Shower installation

[Goldberg]

@ericmark - sticking to the scenario in question, which was testing a shower circuit when eplacing a faulty shower, in my opinion it's neither responsible nor businesslike to test something that you haven't installed and haven't been paid to test.

If the objective of you testing is to reduce the risk of you being procecured, then the answer it very simple.

Before you start work, you get the owner of the dwelling to sign an acknowledgement that the work does not include testing of any part of the installation that isn't being changed. By all means offer to do it at extra cost, but it simply isn't part of the job, i.e. it isn't a work activity, including operation or use and maintenance of a system or work near a system that would otherwise need to be carried out in such a manner as not to give rise, so far as is reasonably practicable, to danger.

 

[bernardgreen]

I'm confused.

On the one hand, failing to test and thereby assuming that the cable is OK not acceptable to you, but finding no fault and assuming that the cable doesn't have any gauge changes is perfectly acceptable to you.

Where is the distinction between what's acceptable and what's unacceptable defined? Or is the requirement for testing left to the whim of the electrican who's replacing the shower?

Confused or maybe trying to be confrontational ?.

I do not fail to test. I test and inspect as much as is possible. The task is to replace the shower unit, not to inspect the cabling.

If from the results of that test or inspection I have reason to doubt the future safety of the installation then I will so advise the owner. If necessary I will refuse to connect the shower, disconnecting the shower again if necessary and labelling the MCB in the CU accordingly.

 

[ericmark]

Why does all this carp about Part P not apply to Park Homes?
If it is so critical to saving lives , surely it either applies to any abode that people live in or none of them at all.

You are right in a way boats and caravan because they are pre-built units which could be built or altered in different countries can't come under Part P.

Boats however will come under RCD (Recreational Craft Directive) not sure if there is similar for caravans?

But one has to look at the basics and a caravan is not a building so can't come under building control. Remove it's wheels and support it on pillars and this could change so for pre-fab homes which don't comply with road traffic act regulations so are not really mobile you may find these do have to comply with Part P.

As to:-

@ericmark - sticking to the scenario in question, which was testing a shower circuit when eplacing a faulty shower, in my opinion it's neither responsible nor businesslike to test something that you haven't installed and haven't been paid to test.

If the objective of you testing is to reduce the risk of you being procecured, then the answer it very simple.

Before you start work, you get the owner of the dwelling to sign an acknowledgement that the work does not include testing of any part of the installation that isn't being changed. By all means offer to do it at extra cost, but it simply isn't part of the job, i.e. it isn't a work activity, including operation or use and maintenance of a system or work near a system that would otherwise need to be carried out in such a manner as not to give rise, so far as is reasonably practicable, to danger.

I will agree the Part P Approved Document P does say it is the person ordering the work who is responsible for ensuring Part P is complied with. However most builders, electricians etc. will undertake to do that for the person ordering the work.

I have on some industrial premises been given work to complete as part of a larger job where I have not been required to do any inspection and testing this has all been done by the persons commissioning the plant. And of course neither did I power up the system.

However I can't see this happening in a domestic installation. I have no intention of searching out case law and if you are silly enough not to watch your own back then that's your look out and I will shed no tears it things go wrong for you.

 

[ericmark]

labelling the MCB in the CU accordingly.

Sorry not good enough. You need to isolate in a manor where it will require a key or tool to re-instate supply.

I would remove the wire from the MCB unless there is a lockable cover on CU.

 

[bernardgreen]

labelling the MCB in the CU accordingly.

Sorry not good enough. You need to isolate in a manor where it will require a key or tool to re-instate supply.

I would remove the wire from the MCB unless there is a lockable cover on CU.

I seldom work in manors. Just the humble habitations of friends. but yes I would dis-connect both ends of the cable if I had any doubts about its safety.

 

[Goldberg]

My questions to you and ericmark don't go anywhere near the extent of the answers you're giving, because they would lead to a never-ending debate about best practice for safety. I merely asked why, when replacing a shower unit, ericmark would test the circuit, but when replacing a kettle he would not.

Confused or maybe trying to be confrontational ?

Confused.

I don't see where the confrontation is when seekig clarification of two seemingly conflicting things.

You said that you don't fail to test, but I didn't suggest that you do (fail). I even acknowledged that failing to test is unaccaptable to you.

However, it was you who said that your test doesn't reveal cable gauge changes, which means that leaving the cable in use involves an assumption that its safe, so I asked where the distinction between what's acceptable and what's unacceptable is defined.

For example, why don't you replace the shower circuit MCB with a brand new one, as a matter of course, just in case it's useful life has been comprimised?

@ericmark - you seem mildly obsessed with Approved Document P, so I feel the need to reiterate my belieft that the document is irrelevant.

You seem confused between the need to notify all notifiable work, which is the duty of the person ordering it, and the need for "Reasonable provision" to "be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury." - this latter need creates a duty on the person replacing the shower.

