missing something, it looks as if in their attempt to correct a typo ("VOLATGE") they accidentally removed the word "LOW"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

“He has run radials off rings.”

Now a fused spur is a radial, but is allowed so one has to be very sure what he has actually done.

“He has left wires in sockets unsheathed.”

OK not to BS7671 but still quite common and not really a problem.

“He agreed to install 10mm cable to my 10.8kw shower but installed 6.5kw”

Not sure what you are saying here has he installed a 6.5 kW shower or has he installed cable rated at 6.5 kW or did you mean 6.5 mm²?



One has to be very careful with detailing errors for example 2.5mm² is 5.4 x 10.2 mm nominal overall diameter and 10mm² is actually 6.1mm x 14.8mm diameter over laid up cores. We have seen on these pages where people have assumed 6mm referred to something they could measure with a ruler rather than something which I used marked cable joiners as go and no go gauges to work out the size. Because stranded even a micrometer is hard to use to work out size.



After the confrontation clearly you can’t trust him to continue with the work. As to retaining property to get payment it can’t be legally done once you have allowed the owner to have access to that property so I can’t see how he could remove stuff from your house. Bailiffs I am sure need to be authorised by the courts.



As to Police matter or not, I know when a lock smith swapped the locks on a house my father was living in, we were told in no uncertain terms that if we broke in we would be arrested. This in spite of the fact that my fathers medication was inside the house and all his day to day stuff he used for living. It was the Police who stopped us gaining access.



It would seem from what you have said that he has installed new circuits, so either he would need the go ahead from LABC or be a scheme member, in theory it is the home owner who needs to inform the LABC and pay their fees but in practice it is normally the builder or electrician who arranges it all and makes the payment.

However when we had problems with a builder we found that the LABC has the power at the owner’s expense to insist that any work not complying with Part P is removed and re-instated which was really putting insult on to injury. We contacted the LABC expecting to take over the work we had no idea the work was illegal or it was the home owner who is responsible for informing the LABC unless the electrician tells him he is a scheme member electrician which could be simply having the logo on his van.



One point which must be made BS7671 is not law although it can be used in a court of law. In theory I could wire my house to any EU standard be it German, Polish or English and the LABC would have to pass it if it complied. However in practice I can’t read German or Polish so I could not really be sure if it complied or not. However a scheme member has to when joining a scheme sign to say he will follow BS7671 so for a scheme member it is law. A good reason to use a scheme member.



My daughter also had problems using a rated tradesman off an internet site, it seems any tradesman who is useless can pay to have his details listed on the site, so in real terms being listed on any rated tradesman site normally means they are useless good tradesman don’t need to be on rated tradesman sites. And the site was not interested in removing poor tradesman that is after all how they make their money.



So the first move is to get a scheme member electrician to do an EICR and list any faults with the work done. You will need this if a court case follows so it’s not just your word but the word of some one with some authority. The better qualified the electrician the better for you.



Next is of course to correct any dangerous items found.



But do remember there are items which simply don’t comply and items which are dangerous unless you asked for work to comply with current BS7671 then as said it’s not law so you need some one to say it is actually dangerous and of course loads of pictures I would insist on RAW pictures to show they have not been altered.



Even quoting the BS7671 can have problems but the EICR really does need the number of the regulation broken.



“Such circuits are deemed to meet the requirements of Regulation 433.1.1 if the current-carrying, capacity (Iz) of the cable is not less than 20 A and if under the intended conditions of use, the load current in any part of the circuit is unlikely to
exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity (Iz) of the cable.” Is what is said in the regulations not you can only have one device connected to a spur, it is only the appendix 12 which tries to clarify which is not actually the regulation it is only an appendix.



I personally think you have little chance of getting any thing off the original electrician and he also has little chance of getting anything off you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Next question, then, may be rather obvious - Why only one single?

Presumably the thinking was that with two singles, which may be some distance apart or even in different rooms, there was a much greater chance of two 3kW loads being plugged in than with a double socket.

I think you are being brave saying 'presumably'. Well, anything is possible.

Do they think that way? I mean ban something because someone may do something.

 

[JohnW2]

OK, so are you now revising your previous statement to say that you only consider a 4mm² unfused spur (from a 2.5mm² ring final) supplying multiple sockets is only OK if it originates more than X% of the ring length from one end of the ring? ... and, if so, what is your value of 'X'?

I don't think I said that.

