insurance company insisit on capping cables chases

[17thman]

i love most of my job, but what i hate is capping. my role as a sparky is to design an installation and i get proper enjoyment out of meeting clients stipulations. but when an arsehole who turns up from the insurance compnay turns up and ask why "i have not sheathed the cables". i responeded with"they are already sheathed". He said, "no, I want that covering on all the cable chases, that metal covering". I asked why he wanted it? he responded with the comment, "we would not want anyone to put a nail through it!!!". i asked him to watched me nail some capping on with a nice s-wing hammer. Answer was " but they might drill through it. I asked him why plastic cable chases were available.. He answered " we all all need to look after the environment. I said "plasterers expect cables to be below the surface so that they can do their job without damaging their tools" Answer from the man in a suit was "its easier to to drill through plastic than metal capping.



I give up, what a t@at

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just make sure you tell the client that his insurance company is making him pay for unnecessary work to be done, work which is not required by the Wiring Regulations, the Building Regulations or the technical standards of <insert your scheme name>.

 

[plugwash]

The correct answer is

"metal capping is not required by BS7671, if you want it then it will be a change request at extra cost".

 

[bernardgreen]

While it may not be required in BS7671 it may be required by the insurance underwriters who can and often will refuse to insure if their conditions are not complied with. Or they increase the premiums

The conditions imposed are based on the history of claims and often have little connection with science or common sense. If they have had more claims related to un-capped cables than claims related to capped cables they will assume capped cables pose less risk and will therefore require capped cables.

Different underwriters can have totally opposing conditions. One firm insist on spark arresters being fitted on chimneys in thatched cottages, another will not insure if a spark arrester is fitted as they have had claims when a poorly maintained arrestor has apparently caused a fire.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ericmark]

I have looked at and talked about 522.6.8 many times. Unless you use Ali-tube cable then the capping would need to be earthed. Although (v) would possibly remove the need to earth capping. However the problem is with metal capping a nail or the like which connects the capping to a live wire will not necessary cause any protective device to open unless the capping is earthed so it could through un-earthed capping transfer the danger to another area.

Nails and the like through the centre of twin and earth is always a danger. The problem is they can when they go in connect both sides of the severed earth but over time the earth is lost. The same applies to some extent when the live neutral wire is caught. To me either plastic capping for poor plasters or no capping or earth the metal capping.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Providing a working (but faulty) circuit like this one. This was a lighting switch cable.
The wall plug had been supporting a kitchen cabinet for 20 years.

Untitled

• Taylortwocities
• 22 Jan 2012
• 1

 

[Adam_151]

We really need to know how the insurance company is involved in this, has there been a claim on the insurance that they are providing repairs for and therefore the insurance company is the customer of the works (although there is likely to be a main contractor involved in the middle who is your customer)

Does the insurance company have any specifications for the work? and were they provided to you before you quoted?

 

[JohnW2]

The conditions imposed are based on the history of claims and often have little connection with science or common sense. If they have had more claims related to un-capped cables than claims related to capped cables they will assume capped cables pose less risk and will therefore require capped cables.

It's not so much an assumption but, rather, the best estimate they have of the facts, based on the data available to them - which obviously is standard statistical/actuarial practice. If it's an insurance company with an extensive database of claims to look at then, statistically speaking, that 'estimate of the facts' should be fairly close to the truth.

What very probably is 'an assumption' is the apparent view of the authors of BS7671 that capping of buried cables is not a necessary measure. I strongly suspect that is an assumption based on 'gut feelings' and 'personal experiences', rather than the examination of real data, such has been underatken by the insurance companies.

There is also the fact that insurance companies and the IET have different interests and priorities. The insurance companies obviously want to reduce claims. As witness the fact that BS7671 accepts RCD protection as an alternative to serious mechanical protection for shallow-buried cables, the IET is (understandably) more interested in safety in the event that a cable is penetrated than in avoiding the penetration in the first place.

Insurance company's very extensive data has often put to shame that generated by those without the same commerical interests. For example, the definitive (and still really only) large-scale demonstration that untreated high blood pressure predisposes to serious diseases and shortens life expectancy was entirely down to life insurance records.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Adam_151]

It may interest you to know, John, that the wiring regulations started out as a set of requirements layed down by an insurance company

Requirements for safe wiring date back to 1876 when Mr Musgrave Heaphy, an engineer with the Phoenix Assurance Company, started investigating the possible fire risks from the installations of electrical systems. In June 1882, the Society of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians, which later became the Institution of Electrical Engineers, published the Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks arising from Electric Lighting. This first edition of the IEE Wiring Regulations was a simple four-page document, but has now become the technical standard for all installers carrying out electrical installation work. In 1991 it became British Standard 7671: Requirements for Electrical Installations.

 

[JohnW2]

It may interest you to know, John, that the wiring regulations started out as a set of requirements layed down by an insurance company

.
Very interesting, but that does not surprise me at all. Despite the flak they often get, insurance companies have been responsible for so many things that have benefitted society - apart from the sort of medical things I've already mentioned (and there are many more medical examples) they were, of course, responsible for establishing the very first fire fighting services, which we now take for granted. They have also had major input in relation to matters such as vehicle safety, repair techniques/costs etc. etc. .. and the list goes on and on (and, no, I have no personal intetest - I don't have, and never have had, any connection to the insurance industry ).

In context, of course, very many decades have passed since insurance companies had any direct influence over the Wiring Regs - which is why it is quite possible that the regs are now based on 'assumptions' which the insurance companies actually 'know' (with a reasonable degree of confidence) do not correspond to the empirical data.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ricicle]

BS7671 can be a minimum standard to work to. Some institutions require more stringent standards. If the insurance man stipulates something then better to do it than ignore it and find out your house insurance is void.

Or find another insurance company !

 

[JohnW2]

BS7671 can be a minimum standard to work to. Some institutions require more stringent standards. If the insurance man stipulates something then better to do it than ignore it and find out your house insurance is void. Or find another insurance company !

Indeed, that goes without saying. In the case in question, the insurer's requirement seems so silly (in assuming than thin metal capping will appreciably protect cables from nails and drills) that it probably represents a misinterpretation (or misunderstanding) of their data, in which case a different insurer may well not have the same requirement.

Also, as others have asked, how on earth did this 'insurance company man' get in on the act?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkwright]

The insurance man clearly has his own set of rules.

Not many people have metal capping, and I've never seen it earthed. How would you earth it? A piece of 4 mm earth wire to a crimped lug?

 

[RF Lighting]

Even then it wouldn't be fully compliant as the connection would not be accesible for inspection and testing.

Capping is pointless. Oval conduit is good if you want to provide some covering to the cables.