suspended cable to Detached garage

Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
51,590
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
Generally. Whether the fault exists or not, there is a document to say it does exist and that has to be rectified in some way.
One cannot 'rectify' a non-existent fault. However, it's most commonly not a question of existence vs. non-existence but, rather, a question of how reasonable the coding has been (given that it is subject to no 'rules, hence entirely down to the judgement/discretion of the inspector.

We have seen many examples here (and elsewhere) - whether due to incompetence/bad judgment or attempts at 'work generation... for example, plastic CUs, CUs without SPDs etc. even dual-RCD CUs (and even, at least once) the absence of labels coded as C2.

I think that your use of the word 'fault' somewhat confuses the issue, even when the 'facts'[ about the installation are not in dispute. Do you consider the (undisputed) presence of a plastic CU may (at least in some circumstances) constitute a 'fault' that warrants a C2 coding?
The only point I have against the span per se is the unsuitability of the cable for outdoors use. Others have said the same thing. As a regs catchall it may come under 'design' and 'workmanship' or whatever the correct terms are. No, unless there is a problem with it as mentioned above.
I think most of us have agreed that T+E (well, any PVC sheathed) cable 'exposed to the elements' is not ideal, but we also know that it is generally OK for at least many years, if not decades - so 'unsuitable' is to some extent debatable. There are countless things (like car tyres, etc.) which are not regarded as 'unsuitable', despite their having a relatively limited in-service life.
25m of 3C 2.5mm² NYY-J from CEF ~£40.
I don't dispute that - but, as I understand it, the OP's cable run is 2 metres, not "25m".

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
6,002
Reaction score
611
Location
Cumbria
Country
United Kingdom
Certainly in the 'earlier' days, I've probably had a lot more electronic equipment running than has 'the typical home' and, despite that, have been 'lucky' (if that's how you regard it). It's really impossible to find any 'chapter and verse' about this, but I think the probability of any piece of electronic equipment failing, during its expected lifetime, due to 'surges' is probably incredibly small.
Me too. These days I'd consider the risk of a surge related failure as quite slim compared to "failed because it's cheap Chinese carp".
It's really a matter of the bit I've highlighted and, as I've often said, the big difference is that with MOTs is there is a formal process available for 'challenging' MOT failures ...
I recall a couple of interesting stories I've read over the years, one of which was local.
The local one was in the local paper - chap takes car for MoT, fails because brake/tail light isn't red enough. Chap fits brand new one, still fails - seems the manufacturer's brand new part wasn't red enough to satisfy the examiner :unsure:
The other was in a magazine, back in the days when I bought magazines about upgrading your car - and it was still financially viable to do anything mechanical and still insure it. Car fails on upper trunion bearing (suspension component) having too much play. Chap appeals, but while waiting for that, fits a brand new bearing and correctly persuades the examiner that the bearing has that amount of play by design - gets a pass. DfT examiner comes for the appeal, doesn't like the play and fails it again :mad:
I think most of us have agreed that T+E (well, any PVC sheathed) cable 'exposed to the elements' is not ideal, but we also know that it is generally OK for at least many years, if not decades - so 'unsuitable' is to some extent debatable. There are countless things (like car tyres, etc.) which are not regarded as 'unsuitable', despite their having a relatively limited in-service life.
Indeed, I'd say that for many applications, PVC T&E will last longer clipped to a house wall than a car tyre will. In any case, once painted over, it's no longer exposed to the UV from the sun ;)
I don't dispute that - but, as I understand it, the OP's cable run is 2 metres, not "25m".
I suspect that it would be more than 2m of cable needing replacing, and/or the addition of joints.
 
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
51,590
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
Me too. These days I'd consider the risk of a surge related failure as quite slim compared to "failed because it's cheap Chinese carp".
Agreed.
Indeed, I'd say that for many applications, PVC T&E will last longer clipped to a house wall than a car tyre will. In any case, once painted over, it's no longer exposed to the UV from the sun ;)
Quite so.
I suspect that it would be more than 2m of cable needing replacing, and/or the addition of joints.
Yes, there will probably be a fair bit more than just the 2m overhead span - but (unless I missed it) I've seen nothing from the OP that would suggest that it's likely to be anything like 25m. I suspect that Sunray was probably thinking of a different thread.

Kind Regards, John
 
Joined
1 Jun 2005
Messages
202
Reaction score
1
Country
United Kingdom
There is not and never has been a requirement for sockets to have switches. Leave them alone. Not a C3
If I leave them alone the C3 for these 4 sockets will still be on the Certificate which a tenant may refer to / complain about. Although I can produce information from Google to confirm you are correct, the tenant may dismiss it and believe the Inspector instead.

Should I get back to the inspector and ask him to issue an amended certificate with them removed or if not possible send me a letter stating the same ? And if he refuses ask him for the relevant section in the Regs that makes the unswitched sockets a C3 ?

