I'm not sure I can trust my electrician, what should I do?

[ThePinkPanther]

Hi

I have a very specific question so please excuse the very long post. Here goes...

We've been having some work done to the house recently, the main part of which involved knocking through between the existing kitchen and an adjoining room. In terms of electrics, the work included: new lights to kitchen/diner, new lights + fan to utility room, new lights + fan to shower room, feeds to 2 ovens and an electric hob, some extensions to the downstairs mains ring (including fused spur for cooker hood) and new feed to garage for light and sockets.

I have in the past used an electrcian who came recomended by family and was very happy with his work. However, for this project, which is being project managed by our builder neighbour, the work has been done by his usual electrician, who will notify and self-certify the work.

I have lost confidence in the electrician, having pulled him up on what I feel was a negligent act and am now worried about potential unseen horrors. In particular, I am worried about the lighting cuircuit in the kitchen although my worries may be unjustified - I would appreciate your views/advice.

Originally the kitchen and the adjoining room each had two light fittings, each operated independently via two double gang switches. In the new kitchen diner, we asked for three switches: one for the kitchen side of room, one for the other and one for under cupboard lights. We wanted the triple gang switch to be at the entrance to the new room, approximately where the existing double gang switch for the adjoining room was (next to the door but moved horizontally by approx 10cm to accomodate a new cupboard). Each side of the room has 6 spotlights, the cables are installed for the under cupboard lights which I am going to connect up myself.

When the first fix was done, the electrician used a junction box to connect to the existing circuit. This is now above a false ceiling and I understand may not be compliant since it is not 'accessible'. However, in the spirit of picking my battles, since I see this as a convenience issue rather than a safety issue (happy to be corrected) I let this one go.

He also used the existing cables which ran down to the double gang switch. However, it seems that these run outside of the safe zones - they run vertically upwards to the height of the door and then, once above the door, they angle at approx 45 degrees and run to the corner of the room. At the time, I asked if that was acceptible and he said that it was fine since it was an existing circuit. (I don't know if it changes matters but he did move the vertical section of the cables to the right by 10cm - would that still make it an 'existing' cable?). Although I felt that the electrician had been (typically) lazy by not running a couple of metres of new T+E (of course the new cable for the under cupboard lights had been run down from the ceiling - why didn't he just run new cable for the other two switches!? ) the cabling was done and plastered over by the time I got home from work.

I have only just reached the stage of attaching the under cupboard lights and therefore only recently taken the face plate off the triple gang switch. I found that the two (old) feeds for the ceiling lights comprise: one cable with three cores (red, red + yellow/green) and one single core (red, sheathed in black); he has linked the COMS for the two switches. I'm now worried about this arrangement that it may not be compliant/safe. I'm not sure where this single core cable comes from and whether or not there is a shared neutral/live; I'm not sure if it is acceptable given that it runs outside of the safe zones (is it an existing circuit when you completely replace all of the light fittings and most of the cable but keep a dodgy 2m of old cable running to a switch?).

The electrician has now completed the work but still needs to give us the certificate and we still owe him for part of the work.

I'm considering asking another electrician to look over the work and, if he feels it necessary, to make it compliant. If it is not compliant I would then subtract what I pay the new electrician from what I owe the original guy. Does that seem reasonable?

If you need any more info, please let me know.

Thanks in advance (and sorry again for the length of the post).

 

[viewer]

'which is being project managed by our builder neighbour'

First port of call

 

[ThePinkPanther]

Thanks for your reply viewer.

I will discuss this with my builder but would like some advice as to what I can suggest/ask for them to do before doing so. As said, I feel that I would like another opinion but would appreciate views as to whether or not this proposal is reasonable.

I have already had a frank discussion with the electrician, explaining that since he did something dodgy and I pulled him up on it I feel that I can't trust him. I asked him about the lighting circuit and he said it's all fine since it was an existing circuit. Unfortunately, he is of course the one who will sign it all off as compliant. From experience, I expect my builder to say 'he's an electrician and he says it's fine and you're not'.

