I have employed a cowboy electrician: What now?

[JohnW2]

There is no suggestion in 433.1.204 that it applies to the spur.

That's the section in the current edition which stipulates the 20A rating for the ring cable?

Yes - but, as EFLI has said, it can certainly be read to not relate to the spur cable. Having said that, we're only talking about a minimum CCC, and 2.5mm² is rarely going to have a CCC <20A, anyway, so I don't think it's much of a practical issue.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Yes - but, as EFLI has said, it can certainly be read to not relate to the spur cable.

Not now perhaps, but my point was that in the past the applicable regulation did relate to both ring & spur cables as far as I can recall, hence why I suspect it was decided in the light of experience or after more careful thought to limit the number of single sockets on a non-fused spur to just one in the belief that there would be less chance of a current significantly in excess of 20A flowing for a significant period in that spur cable.

If that two-thirds rule no longer applies to the spur cable, then I suppose it could be argued that the "one single socket only" rule which has now become just a recommendation is no longer applicable either but has just not been removed completely. Unless the idea now is related not to the spur cable itself but to an attempt to avoid putting a 26A load at a single point on the ring. But then, of course, unless something else has changed there's nothing to stop somebody running two separate spurs from the same point on the ring to two separate single (or even double) sockets, which could have the same result.

I don't think the rules regarding rings and spurs therefrom have ever really made a whole lot of sense. For example, why was it always pemissible to run a double socket on a non-fused spur which could be loaded up to 20/26A (take your pick!), but not permissible to feed a single 13A socket with an FCU next to it for some tiny load like an alarm panel, exhaust fan, etc. fitted with a 3A or smaller fuse?

 

[JohnW2]

Not now perhaps, but my point was that in the past the applicable regulation did relate to both ring & spur cables as far as I can recall ...

Yes, I realise that - but, as I just wrote, it never really meant much in practice, since the spur cable was nearly always going to have a CCC of two-thirds of the OPD rating (i.e. ~20A), anyway.

If that two-thirds rule no longer applies to the spur cable, then I suppose it could be argued that the "one single socket only" rule which has now become just a recommendation is no longer applicable either but has just not been removed completely.

I don't really understand - the 'two-thirds rule' (or, more recently, 20A) has only ever been a minimum, whether it applies to spur cables or not.

Unless the idea now is related not to the spur cable itself but to an attempt to avoid putting a 26A load at a single point on the ring.

I've always suspected that, at least now, that is the main thinking, but ....

But then, of course, unless something else has changed there's nothing to stop somebody running two separate spurs from the same point on the ring to two separate single (or even double) sockets, which could have the same result.

Indeed. However, as I've just written, the designer is required to be satisfied that it is unlikley that any of the ring cable will be overloaded for appreciable times, and these 'rules' (guidances) as to what can be connected to a spur (max of either a double socket or a 13A FCU) are one of the things that help a designer to be so satisfied.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Echo the husky]

There is a corrigendum just issued, did you know?
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-regulations/updates/index.cfm

You mean there are mistakes in my brand new £80 book! What am I paying all this money for?

 

[PHILOSOPHERDAN]

1) There are at least two spurs each feeding two double sockets and wired with standard 2.5mm cable. One in the bedroom and one in the kitchen. I was told that, for example, in the bedroom were someone to use an electric heater and a hair dryer and perhaps another couple of things plugged in, then the wire might overheat and catch fire. The double sockets in the kitchen are above the work surface and might easily be used for kettle, toaster, microwave etc simultaneously. Is it correct that this is a problem and/or against regs? What is the solution – given that the channels have been decorated over (with polyfiller and repainting the wall in the bedroom, and with newly installed tiles in the kitchen)? Installing a Fused Connection Unit, or is there any other easy, cost effective option?

2) It is the earth sleeve which has been left off in at least one single socket – the bedroom socket from which the there is a spur to two double sockets. I was told that if it were to touch the live cable then the radiators and/or sink might become live (there is currently a 1961 vintage fuse unit – putting in a new consumer unit is one of the things I needed the electrician to do). Is this correct?