I haven't paid his invoice yet so if I'm on solid ground on this point I still have some leverage
thanks
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
11 Jan 2010
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
674
Location
London
Country
United Kingdom
Should I get back to the inspector and ask him to issue an amended certificate with them removed or if not possible send me a letter stating the same ? And if he refuses ask him for the relevant section in the Regs that makes the unswitched sockets a C3 ?

I haven't paid his invoice yet so if I'm on solid ground on this point I still have some leverage
thanks
Most definitely. And don’t pay him until he does. That is the only way he will learn from his error.
 
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
6,002
Reaction score
611
Location
Cumbria
Country
United Kingdom
... ask him for the relevant section in the Regs that makes the unswitched sockets a C3 ?
When in "doubt", and if the paperwork doesn't already show it (which it should), ask which reg no is applicable. If they can't provide the reg no then that means one of two things :
  • They don't know the regs well enough to be able to find it - in which case they aren't competent to be doing the job.
  • There isn't a reg that covers it - in which case they are making stuff up, make your own mind up about possible reasons.
 
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
51,590
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
If I leave them alone the C3 for these 4 sockets will still be on the Certificate which a tenant may refer to / complain about. Although I can produce information from Google to confirm you are correct, the tenant may dismiss it and believe the Inspector instead.
No-one can stop tenants 'complaining', but complaining about C3s on an EICR is unlikley to get them anywhere. The guidance document for landlords (click here) includes:
The C3 classification code does not indicate remedial work is required, but only that improvement is recommended. Landlords don’t have to make the improvement, but it would improve the safety of the installation if they did.

Should I get back to the inspector and ask him to issue an amended certificate with them removed or if not possible send me a letter stating the same ? And if he refuses ask him for the relevant section in the Regs that makes the unswitched sockets a C3 ?
You could do that if you really wanted to but, as above, C3s on an EICR are not really a problem.

It's also worth remembering that so much about an EICR is down to the discretion of the inspector, that one could well try arguing that their personal view/judgement was that "improvement should be recommended" (i.e. C3) even if no regulation has been explicitly violated - which has the potential to turn into a protracted argument.

Kind Regards, John
 
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Messages
6,882
Reaction score
592
Location
Kent
Country
United Kingdom
If I leave them alone the C3 for these 4 sockets will still be on the Certificate which a tenant may refer to / complain about. Although I can produce information from Google to confirm you are correct, the tenant may dismiss it and believe the Inspector instead.

Should I get back to the inspector and ask him to issue an amended certificate with them removed or if not possible send me a letter stating the same ? And if he refuses ask him for the relevant section in the Regs that makes the unswitched sockets a C3 ?

I haven't paid his invoice yet so if I'm on solid ground on this point I still have some leverage
thanks
As he's not been paid yet, contact him and explain payment is not forthcoming until all of the details are clarified with the relevant reg numbers etc.

However as I mentioned before; I'd simply replace the sockets with switched versions, chances are they are quite elderly and people expect switches. For the few pounds it will cost to DIY the issue just fades away. For what it's worth I change accessories regularly in my rental properties, especially sockets, these days it's automatic; accessories off, redecorate, new accessories. It's easier to replace them and look brand new (especially for showing round a new tenant) than cleaning whatever yellow stuff exists?
Yes, there will probably be a fair bit more than just the 2m overhead span - but (unless I missed it) I've seen nothing from the OP that would suggest that it's likely to be anything like 25m. I suspect that Sunray was probably thinking of a different thread.

Kind Regards, John
I simply googled for '2.5mm 3C Hi-Tuff cable' and my very first hit was CEF and thier first price was for 25m at ~£33+VAT which I guesstimated at ~£40. I'll guess 25m is more than required but the electrician is more likely to turn up a coil than a pre-cut length.
In my view a 20 year old T&E span is likely to be near the end of its useful lifespan. Yes just like most on here I can quote situations where T&E installed decades ago is in use and appears to be in perfect condition - but equally I've come across some which are far from good condition, especially spans which are in full sun all day, go brittle and vibrate/flex in the breeze.
I believe we still don't know if there was any explanation for the span needing disconnexion, such as damage etc.
but what if the EICR had given a C2 to a plastic CU (it's certainly happened), or the alleged need for some other fairly major remedial work that you really didn't believe should be coded as C2.

Kind Regards, John
I stopped my EICR inspector issueing any paperwork as soon as I saw it was a plastic CU behind the front door and undersize shower cable (a tenant had replaced 8KW for 10.5KW).
All of my rental properties have had metal CU's fitted in the last 5 years
this
1658228319493.jpeg
to this
1658228487267.jpeg
was before the 'new rules' came in but basically to provide the 'single point of isolation' recommended by fire service and now required by most managing agents, it was also a way of easily adding RCD.
 
