Lock offs for unenergised cable

[jelliottelectrical]

Does anyone know of a product that exists to ‘lock off’ a cable that has not been energised

So I am about to complete installing submain and associated wiring to workshop and garage building. Submain installed bit won’t be terminated at the supply end just yet as the site is waiting on supply upgrade and they were late getting it organised so there is a bit of a wait for it.

I can’t install the switchfuse at the origin until I can arrange a shutdown as the existing needs configuring to mask space. To minimise downtime I’d do all this with the new supply install so only one shutdown.

I suspect the customer may try to get this new cable connected temporarily to get his new building running as I have said explicitly I won’t until the new mains are installed and the unsafe installation rectified. To cover my own back basically am wondering if a product exists to ‘lock off’ the cable. If he cuts it off and connects it anyway, at least I can document that I have done everything I can to prevent it.

 

[davelx]

Why not just crimp/solder the three cores together and seal with heatshrink. Then you'll know if he cuts it off. You could "fingerprint" the joint in various ways so that he can't just remake it without you knowing.

 

[jelliottelectrical]

That’s a good idea. I could tag it as well then. Obvious really!

 

[flameport]

Temporarily add a L-E link at the workshop DB, to prevent it being energised unless it's tested first.

 

[JohnW2]

Does anyone know of a product that exists to ‘lock off’ a cable that has not been energised... To cover my own back basically am wondering if a product exists to ‘lock off’ the cable. If he cuts it off and connects it anyway, at least I can document that I have done everything I can to prevent it.

A 'Henley' with a seal, perhaps?

Kind Regards, John

 

[jelliottelectrical]

Both good ideas. I did think actually of hiding a short on the cable somewhere, with the idea being if he does it himself it will catch him out and if anyone else does it, then they should be testing the cable first anyway

 

[333rocky333]

Am i the only one shocked that someone would even consider putting a deliberate short on a cable knowing that someone may have intentions of connecting it, surely that would be a criminal offence

 

[securespark]

Who owns the cable?

If it was my property, I would put a label on it "PROPERTY OF XXX ELECTRICAL LIMITED. DO NOT TAMPER"

If they own the cable, there is little you can do.

 

[JohnW2]

Am i the only one shocked that someone would even consider putting a deliberate short on a cable knowing that someone may have intentions of connecting it, surely that would be a criminal offence

Why? I'm not too clear as to what the OP thinks that the customer may try to 'temporarily connect' the cable to but, whatever it was, it would presumably be protected by some OPD (or, in the last resort, the DNO fuse), which would therefore just operate if he energised the cable whilst there was a 'deliberate short' on it - with no catastrophic consequences.

What potentially dangerous scenario are you envisaging that you think should make it a 'criminal offence'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[jelliottelectrical]

Who owns the cable?

If it was my property, I would put a label on it "PROPERTY OF XXX ELECTRICAL LIMITED. DO NOT TAMPER"

If they own the cable, there is little you can do.

Once paid the cable belongs to the customer.
However until the other upgrade works are carried out, I am not happy Connecting it to the existing installation. If the customer decides that they are going to connect it themselves, then I have done everything I can do my end

 

[JohnW2]

Who owns the cable?

I can but presume that that depends upon what the contract says about when ownership of materials transfers from electrician to customer. However ...

If it was my property, I would put a label on it "PROPERTY OF XXX ELECTRICAL LIMITED. DO NOT TAMPER"...

Presumably the customer has already been told 'not to tamper', so I'm not sure that a label saying the same thing would make a lot of difference, would it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[jelliottelectrical]

Am i the only one shocked that someone would even consider putting a deliberate short on a cable knowing that someone may have intentions of connecting it, surely that would be a criminal offence

So when a HV cable is shorted to earth to be worked on that is a criminal offence?

sometimes I terminate a circuit I am working on deliberately into the earth bar at the distribution board. That must make me a criminal

 

[jelliottelectrical]

I can but presume that that depends upon what the contract says about when ownership of materials transfers from electrician to customer. However ...
Presumably the customer has already been told 'not to tamper', so I'm not sure that a label saying the same thing would make a lot of difference, would it?

Kind Regards, John

it wouldn’t make a difference no, if he’s going to do it I can’t really stop that, but if I lock it off and document this, should anything happen, then at least I would have covered my back

 

[JohnW2]

... However until the other upgrade works are carried out, I am not happy Connecting it to the existing installation. If the customer decides that they are going to connect it themselves, then I have done everything I can do my end

Have you instructed the customer in writing that you do not consider it currently safe for anyone to connect it to anything?

I would have thought that 99% of customers told 'not to interfere' would comply with that, but that the 1% would probably do their own thing, regardless of whatever measures you had taken in an attempt them from energising the cable/circuit - so all you can really do as regards the latter is to 'document' your instructions/advice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

Why? I'm not too clear as to what the OP thinks that the customer may try to 'temporarily connect' the cable to but, whatever it was, it would presumably be protected by some OPD (or, in the last resort, the DNO fuse), which would therefore just operate if he energised the cable whilst there was a 'deliberate short' on it - with no catastrophic consequences.

What potentially dangerous scenario are you envisaging that you think should make it a 'criminal offence'?

Kind Regards, John

Well it sounds like he suspects the tenant to bodge it in somewhere, so maybe a chance he may be going into the Live head fitting a fuse with a deliberate fault on it, with no PPE unaware it will blow in his face, yeah maybe he should not be doing it, but would you be happy, potentially maiming him for life.
I am no lawyer but i would think if someone was injured then there would be questions asked.

You know from posts here, that they may unlikely test the cable, even some electricians may see its a new cable and not feel the need to test it so as implied in my view it is wreckless.

Yes some do short to earth at the load end, but in them cases the supply end is adequately locked off with signage and the shorting link likely visible, not as implied a HIDDEN short to earth.

To me there is a difference between doing it whilst working on it for your own safety and intentially doing it just to prevent someone else reenergising an installation.
The DNO would likely only cut off a dangerous supply by removing a Fuse and fixing a label, nothing stopping unauthorized reenergising, I would be surprised to hear if they would create a deliberate fault to prevent this.

If the cable is new but the installation unsafe then leave the load end safely isolated, if someone else reconnects either end then it becomes there problem surely.