Insulation Resistance Test

[Chri5]

Where is the board for the loft, have you run cables back down the house for the circuits you mentioned?

Ir tests tend to be done on existing circuits and new circuits when built and ready for service.

The logic being that say a ring could be 35m end to end, with x number of sockets between those ends and at each of those sockets a termination might not be screwed down correctly, it may of simply become loose, the cable may be old, poorly stripped back, eaten (by vermin), soaked etc, etc.

On complete circuits you would expect the ir to be low, the higher it is the more suspect it could be.

Dump the ir test until built and just test the function via...

Use choc blocks is you want and then do end to end continuity of the ring, and on the radials close down a pair at a time on the far end (LN, LE, NE),

Since your not testing for certificated results, even a simple buzzer would do.

 

[EFLImpudence]

did you also follow the compliance of holing joist within part A of the building regulations, with regards to the span, hole location and size?

Whilst a theoretically valid question, I'm not sure that it is, in reality, all that relevant 'after the event'.

It would be a practically valid question for the electrician who may not wish to certify it.

 

[JohnW2]

did you also follow the compliance of holing joist within part A of the building regulations, with regards to the span, hole location and size?

Whilst a theoretically valid question, I'm not sure that it is, in reality, all that relevant 'after the event'.

It would be a practically valid question for the electrician who may not wish to certify it.

In theory, I suppose, depending on what sort of 'certifying' was being done - AFAIAA a EIC only requires certification of compliance with BS7671, doesn't it? Whatever, in terms of this particular thread, we've been told that the electrician has already given his approval for the cables to be covered up with boarding - so one assumes that he is not subsequently going to turn round and refuse to 'certify' it!

In any event, my practical/'realistic' point remains. Are you really suggesting that the joist should be replaced if holes have been drilled in non-compliant positions?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, I'm not suggesting it should be redone; just that I would not want to certify it if done badly.

 

[JohnW2]

No, I'm not suggesting it should be redone; just that I would not want to certify it if done badly.

I can understand that view, but what would you advise the householder - who seemingly would be left with choice between replacing the joist and getting the work 'certified'? ... or would you just 'walk away' and offer no advice?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I can understand that view, but what would you advise the householder - who seemingly would be left with choice between replacing the joist and getting the work 'certified'? ... or would you just 'walk away' and offer no advice?

The OP is receiving advice.

It will be up to the electrician present as to what, if anything, needs doing.

 

[JohnW2]

The OP is receiving advice. It will be up to the electrician present as to what, if anything, needs doing.

As I said, I really don't think there is any issue as regards the OP in this thread, whose electrician has apparently already 'authorised' the covering up of the cables (after which he obviously wont be able to inspect holes in joists).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

So we may as well ignore Part A, and go whoops!

Of course not - but I think it only makes sense to raise the issue before, not after, the holes have been drilled

1) I was not asked before the cables were installed
2) If the ceiling/roof is in danger of collapsing, I think it is wise to address it regardless of when holed, it was a loft space I believe, that is being boarded out, which would then suggest that the loft is going to be used for additional purpose maybe storage, maybe an additional room of use.
This would also suggest additional weight not only by the loft boards, being added to the structure of the joists, so I consider it important, if at anytime joist have been holed that will affect the structure of them and thus reducing the capability of carrying the additional load that could be about to be put on them.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course not - but I think it only makes sense to raise the issue before, not after, the holes have been drilled

1) I was not asked before the cables were installed

That is very true. It is equally true that you were not asked after the cables were installed - your 'after the event' comments on this matter were unsolicited. Indeed, we don't even know for sure that any joists were drilled!

2) If the ceiling/roof is in danger of collapsing, I think it is wise to address it regardless of when holed ....

If that had read "... is really in danger of collapsing...", then obviously no-one could disagree with you, but do you seriously believe that is what we are talking about? As I keep asking, are you suggesting that if joists have been drilled in places non-compliant with Part A (but obviously without any signs of imminent collapse), the joists concerned should be replaced?

