Electrical fire from socket after testing done by an electrician

[Kysi]

We recently had a new consumer unit fitted by an NICEIC electrician but for some reason despite many phone calls and emails, he did not provide us with a certificate which is required by law. Only after I made a complaint to the NICEIC, did he came back to retest the whole installation and issued us with a certificate and testing schedule.

As part of the testing, he removed the sockets faceplate in our house to check the wiring. All was well until yesterday when we had a had a small electrical fire originating from one of our electrical sockets which melted it and an adapter which was plugged in at the time. It was mostly burnt out but the heat source can be traced to the neutral wire. My guess is that when he pulled the socket out from the wall, he dislodged the neutral wire from the grub screw and was loose which heated up and melted the wire and socket. The neutral terminal broke off but I can see it was loose.

I have spoken to the Niceic who has arranged for an engineer to visit to investigate. My question is should he have checked the tightness of the connections when he removed the socket for inspection as part of the testing? Also, if he was at fault, what will happen to this electrician in question, who was behaving very strangely from the start?

Is £750 reasonable for replacing a 10 way Wylex consumer unit plus a sub unit which contains an RCD and 2 breakers? I was shocked wen he presented the bill but I would like to hear your comment.

 

[flameport]

My question is should he have checked the tightness of the connections when he removed the socket for inspection as part of the testing?

Generally items should be checked when replacing them, as it's fairly common for wires to be dislodged when removing accessories, or even finding them loose already.
Some tests would involve removing wires from terminals so in that case they would obviously have to be tightened.
Whether a loose wire caused this particular fault is unknown. A loose wire may have been the cause - but so could a faulty socket or plug.

Also, if he was at fault, what will happen to this electrician in question, who was behaving very strangely from the start?

What the Niceic do (if anything) is entirely up to them. They most likely won't tell you either.

Is £750 reasonable for replacing a 10 way Wylex consumer unit plus a sub unit which contains an RCD and 2 breakers? I was shocked wen he presented the bill

Depends on how much work was involved, where you live, etc. Doesn't seem grossly unreasonable. There are probably people who have had similar work done for less - and those who have paid more.
Surely you had a quote or some indication of price before the work was done?

 

[Adam_151]

Current wisdom is not to to nip up terminal screws on routine inspection, unless an issue is suspected... it can cause 'necking off' of the copper over time.. Do you know what was plugged into the adapter at the time of the inccident?

As to the price, it seems a little on the high side, but?:

Which area of the country?
How many circuits?
Dual RCD, or RCBOs to all circuits?
Did he have to do any other works such as bonding, or tracing low IR?
How long was he on site for?

 

[JohnW2]

Current wisdom is not to to nip up terminal screws on routine inspection, unless an issue is suspected... it can cause 'necking off' of the copper over time..

Interesting. If one does not 'attempt to tighten them', how can one know that they're not loose??

Kind Regards, John

 

[Kysi]

I'm in London. He was actually an electrical sub-contractor for the loft conversion company (I have another thread about that job!). Before I met him on site, I asked the loft company to pass on the message that we want the fuse board changed with a modern Wylex board and was quoted £500 which was very acceptable considering he was already on site.

He turned up with a budget branded board and only after a long talk with him trying hard to flog the crappy brand at me, I made him go out and buy a split load Wylex which I had stipulated from the start. Including the new loft circuits, it's 7 circuits. When he sent the bill, he wanted £750 citing that Wylex is more expensive (yes by only about £30) and we also needed a sub-board, which was an extra £50.

He didn't do any testing prior to ripping out the old fuse board and whatever testing he did took him like 10-15 minutes, and we didn't get a certificate until the nicEIC got involved and made him come back to test everything thoroughly which took several hours.

 

[Echo the husky]

Some photos might shed some light!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

When he sent the bill, he wanted £750 citing that Wylex is more expensive (yes by only about £30) and we also needed a sub-board, which was an extra £50.

£500 + £30 + £50 = £580.

I think I would have gone with "Here's your £580 - see you in court if you want to try and get £750".

 

[ericmark]

What we do it a reasonable inspection, if you have 20 sockets, and 3 are removed with no fault found, it is reasonable to assume there will not be faults at the others, however even if one socket has a fault then one would likely remove all. In the main the loop impedance reading will give the tester a good idea as to if there is likely a fault. Fitting a consumer unit one would do some testing, but it's not really an electrical installation condition report, it is just to find blatant errors.