3) The wire to the 10.8kw shower says on it ‘2x6.5+2.5sqmm’. Paul the electrician claims he thought it is a 9.5kw shower – even though the box was standing there in the bathroom.

4) We can differentiate the issues of competency from the issues of honesty. Paul the electrician said he would install 10sqmm cable to the shower and install thicker cable to the hifi and charged me for it. He also said he would be finished before Christmas…

5) He said he would provide the requisite notifications to the council upon completion of the work – though I cannot find him listed in the ‘competent persons scheme’ so do not know what this amounts to. What fees does the council require if someone who is a member of the competent person’s scheme installs news sockets and/or circuits? What about if the installer is not a member? Does it apply to rewiring of the lighting circuit or only to sockets?

6) I was an hour’s drive away, and talking to Paul on the phone during yesterday’s confrontation, so I had very little influence on what he did.

7) Paul refused to reason or negotiate to come to fair and equitable agreement – that is what I was willing and planning on doing.

8) The front door was unlocked, unfortunately, and he just walked in. He was threatening to remove and/or cut the wiring that he had done – which could be argued to be criminal damage. Would that not be be sufficient grounds for the policeman to remove him.

9) Paul clearly does not understand the law so given that Paul was emboldened to act by the policeman’s failure to do anything, I had every reason to think that he would do the damage if I had not paid him the £150 – which would leave me worse off.

10) Reading on the web, extracting money from someone through threats to perform criminal damage is blackmail – it is what mafia ‘protection’ rackets involve afterall. So I guess that means I can report him to the police and see if they charge him. As well as complaining about the policeman who just left him to get on with his blackmailing.

 

[PHILOSOPHERDAN]

I meant to start off by writing: Thanks for the replies and advice. Just to clarify.

 

[DaveHerns]

I agree the performance of the PC was pretty pathetic

 

[PBC_1966]

1) There are at least two spurs each feeding two double sockets and wired with standard 2.5mm cable. One in the bedroom and one in the kitchen.

Not good, as there's wide scope for overloading the spur cable there, especially in the kitchen where multiple higher-powered appliances are likely to be in use simultaneously.

What is the solution – given that the channels have been decorated over (with polyfiller and repainting the wall in the bedroom, and with newly installed tiles in the kitchen)? Installing a Fused Connection Unit, or is there any other easy, cost effective option?

Adding an FCU with 13A fuse would prevent danger from overload, but might not result in something terribly convenient if you can't use a kettle and microwave oven simultaneously on the kitchen outlets.

2) It is the earth sleeve which has been left off in at least one single socket – the bedroom socket from which the there is a spur to two double sockets. I was told that if it were to touch the live cable then the radiators and/or sink might become live (there is currently a 1961 vintage fuse unit – putting in a new consumer unit is one of the things I needed the electrician to do). Is this correct?

It doesn't conform with BS7671 rules, but as noted above already, not a big deal. It used to be the norm to leave the earth wires bare. In the unlikely event that it did ever short out to a live terminal, it should trip the appropriate breaker or blow the appropriate fuse, just the same as any similar live-to-earth fault in a portable appliance (which is why the earth wire is there in the first place). So even if that were to happen, so long as the earth is connected correctly at the other end and the fuse/MCB is satisfactory, it wouldn't leave any exposed metalwork live.

3) The wire to the 10.8kw shower says on it ‘2x6.5+2.5sqmm’. Paul the electrician claims he thought it is a 9.5kw shower – even though the box was standing there in the bathroom.

Are you sure it says 2 x 6.5 ? That's not a standard conductor size: 1, 1.5, 2.5, 4, 6, 10, 16 and upward.

4) We can differentiate the issues of competency from the issues of honesty. Paul the electrician said he would install 10sqmm cable to the shower and install thicker cable to the hifi and charged me for it.

Certainly - Regardless of whether you really need that heavier cable to bring power to the hi-fi or not, if he said that's what he would install and that's what he's charged you for, he could not be said to be being entirely honest. Do you have an itemized invoice showing this, by the way?

