Builder set cable into concrete with no conduit.

[Tayjen]

So either the resin kit, or a maintenance free junction box behind the boxing is the way to go.

Brilliant, either solution certainly sounds better than the worse case scenario I was dreading. It hopefully wont even cost us anything if our builder sticks to his word.

Thank you all very much.

 

[mattysupra]

just having a quick read, im not a sparky so unsure of regs etc. But i do run a training centre for floorcoverings.

I read this is poor practice but o.k to have cable here?


As someone has pointed out, gripper could be nailed here. Also do the regs not say something along the lines of 'the cable should be a minimum of 50mm below and protected? '

We are not sparkys so we dont know the ins and outs, we do point out safe zones to floor-layers, as far as i understand the area the cable is burred in is a safe zone so should not be there?

Is this correct? if so then who is responsible to repair the above?

 

[sparkwright]

So either the resin kit, or a maintenance free junction box behind the boxing is the way to go.

Brilliant, either solution certainly sounds better than the worse case scenario I was dreading. It hopefully wont even cost us anything if our builder sticks to his word.

Thank you all very much.

TWO junction boxes.

 

[sparkwright]

just having a quick read, im not a sparky so unsure of regs etc. But i do run a training centre for floorcoverings.

I read this is poor practice but o.k to have cable here?


As someone has pointed out, gripper could be nailed here. Also do the regs not say something along the lines of 'the cable should be a minimum of 50mm below and protected? '

We are not sparkys so we dont know the ins and outs, we do point out safe zones to floor-layers, as far as i understand the area the cable is burred in is a safe zone so should not be there?

Is this correct? if so then who is responsible to repair the above?

As said before, no safe zones applicable to floors, but common sense should come into it. I would have expected to have seen it deeper.

Don't know how much cable is buried, but that shown in the picture would have been better off inside the boxing.

Would have liked to see the cable in some kind of conduit, though it would still have got drilled through.

 

[JohnW2]

As said before, no safe zones applicable to floors, but common sense should come into it. I would have expected to have seen it deeper.

I think we can all agree with that.

Don't know how much cable is buried, but that shown in the picture would have been better off inside the boxing.

Yes, but my understanding is that there was previously no boxing and that,in fact, it was drilling holes to install boxing which caused this whole problem!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattysupra]

just having a quick read, im not a sparky so unsure of regs etc. But i do run a training centre for floorcoverings.

I read this is poor practice but o.k to have cable here?


As someone has pointed out, gripper could be nailed here. Also do the regs not say something along the lines of 'the cable should be a minimum of 50mm below and protected? '

We are not sparkys so we dont know the ins and outs, we do point out safe zones to floor-layers, as far as i understand the area the cable is burred in is a safe zone so should not be there?

Is this correct? if so then who is responsible to repair the above?

As said before, no safe zones applicable to floors, but common sense should come into it. I would have expected to have seen it deeper.

Don't know how much cable is buried, but that shown in the picture would have been better off inside the boxing.

Would have liked to see the cable in some kind of conduit, though it would still have got drilled through.

so who is at fault here? (which i think the op is trying to get at also)

Builder / sparky has burred cable in what would be a daft place and its got no protection either (not that i can see the logic behind some thin metal protecting it as you will drill through without realizing anyway)

 

[JohnW2]

so who is at fault here? (which i think the op is trying to get at also) ... Builder / sparky has burred cable in what would be a daft place and its got no protection either (not that i can see the logic behind some thin metal protecting it as you will drill through without realizing anyway)

Sure, that's what the OP wants to know. However, if no regulations have been breached by the daft location of the cable, it could be that no-one (other thah the regulations!) is officially 'to blame'. I certainly think that the carpenter is blameless - he really had no reason to suspect that there would be a shallow cable there. In common sense terms, the builder (or whoever) who buried the cable is obviously the actual 'culprit', but if they can successfully argue that they haven't breached any regulations (some of which are 'debatable') the may well be able to get themselves off the 'responsibility hook'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattysupra]

so who is at fault here? (which i think the op is trying to get at also) ... Builder / sparky has burred cable in what would be a daft place and its got no protection either (not that i can see the logic behind some thin metal protecting it as you will drill through without realizing anyway)

Sure, that's what the OP wants to know. However, if no regulations have been breached by the daft location of the cable, it could be that no-one (other thah the regulations!) is officially 'to blame'. I certainly think that the carpenter is blameless - he really had no reason to suspect that there would be a shallow cable there. In common sense terms, the builder (or whoever) who buried the cable is obviously the actual 'culprit', but if they can successfully argue that they haven't breached any regulations (some of which are 'debatable') the may well be able to get themselves off the 'responsibility hook'.

Kind Regards, John

Im surprised that the regs dont cover concrete sub-floors with what i read about how strict they are on other items you come across. As you say, the regs are wrong here then. Also being a little stupid by the sounds of things.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it had been passing through floor joists then the 522.6.100 is absolutely clear about it having to be 50mm deep, or in steel conduit, or mechanically protected etc. Mind you - it would also allow you to use BS 8436 cable as an alternative to those, which would do b****r all to resist a nail.

 

[JohnW2]

Im surprised that the regs dont cover concrete sub-floors with what i read about how strict they are on other items you come across. As you say, the regs are wrong here then. Also being a little stupid by the sounds of things.

I don't disagree with any of that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If it had been passing through floor joists then the 522.6.100 is absolutely clear about it having to be 50mm deep, or in steel conduit, or mechanically protected etc. Mind you - it would also allow you to use BS 8436 cable as an alternative to those, which would do b****r all to resist a nail.

... let alone the carpenter's drill! Can the OP sue BS7671?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[viewer]

Surely any builder would expect long fixings to be used in a bathroom?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

522.6.2 & 522.8.7

 

[riveralt]

522.6.2 & 522.8.7

JohnW2 this is your fault for encouraging BAS to get the green book

These sections are typical examples of a catch all - that is just waiting to taken to the civil court - to earn someone lots of money!
I suppose the builder should have anticipated that a fork lift truck might be used in this area and taken proper steps to prevent this incident.
522.8.7 is probably closest but still wide open to interpretation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I needed to get one anyway - must go and take the exam soon.

Fork-lift is just one example, and the same note includes "where the floor is likely to be penetrated".

But I agree - it's all a vaguely worded lawyers and expert witnesses charter.