Maybe not in exactly those words - but you started by telling the OP that using 4mm² cable "would suffice" for feeding an unlimited number of sockets as an unfused spur from a ring final (without qualification, and without knowing where that spur originated), but when I presented you with an explicit example, you effectively said that it would not be acceptable if the spur originated at only 4% of the way around the ring. You therefore presumably must have some 'threshold' in mind.

I haven't worked out the value but you have several times but probably more than the 2m in your above example.

Well, I've worked out the 'worst/best case scenario', both for 20A and 27A CCC, (i.e. the distance from the end of a ring beyond which even a 32A load at a single point cannot result in any cable being overloaded) - but I don't know if you would want that degree of certainty. If you did, and if one assumed a CCC of only 20A, then that wouldn't leave you much of the ring to which you could attach a 4mm² unfused multi-socket spur.

Next question, then, may be rather obvious - Why only one single?

That could be a can of worms Might it be that (like many here) the person who wrote the Appendix believed that a double socket "could" only present a 20A load, whereas two singles could present a 26A load (and that the regs only required a minimum CCC of 20A for the ring, hence possibly/probably also the spur)??

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

“He has left wires in sockets unsheathed.”

OK not to BS7671 but still quite common and not really a problem.

Don't tell a certain person - He thinks it's illegal!

But I don't think it's actually been clarified yet that we're talking about unsleeved earth conductors, has it? If there's lots of insulation stripped back leaving bare live conductors that's another matter. But maybe we're talking about the actual sheath of the cable just being stripped right back to where it enters the box, in which case there's obviously no problem at all. Perhaps the OP could clarify.

“He agreed to install 10mm cable to my 10.8kw shower but installed 6.5kw”

Not sure what you are saying here has he installed a 6.5 kW shower or has he installed cable rated at 6.5 kW or did you mean 6.5 mm²?

Or 6 sq. mm. Agreed, we need more clarification on this as well.

After the confrontation clearly you can’t trust him to continue with the work. As to retaining property to get payment it can’t be legally done once you have allowed the owner to have access to that property so I can’t see how he could remove stuff from your house. Bailiffs I am sure need to be authorised by the courts.

They do. And in a case like this, even with a court order they have to gain "peaceable entry," i.e. either be invited it by somebody or be able to walk in unobstructed through an unlocked door or window. They are not allowed to break in.

One point which must be made BS7671 is not law although it can be used in a court of law. In theory I could wire my house to any EU standard be it German, Polish or English and the LABC would have to pass it if it complied.

Or indeed to any non-EU standard. Or to no particular standard at all, so long as it's reasonably safe.

My daughter also had problems using a rated tradesman off an internet site, it seems any tradesman who is useless can pay to have his details listed on the site, so in real terms being listed on any rated tradesman site normally means they are useless good tradesman don’t need to be on rated tradesman sites. And the site was not interested in removing poor tradesman that is after all how they make their money.

Indeed, I think some of the referral sites are definitely on what might be called the shady side themselves, and not to be trusted.

I personally think you have little chance of getting any thing off the original electrician and he also has little chance of getting anything off you.

Unless either side wants to go to the trouble and expense of dragging it through the courts, that's likely to be the case.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Further:

Next question, then, may be rather obvious - Why only one single?

Presumably the thinking was that with two singles, which may be some distance apart or even in different rooms, there was a much greater chance of two 3kW loads being plugged in than with a double socket.

Isn't that the point, though?
Two 3kW loads could be fed from exactly the same point on the ring as the spur may be fitted.

 

[PBC_1966]

Presumably the thinking was that with two singles, which may be some distance apart or even in different rooms, there was a much greater chance of two 3kW loads being plugged in than with a double socket.

I think you are being brave saying 'presumably'. Well, anything is possible.

I can't think of any other reason for the change. What was the date exactly? I think it was either with the introduction of the 15th edition, or possibly a later amendment to the 14th.

 

[PBC_1966]

Might it be that (like many here) the person who wrote the Appendix believed that a double socket "could" only present a 20A load, whereas two singles could present a 26A load (and that the regs only required a minimum CCC of 20A for the ring, hence possibly/probably also the spur)??

Working from memory here, but I believe that back in the 14th edition the rule was indeed that the cables forming both ring and and any non-fused spurs had to be rated for a minimum of two-thirds the protective device rating. So yes, 20A rating required for the spur cable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

OK, so are you now revising your previous statement to say that you only consider a 4mm² unfused spur (from a 2.5mm² ring final) supplying multiple sockets is only OK if it originates more than X% of the ring length from one end of the ring? ... and, if so, what is your value of 'X'?

I don't think I said that.