In fact, this is quite correct - I'm not and electrician (and therefore cannot verify his work myself, unless anyone can suggest some tests?) but that doesn't mean that his work must be compliant.

From what I can see of the installation (with my diy level knowledge) most of seems to have been done well (eventually).

The problem I had with him concerned two ovens (one 2.9kW and the other 3.1kW) in a tall unit. When he came to do first fix, we hadn't bought the ovens but I had printed off the specs so he could design the circuits. He said he would just extend the downstairs mains ring and they can both go in a double socket in the cupboard above. I quieried this with him twice, reiterating that I thought the load a little high but, I thought he was the electrician. Despite having the kitchen plans, he then left the feed (live but in a junction box) too short to reach into the back of the cupboard. He popped back and crimped a piece onto each cable to extend it. I was very unhappy having such a joint and when the ovens arrived the larger load oven specified that it could not go on a 13A plug. I asked him to do it properly with two new radials from the CU to two 20A double pole switches in the cupboard (as I had originally suggested) and so he came and pulled the cables through (2.5mm T+E). When he did the second fix, I came home to find a very happy wife - both ovens are working, isn't it great! I had a quick look at what he had done and discovered that one of these radials was on a 16A MCB (fine) but the other was on a 32A MCB . I called him and asked him why he had done this - I thought 2.5 radials must be protected by a 20A MCB max and he said 'Oh that was just what was available' . I said that I wanted this to be corrected as soon as possible and, from that point on, have treated everything he does with caution.

I am now reasonably happy with all of the work with the exception of this lighting circuit. This may be fine as he says but he is the one certifying it and I feel that I can no longer trust him.

I would apprciate your advice/views.

Ta

 

[securespark]

The JB does not comply unless of the MF type (Maintenance-Free).

The cable are not in safe zones unless directly above, below or to the side of the accessory or within 150mm of the corners of the room.

It does not matter if it is an existing circuit or not. If it does not comply, it should be made compliant.

Just because it was wrong to start with does not make it right to leave it like that, especially as he has moved the cables and therefore it is not "existing".

See diagram:

As for the cabling to/from the switch, what provision is there to connect the UC lighting to?

Are you connecting up a twin and earth to the switch to feed the UC lights?

Is there a neutral there?

Can you post a piccy?

 

[securespark]

Just seen your second post.

Yes, the 3.1kW oven cannot go on a 13A socket.

First, because the manufacturer says so, and following manufacturers instructions is part of the regs.

Second, the regs in Appendix 15 recommend any load above 2kW has its own radial supply, so the other should have its own as well.

They could be both wired into a 32A 6 milli supply, though it may be better to have them independent, then if one goes faulty you still have something to cook with.

Certainly, they should never share a double socket. They are only rated at 13A in total.

That is asking for trouble and the guy is just being lazy & penny-pinching.

Though not ideal, extending the cable by crimping is acceptable, as long as it has been carried out properly. The exposed single-insulated conductors should be covered with another layer, preferably heat-shrink sleeving.

Having said that, it is his mistake that the cable needed extending. I would try and get it replaced.

Good practice dictates the fewer the joints, the better.

The 32A MCB needs replacing with something more suitable.

To say that's just what was available is ridiculous!!

 

[bernardgreen]

Personally speaking all junction boxes should be accessible, even so called "maintainance free" ones.

While the vast majority of in-accessible junction boxes give no ( known ) problems the risk of a joint becoming loose and thus becoming a potential hot spot is ( for me ) significantly high enough to justify the requirement for them to be accessible for regular checks.

My experience of "maintainance free" joints ( in an industrial system ) is not good, they can and do fail. Mainly due to poor workmanship when they were installed. Maybe the design has iimproved but I would avoid them.

 

[scousespark]

Given what you have posted, I would suggest you get your bfriendly electrician in to check this. This is just lazy.

