Broken cables in a wall

[opps]

The above is about 8 inches tall.

On reflection they look like they are 2.5mm T&E. I hadn't noticed that there is a 2 gang socket below it.

The depth of the plaster is 45mm.

The left of the image is dot and dab plasterboard. I suspect that (further) to the right will be dot and dab as well. The customer recalls that the builders forgot to fit a socket and extended the ring via the ceiling (rather than ripping up the floor.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Can you get into the ceiling - floor above?

Perhaps you could alter the circuit and disconnect the damaged cable and making the other cable a spur.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Or maybe the connections are all in a socket upstairs.

 

[blup]

The quickwire looks neat but is only rated at at 24 amps, not sure that is adequate for buried 2.5mm2 T&E.

 

[Taylortwocities]

The quickwire looks neat but is only rated at at 24 amps, not sure that is adequate for buried 2.5mm2 T&E.

Be careful which Quickwire connector you use. The info says the Quickwire QSP32 is only 16amp. Definitely not man (should we say person) enough for repairing a ring final.
There is another version, the QSP32-24 which can handle 24amp.

 

[ebee]

There is no legal in sparking. Only ignorant people talk about the regs using the words legal and illegal

It’s either compliant or not compliant with the regs

Correct - BS7671 (The IET Wiring Regulations) is NOT a legal document = it does not have the force of law.
However, if you are invited to prove that you have done things in a not unsafe manner then attention will be drawn to and you endeavours will be compared to it.
So the sensible option, to most of us, is to comply with it even though it is not the law to do so - unless we are bound by the terms of a contract to comply with it.
It is also referenced pretty much in the quite recent Landlord Legislation (which is law) and comparisons must be made to achieve compliance with the 18th Edition of the Wiring Regulations , no mention of amendments 1 or 2 or any subsequent ones either.
I suspect that the Highway Code has a similar relationship to Road Traffic Acts etc, but I might be wrong about that.

 

[aveatry]

View attachment 332101

The above is about 8 inches tall.

Just got to add - that is a perfect shot right in the middle - what are the chances !!!
Anyway what was the electrician doing drilling a random hole in the middle of nowhere. Also why is he not fixing his mistake.

 

[blup]

Be careful which Quickwire connector you use. The info says the Quickwire QSP32 is only 16amp. Definitely not man (should we say person) enough for repairing a ring final.
There is another version, the QSP32-24 which can handle 24amp.

But is 24 amps adequate for say clipped direct t&e with 27 amp capacity?

 

[blup]

Correct - BS7671 (The IET Wiring Regulations) is NOT a legal document = it does not have the force of law.
However, if you are invited to prove that you have done things in a not unsafe manner then attention will be drawn to and you endeavours will be compared to it.
So the sensible option, to most of us, is to comply with it even though it is not the law to do so - unless we are bound by the terms of a contract to comply with it.
It is also referenced pretty much in the quite recent Landlord Legislation (which is law) and comparisons must be made to achieve compliance with the 18th Edition of the Wiring Regulations , no mention of amendments 1 or 2 or any subsequent ones either.
I suspect that the Highway Code has a similar relationship to Road Traffic Acts etc, but I might be wrong about that.

It must have the force of law otherwise consumer units would still be made out of plastic. The regs set standards and those standards are developed (improved?) from time to time

 

[Taylortwocities]

But is 24 amps adequate for say clipped direct t&e with 27 amp capacity?

The load on one “leg” of a ring final is generally assumed to average 20amp. That’s why I specifically stated it’s ability to do this repair IF it is one “leg” of a ring that has been damaged. We don’t know that is the case.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It must have the force of law otherwise consumer units would still be made out of plastic.

That's an interesting point.

The London Fire Brigade stated that consumer units were the cause of many fires (presumably in London) and seemingly without any investigation of the actual cause (loose/poor terminals, for example) it was immediately deemed by the regulation authors that consumer units shall in future be made of non-combustible material (or be enclosed in such).

Their footnote comment that steel was one such substance (even if technically it wasn't) was all it took to cause every manufacturer to ignore the actual requirements and to henceforth only use steel.

A very strange sequence of events.

 

[blup]

That's an interesting point.

The London Fire Brigade stated that consumer units were the cause of many fires (presumably in London) and seemingly without any investigation of the actual cause (loose/poor terminals, for example) it was immediately deemed by the regulation authors that consumer units shall in future be made of non-combustible material (or be enclosed in such).

Their footnote comment that steel was one such substance (even if technically it wasn't) was all it took to cause every manufacturer to ignore the actual requirements and to henceforth only use steel.

A very strange sequence of events.

As I understand that it the building regs are rarely if ever prescriptive because a) it would be unpractical and b) someone might be able to demonstrate an alternative way of achieving a desired safety outcome. But if you are prosecuted for breach of health and safety or building regs compliance with the specified regulations will be a full defence. So in effect they are requirements. Or to put it another way you have to show good reason to diverge from them. Fire and rescue simply want to reduce risk of fire or spread of fire. Poor terminations might be the cause of fire but steel casings will surely achieve reduction in spread to allow for safe egress from buildings. Then there’s Grenfell…..

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I understand that it the building regs are rarely if ever prescriptive because a) it would be unpractical and b) someone might be able to demonstrate an alternative way of achieving a desired safety outcome.

You have changed the subject. The Building Regulations are statutory
All they say about electrics is:

But if you are prosecuted for breach of health and safety or building regs compliance with the specified regulations will be a full defence. So in effect they are requirements. Or to put it another way you have to show good reason to diverge from them.

Well, yes, but again, they are statutory; The Wiring Regulations are not.

Fire and rescue simply want to reduce risk of fire or spread of fire. Poor terminations might be the cause of fire but steel casings will surely achieve reduction in spread to allow for safe egress from buildings. Then there’s Grenfell…..

Maybe but would it not be better to prevent the fire in the first place and is that the way to run things - a fireman said...?

 

[ebee]

The wiring regs, in themselves, do not have the force of law. If you wire in accordance with the Regs then you are likely to achieve all of your legal requirements. You might know other ways to comply with the actual laws but you would need considerable knowledge, experience, determination and asbestos underpants to ignore the Regs

 

[blup]

You have changed the subject. The Building Regulations are statutory
All they say about electrics is:
View attachment 332235


Well, yes, but again, they are statutory; The Wiring Regulations are not.


Maybe but would it not be better to prevent the fire in the first place and is that the way to run things - a fireman said...?

Its a criminal offence not to comply with the building regs or any requirements under them, that must include Part P and BS7671, simples. The onus is on the sparky to prove how his/her work otherwise complies, it seems to me.

They are fire fighters and have been for a long time