Live CPC on new install issued with a EIC

[Stewb]

In my student days I worked for a sparky, loved it but ended up in a desk job. From time to time I do work on my home and unpaid for family always to BS7671, I follow the on-site guide to the T and only do what is allowed (ie not under Part P). I take pride in my work.

My sister called me yesterday to say she'd tripped power in her new extension after trying to install a TV bracket she'd drilled through a cable. Oooopsie. They had a full re-wire and consumer unit done 3-6 months ago when they had a side return and loft conversion done. Easy repair I thought.

Anyway went over and they'd hit the ring in two places up the wall. They'd drilled above sockets so I explained safe zones albeit in her defence the cable is run in the gap between the sockets, also directly alongside the Cat 6 cable, no capping, not brilliant but OK I said. Sunk in a 25mm single back box, 5 wagos and the back box lug for one side of the earth ring, new 2.5mm down to sockets, all fine. Safe zone issue solved with the blank plate, fine.

Tested continuity when I was done, live and neutral fine, earth no continuity.

Started taking off other sockets on the ring, first one I looked in found only one earth connected, bit s**t I thought, whole socket looks shoddy but maybe a builder did this one.

Tested earth again, no contunity, started taking off more sockets.

Could not believe what I found. Behind one, earth had been sleeved in brown, taped up, marked 'damaged'. Test it and directly connected to live. WTF. So we had a ring with no earth at all in places and one burried length of 2.5mm T&E with a live CPC.

I can only presume done to avoid ripping the cable back out of new plaster. I couldn't find the next leg on the ring also with a live or disconnected CPC so I've left the circuit off and said you need a sparky in to fault find and re-do at the main contractors expense (some funds haven't been settled yet due to snagging).

The main contractor insists that the electrican signed off all of the circuits. BS I said, send the certificate so I can see the test results. Apparently he hasn't sent it yet. Main contractor said he would have an electrican there today (Sunday).

In my view this could have killed someone. Should they be as pi**ed off about this as I think they should be. Let me know thoughts please.

 

[Stewb]

Plot thickens. Sister called me to speak with 'sparky' on-site. He said plasterer must have hit cable post their testing. He started asking why I'd left circuit off after my repairs at the TV, that it was my fault having fitted the tv bracket over the cable run, and that it was simple to disconnect one leg of the faulty socket and that would solve it all, not a big deal that someone must have screwed through into the wire he said.

I asked when they tested, he said after sockets were fitted, so I said second fix then, he said yes, so I said that doens't make sense can you send me the certifcate what Zs did you get. He said oh the certificate hasn't been done yet but the testing has.

I'm smelling BS at this point. I asked who he was registered with. He said that was a personal question why was I asking it. I said OK are you registered or your boss is. He then admitted he was a labourer but it was fine for him to do this work as it didn't involve the fuse box.

I've told my sister to call an indepenent electrican.

 

[ericmark]

Since no compliance certificate you may not know who is the scheme provider, however you will have the certificate within two weeks, so once you get it, ring the scheme provider.

I would be wary about LABC, I contacted them over work my parents were getting done, result was the builders stopped trading, which resulted is not being able to claim any money off them for the remedial work.

I want to say report them as likely hers is not the only bad house, I suspect the trading standards would take them to court, or local authority building control. They have two weeks to provide the certificates from when completed.

However I sent a PAT tester for recalibration, after the calibration house could not find the traceable records, to be told it could not be set to new pass levels, so all PAT testing done with the machine was invalid. Lucky it was all in-house testing.

However the sorry the test gear was sent away for calibration and it failed, so we need to re-test all the installation is a good get out when the results are lost. However what you describe seems to be even worse than the Emma Shaw case, the link I had seems to have been removed by the IET, but seem to remember a custodial sentence. So this is rather serious.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Sister called me to speak with 'sparky' on-site. He said plasterer must have hit cable post their testing.

That’s rubbish. The sockets etc will have been fitted after the plastering was done. Testing will have been done after the sockets etc were fitted.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

That’s rubbish. The sockets etc will have been fitted after the plastering was done. Testing will have been done after the sockets etc were fitted.

If sparky was cautious he might have tested cable on first fix (just in case he had a dodgy drum of cable) but tests should have been redone after sockets etc fitted.

 

[Taylortwocities]

If sparky was cautious he might have tested cable on first fix (just in case he had a dodgy drum of cable) but tests should have been redone after sockets etc fitted.

Certainly the minimum of a continuity test on the ring final, after second fix. That would have shown missing cont on the earth.

 

[Stewb]

Just to wrap this up, a new electrical contractor came today. He split the ring into 2x 20 amp radials, disconnecting the damaged section of the ring.

We found out that the cable was hit by the plumber who was fitting a vertical rad. In his defence there had been a socket put where the rad was to go and then covered and plastered over without removing the cable drop or leaving a blank plate. Can't find out who thought that disconnecting and brown sleaving a live cpc and leaving it on a 32amp breaker was ok. They've found other issues from the previous electrican's labourer's work also being dealt with now before a full EICR. To be clear we didn't know a labourer was being entrusted to do the electrican's work (by the electrican).

 

[ebee]

"result was the builders stopped trading, which resulted is not being able to claim any money off them for the remedial work."
I do not see the reasoning behind that part of the statement. The builders are liable or not irrespective of whether still trading or not

 

[Old Salt]

"result was the builders stopped trading, which resulted is not being able to claim any money off them for the remedial work."
I do not see the reasoning behind that part of the statement. The builders are liable or not irrespective of whether still trading or not

ltd company they just wind it up and start again with a new name. Happens all the time.

 

[markyd1]

If sparky was cautious he might have tested cable on first fix (just in case he had a dodgy drum of cable) but tests should have been redone after sockets etc fitted.

The new requirement in Amendment 2 to the 18th Edition of the IET Wiring Regulations now requires a two-stage insulation resistance test for new installations. The first insulation test is to be carried out without any equipment connected that could influence the test reading or be damaged by the test voltage. For this reason, carry out the insulation resistance test at 1st fix stage of the installation process without any current using equipment or electronic devices connected

 

[ebee]

"ltd company they just wind it up and start again with a new name. Happens all the time."

OK I see what you getting at.
I had not assumed a limited co was involved but agree that can certainly beggar things up in practice if that is the case.
If a sole trader is involved though it might be easier to get them to task.
Mind you I am mindful that it can still be difficult in reality to chase some for money too but some people seem to think that once someone has stopped trading they are no longer liable.

Best to think of it that if you deal with a Ltd Co then this means - warning, this company`s liability is limited.
Whereas a sole trader or partnership has not. Can be a sobering thought if you yourself are self-employed.
However, in any event, it can be troublesome to say the least in any event to chase your rights as a customer despite the theoretical protection you have.
Best way to view either way is "does this person/company have a good reputation and do they want to keep that good reputation?", caveat emptor as the French say