However, as soon as you take responsibility for testing something that isn't part of the job, you blur the situation for the householder. They are unlikely to understand why you're charging extra to go looking for latent faults that weren't created by you, and why your test reveals no fault but you say that there still might be a problem.

To test the cable simply because you have the equipment and know how is not the prudent or professional thing to do. It's the opposite - it's irresponsible and unbusinesslike.

 

[chapeau]

Actually an Approved Document does have status in law. Section 7 Building Act 1984. More status in law than BS7671 does, I would say.

The original poster should just replace the shower (safely of course) and be done with it.

 

[bernardgreen]

so I asked where the distinction between what's acceptable and what's unacceptable is defined.

It depends a lot on the circumstances. If I have any reason to believe a pre-used cable is not adequate or safe for use with the replaced item I will act accordingly.

An example. Asked to replace two pole switch in kitchen controlling immersion heater in bathroom above kitchen. Surface clipped 2.5 T&E vertical to and from switch into ceiling. Looks OK. Turning immersion heater on and off affected brightness of lamp in conservatory but not the light in the kitchen. **** Alarm bells ring. ***


Immersion also affects brightness of red lamps in electric coal effect fire in lounge. Immersion feed is taken from junction box under floor on landing cut into old rubber cable to 15 amp round pin socket in lounge. A twin 13 amp socket in lounge has been fed from another JB on the same rubber cable. Lamp in conservatory is wire in 1mm T&E from a third JB on that rubber cable. No fusing down. That was all done by a "qualified electricians mate", a relative of the owner who would hear nothing bad about the person or his work.

Complete rewire needed.

 

[Goldberg]

Actually an Approved Document does have status in law. Section 7 Building Act 1984.

Do you mean these words:

...if, in any proceedings whether civil or criminal, it is alleged that a person has at any time contravened a provision of building regulations—

(a) a failure to comply with a document that at that time was approved for the purposes of that provision may be relied upon as tending to establish liability, and

(b) proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability.

?

If so, I don't agree with your interpretation that this makes the Approved Document P any more relevant, and I certainly don't agree that it gives it more legal status that BS 7671, given that references to it are spinkled througout ADP.

 

[chapeau]

Yes that's it.

I guess we have to agree to differ.

 

[Goldberg]

That seems like the best comprimise.

However, can you explain which part of Approved Document P requires, or even strongly advises, that the existing circuit for an existing shower is retested when the shower is replaced?

The only thing I can see could be regarded as required is an EFLI test from the shower connection, given that most/all electric shower manufacturer's instructions say "this appliance must be earthed". But this has nothing to do with the Approved Document.

 

[securespark]

An extension lead isn't equipment or an appliance.

By whose definition??

In 7671, an extension lead is equipment.

In the dictionary, equipment is defined as "a set of...devices assembled for a specific purpose."

Care to tell me it isn't equipment now?

 

[Goldberg]

Would you test the extension lead to a kettle when replacing a kettle, even though there's no reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with the extension lead?

Would you test all circuits and extension leads in the installation?

Where's the line, and who put it there?

Would you venture to suggest what ericmark meant by "temporary installation"?

 

[ericmark]

My questions to you and ericmark don't go anywhere near the extent of the answers you're giving, because they would lead to a never-ending debate about best practice for safety. I merely asked why, when replacing a shower unit, ericmark would test the circuit, but when replacing a kettle he would not.

Simple I am lazy. I should test the kettle the court case made this plain.

But except on commercial premises where due to electricity at work act I have to provide paperwork to show I have tested kettle and my tester auto tests the socket.

In a house I am lazy and often don't bother testing the socket. It is wrong I know and I should do same testing with domestic as commercial premises.

But I tend only to plug in Martindale tester in Domestic.

As to Part P I hate it. But I was thrown off another forum for not pointing out when items come under Part P. So being careful not to repeat this mistake.

I had insurance work done in my own house and I noted the electrician did measure the ELI when replacing my lights after a new ceiling although he did not issue me with any paper work. I consider this as OK as in most cases the paper work would end up in bin anyway.

The big problem is with RCD's and although the two RCD's in my house are the same the ELI meter trips one and not the other. I consider if the RCD trips with the ELI meter then there is unlikely to be any danger and I would not go to great lengths to bypass the RCD to test although strictly speaking I should.

I do think some common sense is required and I can see where due to things like the ELI tester tripping the RCD it would take a lot of time and energy to test one can maybe omit the test. But for a cooker, shower or any other fixed equipment to protect myself I would do as many tests as I can easily do.

As to an extension lead I would not use it unless it has PAT testing label commercial so it should be tested by someone. However in domestic I would use my own not customers so yes I suppose I do miss testing them! I am so naughty!

 

[kai]

You need to do the full EFLI, Polarity and Meggering tests on any fixed appliance installation or replacement, i.e. a Shower or Immersion element or Light Fixture or Wall Heater etc, it is clear cut.

Only if an appliance can be unplugged i.e. not permananently connected, can the tests be omitted.