Treading on ones toes!

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

When would you consider it appropriate to inform the customer, that the electrician who installed/extend the RFC that powered all sockets in house (work done in 2007). Was responsible for their loss of power due to non-conformities of the then current requirements. Even though they have agreed to remedy the fault free of charge?
Do I dob them in, as the customer has asked me why they have no power to sockets?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What did they do which caused loss of power 5 years later?

 

[Spark123]

I can't see you having anything to lose by telling them the truth, unless the tradesman is a member of a gangster family!!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

They had extend the RFC to accommodate the addition of several kitchen sockets. They had extend the circuit by the use of junction boxes under the floor/house, leaving no access to these. The junction boxes had been laid on the floor beneath the house and the mains water had leaked under the house and onto the junctions made.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I can't see you having anything to lose by telling them the truth, unless the tradesman is a member of a gangster family!!

I did contact the installer, as I was scratching my head, why anyone would extend the RFC, when the CU was in the kitchen area with two spare ways on it and also why I could not find where the transition between brown and blue met red and black.
The reply I got was it was a kitchen and you make things do!

 

[SaladFingers]

They had extend the RFC to accommodate the addition of several kitchen sockets. They had extend the circuit by the use of junction boxes under the floor/house, leaving no access to these. The junction boxes had been laid on the floor beneath the house and the mains water had leaked under the house and onto the junctions made.

Right. Well personally, in my opinion the fault were created by the water, not the spark.

Ok, people will be wondering if he used maintenance free JBs. Even if he did lets say, it would be going beyond what's reasonable to fit JBs that can withstand water when installed inside a house (beneath? Under suspended ground floor?) in an area where water isn't usually present.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Right. Well personally, in my opinion the fault were created by the water, not the spark.

Ok, people will be wondering if he used maintenance free JBs. Even if he did lets say, it would be going beyond what's reasonable to fit JBs that can withstand water when installed inside a house (beneath? Under suspended ground floor?) in an area where water isn't usually present.

The junction boxes were inaccessible and should have at least been fitted to the joists to prevent this happening and long before MF JBs were a conformity.

 

[SaladFingers]

Right. Well personally, in my opinion the fault were created by the water, not the spark.

Ok, people will be wondering if he used maintenance free JBs. Even if he did lets say, it would be going beyond what's reasonable to fit JBs that can withstand water when installed inside a house (beneath? Under suspended ground floor?) in an area where water isn't usually present.

The junction boxes were inaccessible and should have at least been fitted to the joists to prevent this happening and long before MF JBs were a conformity.

Yes, but read again what I wrote.

Even if they were MF, it's still a water leak. It would be beyond reasonable provision to cater for water where there shouldn't be.

I won't fit IP65 lights in my living room, but if the electrics go bang because someone threw their drink over it, it's not my fault, it's the drink throwers.

No disrespect, but I would save embarassment and not mention anything to this 'customer'.

 

[RF Lighting]

Right. Well personally, in my opinion the fault were created by the water, not the spark.

Ok, people will be wondering if he used maintenance free JBs. Even if he did lets say, it would be going beyond what's reasonable to fit JBs that can withstand water when installed inside a house (beneath? Under suspended ground floor?) in an area where water isn't usually present.

The junction boxes were inaccessible and should have at least been fitted to the joists to prevent this happening and long before MF JBs were a conformity.

Yep I agree. 90% of failed installations I visit are as a result of poor workmanship such as this.

Tell the customer the failure is down to improper work caried out by the previous electrician. Why should you try and cover his ass?

I was taught as an appretice to keep all cables and joints up off the subfloor to lessen the chance of damage from both flooding and fauna attacks.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Right. Well personally, in my opinion the fault were created by the water, not the spark.

Not so!
If the junctions had not been there, and there was no reason other than than sheer laziness for this, it would not have occured.
And 522-03:2001 states a wiring system should be selected so during use that water ingress is avoided to prevent damage and 512-06:2001 says the system should be designed to avoid external influences.

No disrespect, but I would save embarassment and not mention anything to this 'customer'.

I have nothing to be embarrassed about, as fas as I see it, the work was not done correctly!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They had extend the circuit by the use of junction boxes under the floor/house, leaving no access to these.

The fault would till have happened if there had been access. Inaccessibility was wrong, and no doubt time consuming, but did not contribute to the failure itself.

The junction boxes had been laid on the floor beneath the house and the mains water had leaked under the house and onto the junctions made.

Do you mean just lying on bare earth, or on a concrete slab? If the former I'd disagree with SaladFingers - it should have been installed in a way which recognised the possibility of flooding down there.

 

[SaladFingers]

If the junctions had not been there.....

If the water had not been there......

I agree they should have been fastened rather than left on the slab below, though.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

The fault would till have happened if there had been access. Inaccessibility was wrong, and no doubt time consuming, but did not contribute to the failure itself.

But the fault would have been easier to diagnose and repair/correct.

Do you mean just lying on bare earth, or on a concrete slab?

on the earth beneath the house.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If the water had not been there......

external influence

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If the water had not been there......

external influence