As for the JB. If it is a MF version it can be in an inaccessile location. If it is not MF, it has to be accessible.

 

[ThePinkPanther]

Thanks for your replies guys.

securespark, the 32A MCB has now been replaced with a 16A one so they are both on separate radials (16A MCB > 2.5 T+E > 20A d/p switch > oven) and working fine.

The crimp joint has now been removed, the junction box has been kept since we no longer need this point on the ring. I got him to dig the cable out of the plaster upto the height of the tall unit and pull the JB up so that it can be fixed to the top of the tall unit for inspection etc.

Yes I thought it was ridiculous too (and negligent) just as well I spotted it - I'm sure many wouldn't have checked.

I realise that this may be an unpopular viewpoint here but I am not especially concerned about the junction box although I now realise it does not comply. This is because I see inaccessible JBs as more of an inconvenience than a safety concern (happy to be persuaded otherwise) - as long as there is an appropriately sized MCB/fuse protecting the circuit. I'm more concerned that the cabling may not be 'standard'. We have three MCBs marked as lighting circuits at CU although two of them seem to isolate all of the lights in the house (these two are on the same RCD so could be communicating in principle). I didn't check whether the other MCB controlled anything before this joker got involved and I haven't had the cover off the CU.

It's interesting that you say it must be made compliant whether existing or not since 'existing is OK to leave' has been his argument all along.

For the UC lights he has run T+E to the switch. He has only connected up the live, the switched live is unconnected as yet (cables of lights are in position and taped up). I shall post a pic when I get home this evening.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

At the time, I asked if that was acceptible and he said that it was fine

No it is not fine - people have died from things like that.

since it was an existing circuit.

That's irrelevant he's worked on it: -

he did move the vertical section of the cables to the right by 10cm

the cabling was done and plastered over by the time I got home from work.

All that work going on, plastering being done, and he didn't fix that problem?

He had a duty of care which he failed.

He screwed up with the MCB ratings - "Oh that was just what was available"? FFS.

His whole attitude is wrong - lazy and lackadaisical.



Dump him.

 

[bernardgreen]

This is because I see inaccessible JBs as more of an inconvenience than a safety concern (happy to be persuaded otherwise) - as long as there is an appropriately sized MCB/fuse protecting the circuit.

A common mis-conception, A six amp MCB will allow over a kilowatt of heat to be generated at a hot spot, such as a failing joint. Admittedly on a lighting circuit the worst case is the lamps and the hot spot equally share the available energy. 100 watts at a bad joint can create enough heat to ignite a fire.

Fortunately it doesn't happen very often.

 

[securespark]

For the UC lights he has run T+E to the switch. He has only connected up the live, the switched live is unconnected as yet (cables of lights are in position and taped up).

So is there a neutral at the switch?

 

[SimonH2]

I have only just reached the stage of attaching the under cupboard lights and therefore only recently taken the face plate off the triple gang switch. I found that the two (old) feeds for the ceiling lights comprise: one cable with three cores (red, red + yellow/green) and one single core (red, sheathed in black); he has linked the COMS for the two switches. I'm now worried about this arrangement that it may not be compliant/safe.

That's one bit you can almost certainly stop panicking about !

If you refer to the wiki on lighting circuits you'll see that it's a common wiring arrangement to use either a junction box or the ceiling rose for the main connections, drop a live from there to the switch, and a switched live back up. Thus for a single circuit, you need a two core (normally + earth but always so in the past) cable for the drop to the switch. Where you have a double gang switch, you only need one extra core (for the second switched live).
In this case, the original electrician has used twin red cable which is unusual - most just use normal "T&E" and apply red sleeving over the black neutral core (current colours are brown and blue respectively). Some don't bother with the red (brown) sleeving even though this makes it non-compliant.
For the third core, the original electrician has used a sheathed single which is even less common that using twin red.

IMO, this probably indicates that the original wiring was done by someone who took proper pride in doing things "just right".