Albeit most of the joists were probably very over-engineered (by modern standards) in the first place, I think that an inspector (and maybe you) who saw what generations of plumbers and electricians had done to the joists in my house over the past 120 years might well have a heart attack

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I think that an inspector (and maybe you) who saw what generations of plumbers and electricians had done to the joists in my house over the past 120 years might well have a heart attack

Plumbers are generally the worse, I have seen some major no nos in my time and 99/100, down to the plumber!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If that had read "... is really in danger of collapsing...", then obviously no-one could disagree with you

That's pleasing to hear!

but do you seriously believe that is what we are talking about?

Only believe what I can see and I have no evidence to indicate either way, so on that I am not going to commit to say what we have is structurally safe!

As I keep asking, are you suggesting that if joists have been drilled in places non-compliant with Part A (but obviously without any signs of imminent collapse), the joists concerned should be replaced?

If they are structurally sound and consideration is to be taken to any weight adjustment that the loft may come under, no! But if they are not, then consideration in to reinforcing them would be very much on my mind.

 

[JohnW2]

As I keep asking, are you suggesting that if joists have been drilled in places non-compliant with Part A (but obviously without any signs of imminent collapse), the joists concerned should be replaced?

If they are structurally sound and consideration is to be taken to any weight adjustment that the loft may come under, no! But if they are not, then consideration in to reinforcing them would be very much on my mind.

Presumably, whenever you lift floorboards in houses more than a few decades old, like most of us you probably often encounter notches and holes which, although not 'horrendous', would be non-compliant with current day Building Regs? In such cases, do you always advise the householder that consideration should be given to reinforcing them, if that is what 'is in your mind'?

As a matter of interest, if you come across available existing holes which are 'non-compliant' in terms of current regs, would you use them for cables, rather than drill yet more holes (in 'compliant' positions')?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Presumably, whenever you lift floorboards in houses more than a few decades old, like most of us you probably often encounter notches and holes which, although not 'horrendous', would be non-compliant with current day Building Regs? In such cases, do you always advise the householder that consideration should be given to reinforcing them, if that is what 'is in your mind'?

If I have concerns over the stability of the structure, I inform the property owner and make them aware of this and not so long ago had to!

As a matter of interest, if you come across available existing holes which are 'non-compliant' in terms of current regs, would you use them for cables, rather than drill yet more holes (in 'compliant' positions')?

I would install my installation in compliance to BS7671 and all relevant building regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

As a matter of interest, if you come across available existing holes which are 'non-compliant' in terms of current regs, would you use them for cables, rather than drill yet more holes (in 'compliant' positions')?

I would install my installation in compliance to BS7671 and all relevant building regulations.

You surely are not saying that, even if there were available existing holes in joints which were in places non-compliant with current building regs (and therefore, at least in theory, possibly compromising structural integrity), you would actually drill more holes ('in compliant places'), are you?

If you are saying that, I would be uncharacteristically lost for words!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Within the build regulations concerning notching and holing of joists, there are certain areas where cables cannot be routed to comply to part A of the building regulations and their corresponding guidance documents.

If I were to route cables in existing holes that did not comply to those within the above parameters, and say someone decided that they wanted to but a 250mm drill/screw/fixing vertically in those areas that are not permitted to be holed/notched and in doing so went through one of my cables, that should not be there if in compliance to the relevant regulations, then who do you think the customer/that someone would be blaming for power loss and any injury incurred by my actions? Or say that I did use an existing hole/notch that was in an area that is deemed non-compliant as far stability of the structure, then that area of the joist collapsed, broke, snapped etc.. and my cable was within in this, again who do you think the finger would be pointed at as being responsible?
So my answer as previously stated, would be I would do my work in compliance with all the relevant building regulations, if that means the structure cannot be re-routed via the void as it may then lessen the existing structure or cables cannot be routes to comply to relevant regulations due to the nature of that structure. I would inform the client of this and they can take an informed choice of whether to reinforce the joists so suitable or I will find another route for cables that complies with the relevant requirements/regulations.

It is as simple as that, I will not compromise my good name and any potential claims that may be made against me for work that can be considered as non-compliant.
It seems to me you would! The end!!!!!!!!!