Wrong colour cable used

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, because, unlike yourself, the poor guy is only human and has made a mistake, something that happens to even the best of us, yourself excepted of course.

OK - so you regard making stupid mistakes and doing something which the regulations say they would prefer you not to do counts as good workmanship.

You and I have different standards, that's all.

Faced with rewiring the entire loop and destroying brand new plastering and decor, it is my opinion that it would not reasonably be practicable to rewire the loop in blue and brown, therefore the electrician must unfortunately take the less preferable step of sleeving the conductors. It is compliant with BS7671 for him to do so, and clearly he does have some concern for his workmanship, otherwise he could have simply kept tight lipped and not even bothered to sleeve the conductors at all.

If he has concerns about his workmanship then he doesn't think it was good.

Therefore he doesn't believe that what he did complies with 134.1.1.

 

[electronicsuk]

Yes, because, unlike yourself, the poor guy is only human and has made a mistake, something that happens to even the best of us, yourself excepted of course.

OK - so you regard making stupid mistakes and doing something which the regulations say they would prefer you not to do counts as good workmanship.

You and I have different standards, that's all.

So it seems. Or, at least, different ideas of what makes a departure from a preference in BS7671 acceptable.

 

[spark1]

Hi Wesj.
I think we are all in agreement that your Electrician, regardless of the reason. has gone agaist the Spirit of the Regulations, and cannot
complete the EIC without noting this occurance. It will have to be stated as a Departure in the Details of Departures box of the Design ,Construction,Inspection and Testing section..i.e. he has designed the installation in a different manner to that preferred in B.S. 7671 2008

If it is not to be rewired in T&E [Blue /Brown & G/y] then this will be the only way forward.

If the Electrician is self-certifying the job he will probably "get away with it "
as it were !..... If he is going through Bulding Control with his EIC then it may well backfire on him OR you.

 

[Chri5]

Do you consider that through stupidity using B qualifies as good workmanship?

No it does not, but there is a situation where once it's in the cost of re-doing the work measured in destroying new plaster, new decor etc is not viable.

And there is a method by which the work can be recovered .

I know you accept that other than the core colour the cable is ok for the use, so the only issue is colour not functional use.

As I mentioned a EIC / MWC departure is acceptable


NB I had 20 years comms, it didn't stop me accidentally using 6 core alarm wire (stranded) rather than the cw1308 BT spec. Same core count, same sheath, a simple mistake. 15 years later it all works, even if I did get 4nal and solder the strands to emulate the solid core BT spec which krone jaws on IDC's require.

 

[LiamPope]

If the issue is only that the cores of the twin-brown are not identifiable throughout their length, and this is merely preferable anyway, not a requirement, is it really a departure at all? A departure is for a blatant non-compliance isn't it? To me, preferable means 'it'd be nice', 'it's best practice', etc, not that failure to implement will result in non-compliance and a departure.

How is it any different to using, say, three-core and earth for lighting sleeved appropriately at the terminations? The function of these cores are also not identifiable throughout their length without reference to the sleeving at the terminations.

Liam

 

[Paul_C]

As in the similar discussion in another thread, I don't see the proposal as being non-compliant in any way.

The Regs. require that conductors be identified at their terminations, but only state it as a preference that they be identifiable for their entire length. "Prefer" does not mean "must," whether the cable was used by intent or mistake.

Drops to 2-way light switches or 2-gang switches for controlling two lights: Black & gray will be sleeved brown at the terminations, but will not be brown throughout their length.

Drop to a 1-way light switch: Blue will be sleeved brown, but will remain blue throughout its length.

Feed to timer fan with permanent & switched live: Black will be sleeved brown at its terminations and gray will be sleeved blue at its terminations (or vice versa), but both will remain black and gray throughout the length of the cable.

Multi-core cable with all cores black or white, 3-core SWA used as L/N/E, 4-core SWA used to run two separate circuits - There are dozens of such examples.

 

[Goldberg]

Do you consider that through stupidity doing something which the regulations say they would prefer you not to do qualifies as good workmanship?

Nobody has agreed with your belief that the electrician's mistake equates to stupidity.

Human error is part and parcel of everything, including professional workmanship. On those grounds, I would expect every tradesman to make the occasional error, but also to have processes in place to detect those errors and apply a pragmatic and economic approach to correcting them.

In this case the electrician has proposed a officially acceptable way of identifying the cores at the terminals, and is documenting the deviation from the preferred method for the rest of the cable.

 

[ColJack]

it's an easy enough mistake to make if you happen to have a roll of each on the van.. ( the old for alterations to older homes.. )

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you consider that through stupidity using B qualifies as good workmanship?

No it does not,

So you do not consider that his work complies with BS 7671.

but there is a situation where once it's in the cost of re-doing the work measured in destroying new plaster, new decor etc is not viable.

Does 134.1.1 require good workmanship except where this is not viable?

I know you accept that other than the core colour the cable is ok for the use, so the only issue is colour not functional use.

No - the issue is whether through stupidity using a cable which the regulations say you should not qualifies as good workmanship.