Having got your three cores down to the switch, the feed will be split to both switches (the link between the C terminals you mentioned. Then a switched feed from each switch goes back up to the rose or JB.

Hope that helps for that little bit. Pity the current sparky is a cowboy.
Is the cowboy a member of a scheme (eg NICEIC etc) ? If so, then he should really be reported, it may sound harsh but from the description this guy is a danger and whatever scheme he is in should be looking at his work and (from what you write) throwing him out.
I realise this is difficult - he is the "expert" and you aren't (which is why you came here for advice). Also, I assume you want to stay on speaking terms with your neighbour. On that, assuming your neighbour doesn't where spurs and a stetson, then he may well want to know that his subbies are dangerous.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Have you checked that he is actually able to sign his work off. www.competentpersons.co.uk will list him if he is.
If not better to make a fuss now and get someone proper in that to wait and store up trouble for late. You are paying good money for this- you deserve it to be correct.
If he is not then inform the builder to employ someone who is - immediately to finish the job.
If he is call up his scheme provider and ask them the questions you have posed on here... See what they have got to say, they might be able to give him some advice on finishing this job.
As for hidden JBs I saw some under a bedroom floor from the kitchen I was working in a few weeks ago I mentioned them to the client and he said are they on the circuit you are working on? I replied no and he said well if you get involved with them you will end up rewiring the whole house.
Last week he had a fault on his upstairs light, the builder who put his kitchen ceiling up had loosened off won of the jbs to put a wood in and in doing so pulled a wire off the terminal. Choice was lami bedroom floor up or make hole in new finished kitchen. So I cut a great big hole in the kitchen- buider had to come back and make good. But it is a shame to have to rip apart something just to get at a JB, when MFones are available.

 

[ThePinkPanther]

Hi

Thanks for your replies.

I have attached some photos of the cables at the switch:

Untitled

• ThePinkPanther
• 10 Oct 2012
• 1

Untitled

• ThePinkPanther
• 10 Oct 2012
• 1

[Note the switched live for the under cupboard lights (blue wire) has not yet been connected].

Securespark - sorry perhaps I wasn't clear (or perhaps worrying unnecessarily) but no there isn't a neutral at the switch (or at least I don't think there is). I guess I was concerned that the two switches for the ceiling lights may link back to different circuits (but on the same RCD) but take a live feed from the same circuit.

I feel reassured by SimonH2's comment about the cable arrangement (allbeit not about their placement) with a single feed and the two COMs linked.

I was very interested by bernardgreen's comment - I'll reply seperately to that.

I'm going to have a chat with my builder at the weekend. I think that the bottom line is that I understand that: (a) the cables outside of the safe zone; and (b) the JB(s) are not compliant and I would like this sorted out. I'm quite happy for either my guy to do it, in which case I'll deduct his charges from the current guys bill or for the current guy to do it for no extra charge. If they argue that the electrics do comply I'll suggest that I write to/call his scheme provider to see what they think.

Thanks again.

 

[ThePinkPanther]

Hi bernardgreen

I can see your point about the amount of heat dissipated at a hot spot.

Perhaps because I have never given this much thought, I had naively thought that, for example, a 30A JB would be fine on a circuit protected by a 30A fuse/32A MCB since this is it's 'rating'.

Of course the amount of heat dissipated by any current carrying components in the box is dependent upon the resistance of those components. I had assumed that by 'rating a JB' the manufacturer is saying that a JB can cope with a certain current without, say, melting and causing a fire (perhaps they are not). To do this they must have made some assumption about the maximum resistance that a joint will create - does anyone know what this is?

Thanks again for your comment.

Just to play devils advocate, I would say that the fact that a JB is accessible is of little advantage in the event that it ignites due to a poor contact - the result is the same as a similar occurance with any of the hundreds of other joints (ceiling roses, switches, mains sockets) in a house. But I suppose rules are rules.