Maybe not in exactly those words - but you started by telling the OP that using 4mm² cable "would suffice" for feeding an unlimited number of sockets as an unfused spur from a ring final (without qualification, and without knowing where that spur originated), but when I presented you with an explicit example, you effectively said that it would not be acceptable if the spur originated at only 4% of the way around the ring. You therefore presumably must have some 'threshold' in mind.

I haven't worked out the value but you have several times but probably more than the 2m in your above example.

Well, I've worked out the 'worst/best case scenario', both for 20A and 27A CCC, (i.e. the distance from the end of a ring beyond which even a 32A load at a single point cannot result in any cable being overloaded) - but I don't know if you would want that degree of certainty. If you did, and if one assumed a CCC of only 20A, then that wouldn't leave you much of the ring to which you could attach a 4mm² unfused multi-socket spur.

Ok, but the example you asked about was only 2m from the start/end (CU) of the ring.
That's not likely and the spur is no different than taking several spurs to double sockets from close points on the ring.

Next question, then, may be rather obvious - Why only one single?

That could be a can of worms Might it be that (like many here) the person who wrote the Appendix believed that a double socket "could" only present a 20A load, whereas two singles could present a 26A load (and that the regs only required a minimum CCC of 20A for the ring, hence possibly/probably also the spur)??

Again, there is no restriction on separate spurs apart from the general requirement not to overload a leg of the ring.

 

[PBC_1966]

Isn't that the point, though?
Two 3kW loads could be fed from exactly the same point on the ring as the spur may be fitted.

They could, but as just posted in reply to John, I suspect it was related to the rule extant at the time about the spur being rated to a minimum of two-thirds of the protective device rating, hence attempting to limit the current in the spur to 20A maximum. (Even though we know that in practice somebody could still plug two 3kW loads into a double socket if he really wanted to!)

 

[EFLImpudence]

Isn't that the point, though?
Two 3kW loads could be fed from exactly the same point on the ring as the spur may be fitted.

They could, but as just posted in reply to John, I suspect it was related to the rule extant at the time about the spur being rated to a minimum of two-thirds of the protective device rating, hence attempting to limit the current in the spur to 20A maximum. (Even though we know that in practice somebody could still plug two 3kW loads into a double socket if he really wanted to!)

Maybe, but the solution, as is my proposal (4mm²), is to install a cable which is suitable.
There is no suggestion in 433.1.204 that it applies to the spur.

A blanket ban on something is not the correct procedure if safe methods are simple and available.

 

[PBC_1966]

There is no suggestion in 433.1.204 that it applies to the spur.

That's the section in the current edition which stipulates the 20A rating for the ring cable?

 

[JohnW2]

Working from memory here, but I believe that back in the 14th edition the rule was indeed that the cables forming both ring and and any non-fused spurs had to be rated for a minimum of two-thirds the protective device rating. So yes, 20A rating required for the spur cable.

Fair enough - but I wasn't thinking so much of the spur cable CCC as of the limitation to "one single or one double socket" (or whatever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Fair enough - but I wasn't thinking so much of the spur cable CCC as of the limitation to "one single or one double socket" (or whatever).

I can only guess that originally it was felt that even with two single sockets there was little chance of a load up to 26A being connected (at least for a significant period of time), even if the sockets were some distance apart. but that some years later it was decided that this risk was more significant than first thought, hence the "only one single socket" amendment.

 

[JohnW2]

Ok, but the example you asked about was only 2m from the start/end (CU) of the ring.

I did - but only so as to refer to a fairly extreme case, and one for which the maths was simple What would your answer be if I had talked about 5m, or even 10m, from the end of a 50m ring - would you have thought it acceptable to originate a 4mm multi-socket unfused spur at one or both of those points?

That's not likely and the spur is no different than taking several spurs to double sockets from close points on the ring.

Indeed, but several spurs with very close origins is another thing that a designer might well feel is not acceptable in terms of "making it unlikely that any part of the ring cable will be overloaded for appreciable periods of time".

Again, there is no restriction on separate spurs apart from the general requirement not to overload a leg of the ring.

Exactly, and in order to make such overloading "unlikely", the designer can...
(a)... not install sockets close to one another on the ring, particularly near an end of the ring.
(b)... not install spurs close to one another on the ring, particularly near an end of the ring.
(c)... not install a (4mm²) unfused spur serving umpteen sockets, particularly near an end of the ring.
... so the thing we are discussing is just one of several things the designer can do (or avoid doing) in order to minimise the risk of any of the ring cable being overloaded for significant periods.

Kind Regards, John