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
51,590
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
In my view a 20 year old T&E span is likely to be near the end of its useful lifespan. Yes just like most on here I can quote situations where T&E installed decades ago is in use and appears to be in perfect condition - but equally I've come across some which are far from good condition, especially spans which are in full sun all day, go brittle and vibrate/flex in the breeze.
All essentially true - but (as below), unless there were indications of marked cable deterioration (or, of course, a low IR), I don't personally think it deserves a C2.
I believe we still don't know if there was any explanation for the span needing disconnexion, such as damage etc.
True. Everything I've said obviously assumes that there is currently no indication of marked deterioration.
I stopped my EICR inspector issueing any paperwork as soon as I saw it was a plastic CU behind the front door and undersize shower cable (a tenant had replaced 8KW for 10.5KW). ... All of my rental properties have had metal CU's fitted in the last 5 years ... this to thiswas before the 'new rules' came in ... I'd simply replace the sockets with switched versions, chances are they are quite elderly and people expect switches. For the few pounds it will cost to DIY the issue just fades away. For what it's worth I change accessories regularly in my rental properties, especially sockets, these days it's automatic; accessories off, redecorate, new accessories. ...
I'm not knocking any of that at all (quite the contrary) but, for the benefit of readers, would point out that it sounds as if you are pretty atypical amongst landlords.

I have to say that, speaking purely personally, I would probably regard your approach a bit 'OTT'. For example, even in my own house, I would not (unless 'forced') even dream of replacing my (many) plastic CUs with metal ones, and I would probably off that view to those near and dear to me.

Kind Regards, John
 
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Messages
6,882
Reaction score
592
Location
Kent
Country
United Kingdom
Yesterday I attempted to do some work kneeling atop a shipping container painted with matt black waterproofing, something like Aquaseal or Synthaproof. An IR contactless thermometer read 53.2°C. I was up there for about 15 seconds.
A colleague has today measured at 64°C/147°F
 
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Messages
6,882
Reaction score
592
Location
Kent
Country
United Kingdom
I'm not knocking any of that at all (quite the contrary) but, for the benefit of readers, would point out that it sounds as if you are pretty atypical amongst landlords.
Thank you, I appreciate the compliment
I have to say that, speaking purely personally, I would probably regard your approach a bit 'OTT'. For example, even in my own house, I would not (unless 'forced') even dream of replacing my (many) plastic CUs with metal ones, and I would probably off that view to those near and dear to me.

Kind Regards, John
In my own house is a different matter, I have 6 CU/switched fuse's and not one is metal, (in fact one them was removed from a rental property) however with CU behind the front door and being the only access door and the rules as they seem to be and the EICR highlighting them I see it as the easy option to change once and hopefully forget, well at least until a tenant makes changes again :cry: . :mad: :rolleyes:
 
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
51,590
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Buckinghamshire
Country
United Kingdom
Thank you, I appreciate the compliment .... In my own house is a different matter, I have 6 CU/switched fuse's and not one is metal, (in fact one them was removed from a rental property) however with CU behind the front door and being the only access door and the rules as they seem to be and the EICR highlighting them I see it as the easy option to change once and hopefully forget, well at least until a tenant makes changes again :cry: . :mad: :rolleyes:
Fair enough. You may be right in terms of future hassle/bureaucracy but, in terms of safety (which is what matters to me in my own house (and I would presumably feel similarly about safety of tenants, if there were any), I am certainly not convinced that a metal CU offers any significant 'protection', and can easily argue (as I often do!) that it theoretically increases some hazards.

If you cannot guarantee that none of your tenants (or their guests) will ever smoke or use candles in the property, then I'm pretty sure that that possibility would represent a very much greater 'fire risk' than having a plastic CU. Indeed, a plastic CU is only ever going to be of potential value (fire-wise) if a fire arises within it - and that will usually only happen within a poorly-maintained CU (which I doubt yours are)!

Kind Regards, John
 
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Messages
6,882
Reaction score
592
Location
Kent
Country
United Kingdom
Fair enough. You may be right in terms of future hassle/bureaucracy but, in terms of safety (which is what matters to me in my own house (and I would presumably feel similarly about safety of tenants, if there were any), I am certainly not convinced that a metal CU offers any significant 'protection', and can easily argue (as I often do!) that it theoretically increases some hazards.

If you cannot guarantee that none of your tenants (or their guests) will ever smoke or use candles in the property, then I'm pretty sure that that possibility would represent a very much greater 'fire risk' than having a plastic CU. Indeed, a plastic CU is only ever going to be of potential value (fire-wise) if a fire arises within it - and that will usually only happen within a poorly-maintained CU (which I doubt yours are)!

Kind Regards, John
I can only agree with all of this. The emboldened is actually an 'old chestnut' of mine too (and why none of mine at home have been changed to metal) but regardless I have to keep up with the times/fashion and who knows what's going to happen in 10 yeaars when there have been too many metal box electrocutions?
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Top