So tell me this

[westie101]

Two of our neighbours had conservatorys built last year, both with an electrical system.

One
Wiring was an extension of the existing downstairs RFC from a socket in the kitchen, 1980s wiring so no RCD, no work on CU to fit one
Cable run in cavities that were filled with insulation
Cable in places not in safe zones
Cable run in floor screed in oval PVC conduit and concreted in, this below the underfloor heating system
On vertical runs on one or two clips used and no capping

Two
A stand alone system fed from an RCD that had been installed to control outside supplies to garage with a 2 way CU (also controls an existing small extension)
Neatly clipped in safe zones and capped
No cable in floor screed

Which is physically the safest system?
Guess which one was issued an EIC?

Though some seem to think that an EIC is the be all and end all, it is just a piece of paper that may, or not, get filled in.
But there is no doubt that the existence of one does not make the wiring safer or show that Part P or BS7671 has been complied with.

As it is both houses will probably never change hands for a good number of years at which point an EIC would probably be irrelevant by then anyway

 

[JohnW2]

Which is physically the safest system? Guess which one was issued an EIC? ... Though some seem to think that an EIC is the be all and end all, it is just a piece of paper that may, or not, get filled in. But there is no doubt that the existence of one does not make the wiring safer or show that Part P or BS7671 has been complied with.

You're not saying anything that we don't already know. Given the lack (near absence) of 'policing', any 'bits of paper' obviously mean very little, if anything.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

When the interview with electricians and scheme operators was put on line it was the electricians who were pointing this out and saying in basic terms the scheme operators just were not doing their job and the Part P system is not fit for purpose.

The questions were very revealing asked how many people had been thrown of the scheme and what was done to just stop them just re-enrolling with another scheme operator and it would seem the figure was so low it was unbelievable that there are so few electricians who have been caught out.

Only when some one is killed would it seem any action is taken. Emma Shaw case took front page news but even so I see little or nothing done to stop a repeat.

Tomkins was not an electrician so although his name was on the certificate he was not blamed as he knew no better.

Hoult was blamed although he never visited the site. As he should have realised Tomkins was not qualified.

So all the paperwork did was show who was to blame it did not make it any safer. And it was not the person doing the job who was blamed but the guy in the office.

This raises the question on how well is paperwork checked? I have seen an installation certificate with the reading for the earth rod being recorded as 2 ohms. Entries like that should ring alarm bells. Not saying you can't get that reading but it would be unlikely. I re-tested and with the bonding to other services removed it was 52 ohms the reading was for earth of gas, water, earth rod and all other earthed items bonded together not the earth rod alone.

I have also seen where ELI of 1.63 was entered pre-RCD with a B32 MCB and a reading of 1.42 ohms with a C32 MCB it would seem the tester copied the readings faithfully from meter to paperwork but did not pick up on the fact they were over the limit.

I had thought just like I had to send the installation certificate to the LABC to get the completion certificate so a scheme member had to send an installation certificate to scheme operator but it would seem this is not the case.

It is nothing more than a closed shop union agreement which I thought was illegal. The name may be "scheme operator" but they do a similar job to the trade unions and guilds of years ago and do all the things we stopped trade unions from doing. The scheme operators do all the bad things trade unions did without also doing the good things.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Though some seem to think that an EIC is the be all and end all, it is just a piece of paper that may, or not, get filled in.

People can lie on EICs just like they can lie on any other piece of paper they write on.

But there is no doubt that the existence of one does not make the wiring safer or show that Part P or BS7671 has been complied with.

And they can lie about having complied with the Building Regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

People can lie on EICs just like they can lie on any other piece of paper they write on.

Exactly. As I wrote:

Given the lack (near absence) of 'policing', any 'bits of paper' obviously mean very little, if anything.

Kind Regards, John