Even using a torque screw driver you can't show if a screw is binding on threads or tight. Once a screw gets hot, any binding on threads will likely easy off, so after the even near impossible to tell if screw not tight or threads binding. However in the main sockets don't simply burst into flames, you get a smell first, like fish, then you see some discolouring, and finally the fire. Also very few items draw enough current to cause a fire at the socket. It may cause a short circuit and the RCD or MCB to trip, but rare for a fire.

Now with some adaptors

they remove the standard protection given by the fuse, so with a 16A Euro plug in that adaptor you could draw 32A. If an adaptor like that was used then it would be considered that the adaptor caused the problem not the lose wire.

I will admit I have considered many times, does removing a socket to inspect and test highlight enough problems to be worth doing when the removing and refitting can also cause a fault, if I was fitting a CU I would test for a ring at the consumer unit, not at a random socket. The same for volt drop and loop impedance. With a radial yes you have to test at last socket, but not with a ring.

It could be said that one should test each terminal is free running before fitting the item, however we come to "reasonable" if you have fitted 9 sockets and every one was A1 is it still "reasonable" to test the terminal is free running?

So if the NICEIC has been called to 10 jobs by that electrician with faults, then maybe it's "reasonable" to take action. However when in England the scheme providers were asked how many electricians have been expelled from the scheme the number was extremely low. At it seemed in the main due to early onset of alzheimers and it was pointed out the percentage of members expelled was less than percentage of population who get alzheimers before retirement age. I was the low expelled figure which was a major reason for reducing work which needed notifying.

 

[EFLImpudence]

However when in England the scheme providers were asked how many electricians have been expelled from the scheme the number was extremely low. At it seemed in the main due to early onset of alzheimers and it was pointed out the percentage of members expelled was less than percentage of population who get alzheimers before retirement age. I was the low expelled figure which was a major reason for reducing work which needed notifying.

Was it? Have you any verification?

That would seem to be an unlikely reason for removing, among other ancillary trades, all kitchen fitters from those required to register, which was, I thought, one of the main reasons for the original introduction of the scheme.

I would suspect lobbying as a more likely cause.

 

[JohnW2]

I would suspect lobbying as a more likely cause.

Who are you thinking might have lobbied [for the fairly drastic reduction in what is notifiable (in England)]? On the face of it, one would not have expected electricians (certainly not self-certifying ones), their trade organisations or the scheme providers to have wanted to lobby for that change - so who?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Kitchen fitting companies.

As I said, as I understood it at the time (2005), the 'regulation/control' of ancillary trades was the reason notification was introduced therefore, I think, removing kitchens and outdoor supplies from the notification list removes everyone (apart from plumbers fitting new electric showers) except actual electricians from the need to register, has virtually negated any benefit that the scheme may have had.

Certainly a more likely reason than alzheimers.

 

[JohnW2]

Kitchen fitting companies.

OK, fair enough - although I'm a little surprised that lobbying from them would have been effective enough to over-ride all of the other interested individuals/organisations whose interests (or members' interests) would have been best served by the original notification rules persisting.

Certainly a more likely reason than alzheimers.

Agreed, although eric did have a point. If the scheme providers were doing their job conscientiously, one would expect them to 'de-register' people who were deemed to have become unfit to do the job for medical (or whatever) reasons - so, as eric implied, in an ideal world one would probably expect the scheme providers to be 'de-registering' at least the proportion of people who would be expected to suffer from those medical conditions in the general population.

Mind you, it would be a matter of 'judgement' - very early Alzheimer's Disease does not necessarily prevent someone from working competently and safely as an electrician.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who are you thinking might have lobbied [for the fairly drastic reduction in what is notifiable (in England)]? On the face of it, one would not have expected electricians (certainly not self-certifying ones), their trade organisations or the scheme providers to have wanted to lobby for that change - so who?

If the consultation document is still around that might give a clue.

 

[JohnW2]

If the consultation document is still around that might give a clue.

I suspect that it probably isn't still around but, even if it were, I strongly suspect that the sort of lobbying which is being suggested probably often/usually happen by methods which are not apparent in written material such as consultation documents!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Lectrician]

£500 + £30 + £50 = £580.

I think I would have gone with "Here's your £580 - see you in court if you want to try and get £750".

What about the labour for the sub board, and for travelling to purchase the Wylex, assuming he didn't know/wasn't informed about the Wylex request from the loft company?