NB I had 20 years comms, it didn't stop me accidentally using 6 core alarm wire (stranded) rather than the cw1308 BT spec. Same core count, same sheath, a simple mistake. 15 years later it all works, even if I did get 4nal and solder the strands to emulate the solid core BT spec which krone jaws on IDC's require.

When you made the mistake did you think that your workmanship had been good?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If the issue is only that the cores of the twin-brown are not identifiable throughout their length, and this is merely preferable anyway, not a requirement, is it really a departure at all? A departure is for a blatant non-compliance isn't it? To me, preferable means 'it'd be nice', 'it's best practice', etc, not that failure to implement will result in non-compliance and a departure.

You have a choice of two cables for a particular part of a circuit.

The regulations say they would prefer you to use A, not B.

Do you consider that through stupidity using B qualifies as good workmanship?

How is it any different to using, say, three-core and earth for lighting sleeved appropriately at the terminations? The function of these cores are also not identifiable throughout their length without reference to the sleeving at the terminations.

That's not the same situation.

You are missing the point - it's not directly about whether or not the colours contravene a regulation, any more than it would be about whether switches installed at wonky angles would contravene one, or if a row of sockets in a kitchen were of different designs and at different heights would contravene one.

Those errors would not directly contravene a regulation about the disposition of accessories, but they would, I submit, contravene the one about good workmanship.

Using 3C+E for 2-way switches, or 3 core SWA to supply an outbuilding is not poor workmanship.

But through carelessness going against the preference in 514.3.2 is a different matter. I don't think that counts as being good workmanship or proper materials.

It's not 514.3.2 which has been contravened, it's 134.1.1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nobody has agreed with your belief that the electrician's mistake equates to stupidity.

After much cursing about his own stupidity...

Human error is part and parcel of everything, including professional workmanship. On those grounds, I would expect every tradesman to make the occasional error, but also to have processes in place to detect those errors and apply a pragmatic and economic approach to correcting them.

What if he believes that his error meant he had fallen short of good workmanship?

 

[sparkyspike]

I don't think the OP or his electrician are denying stupidity or poor workmanship. In fact this has pretty much been admitted, so I don't know what you're all going on about.

The OP wants to know if there will be a problem with the certificate. There won't be a problem.

It would also be preferable for the correct cable to have been installed in the first place.

If the OP is happy knowing that there are sleeved neutrals in the installation then fine. I, for one would be unhappy about this. Not because of any regs, but because it is bad workmanship. If I had done it I would rip it out. But to maintain a good relationship with his spark, as well as the aggro of redecorating, the OP is clearly not that bothered about replacing the cable.

 

[LiamPope]

You are missing the point... ...It's not 514.3.2 which has been contravened, it's 134.1.1

Sorry, reading your posts more thoroughly I appreciate the point you are making. However, I'd argue that because the spark's lapse in concentration did not itself result in a contravention of any regs (514.3.2 has not been contravened for example), then it doesn't really count as poor workmanship and deserve to be considered a contravention of 134.1.1. It might not be the best possible workmanship but the result is still a compliant installation, albeit not as would be preferable. Similarly, the materials used were arguably proper, the only difference being colours that aren't preferable, but are still acceptable. I guess we may have to agree to disagree .

On the other hand I'd love to hear what his scheme would have to say if he listed under departures: "134.1.1 - some poor workmanship employed."

 

[Goldberg]

Nobody has agreed with your belief that the electrician's mistake equates to stupidity.

After much cursing about his own stupidity...

Hm, yes, I walked into that one.

OK, leaving aside that most of us are self-deprecating in the extreme when chastising ourselves using colourful metaphors, I meant that nobody on this topic has agreed with your belief that the electrician's mistake equates to stupidity.

Human error is part and parcel of everything, including professional workmanship. On those grounds, I would expect every tradesman to make the occasional error, but also to have processes in place to detect those errors and apply a pragmatic and economic approach to correcting them.

What if he believes that his error meant he had fallen short of good workmanship?

Then there are two possibilities:

A. He's wrong.
B. I'm wrong.

I happen to think the most likely scenario is that he was angry with himself, and that after calming down he made a wise decision in documenting non-compliace with the BS 7671 preference.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry, reading your posts more thoroughly I appreciate the point you are making. However, I'd argue that because the spark's lapse in concentration did not itself result in a contravention of any regs (514.3.2 has not been contravened for example), then it doesn't really count as poor workmanship and deserve to be considered a contravention of 134.1.1.

Hmmm...

"good" and "poor" are subjective - I guess it comes down to what the do-er thinks - if he doesn't think it's good then should he issue an EIC?

I'm in sparkyspike's camp - if I'd done it I'd want to replace it.

On the other hand I'd love to hear what his scheme would have to say if he listed under departures: "134.1.1 - some poor workmanship employed."

That would be a laugh.

OK, leaving aside that most of us are self-deprecating in the extreme when chastising ourselves using colourful metaphors,

I'd get banned from here for calling myself the things I call myself when I screw up.

I meant that nobody on this topic has agreed with your belief that the electrician's mistake equates to stupidity.

I was only using the term because the OP reported it - I'm not sure it was stupidity.

It was careless though, so let's hope he learned from it to pay more attention/not be so hasty/not work tired/whatever it was that was the root cause.