5) He said he would provide the requisite notifications to the council upon completion of the work – though I cannot find him listed in the ‘competent persons scheme’ so do not know what this amounts to.

If you were trying to do everything completely legal, notification works two ways. If he's a member of one of the schemes, he notifies after completion through his scheme. If he's not a member, then notification is required to be made to the local authority before work commences.

What fees does the council require if someone who is a member of the competent person’s scheme installs news sockets and/or circuits?

None - The council does not get involved directly in that case. The electrician notifies via his scheme for a very small sum and that's it.

What about if the installer is not a member?

Then - to do it legally - it's the same process as if you were doing it yourself: Notify the council, and they will expect a fee of anything from £100 upwards, in some areas three or even four times that much. Then afterward they will either send somebody to inspect, or - more likely - demand that you get some other qualified person in to inspect, at your additional expense.

Does it apply to rewiring of the lighting circuit or only to sockets?

It used to apply to a wide range of work, but the current regulations require notification only for:

(a) the installation of a new circuit;

(b) replacement of a consumer unit;

and (c) alterations in a special location, which means around baths & showers etc.

8) The front door was unlocked, unfortunately, and he just walked in. He was threatening to remove and/or cut the wiring that he had done – which could be argued to be criminal damage. Would that not be be sufficient grounds for the policeman to remove him.

Indeed, as I understand the legal, position, once something is attached to the fabric of the building it becomes part of that building whether paid for or not, so I think it certainly could be construed as a threat to do criminal damage.

Unfortunately, as has happened numerous times in other fields, the police in Britain these days do not always understand the law and do not want to get involved in something which won't end up being an "easy" tick in their boxes, so "It's a civil matter, Sir."

 

[EFLImpudence]

I did - but only so as to refer to a fairly extreme case, and one for which the maths was simple What would your answer be if I had talked about 5m, or even 10m, from the end of a 50m ring - would you have thought it acceptable to originate a 4mm multi-socket unfused spur at one or both of those points?

I'm not sure what you want me to say.
If the maximum load is 32A, then 27A is 84% and 16% round a 50m ring is 8m.

Indeed, but several spurs with very close origins is another thing that a designer might well feel is not acceptable in terms of "making it unlikely that any part of the ring cable will be overloaded for appreciable periods of time".

Yes, I know. I keep saying it's up to the designer.
I know I didn't mention it to the OP but his spur is already there and the 'electrician', albeit allegedly unreliable, has installed it.
When the next poster asks about a spur, is the first question going to be "How far along the ring is it?".

Exactly, and in order to make such overloading "unlikely", the designer can...
(a)... not install sockets close to one another on the ring, particularly near an end of the ring.
(b)... not install spurs close to one another on the ring, particularly near an end of the ring.
(c)... not install a (4mm²) unfused spur serving umpteen sockets, particularly near an end of the ring.
... so the thing we are discussing is just one of several things the designer can do (or avoid doing) in order to minimise the risk of any of the ring cable being overloaded for significant periods.

Aren't they all the same? Near the end of the ring being the relevant point.
So, elsewhere on the ring and they would be alright.

 

[JohnW2]

I did - but only so as to refer to a fairly extreme case, and one for which the maths was simple What would your answer be if I had talked about 5m, or even 10m, from the end of a 50m ring - would you have thought it acceptable to originate a 4mm multi-socket unfused spur at one or both of those points?

I'm not sure what you want me to say.

I don't "want" you to say anything - I would simply be interested to know how far around a ring you felt that the origin had to be for you to stick with your original statement that a 4mm² multi-socket unfused spur would be acceptable.

If the maximum load is 32A, then 27A is 84% and 16% round a 50m ring is 8m.

Indeed - so (with CCC=27A) you cannot have more than 2 x 13A outlets within 8m of either end of a 50m ring if you want to be certain that the shorter leg of the cable is not going to be overloaded. If (as permitted by regs) CCC is only 20A, then that 8m goes up to nearly 19m, so, to have that 'certainty', you could not have more than 2 x 13A outlets within ~19m of either end of the ring - leaving only the middle ~12m of that 50m ring for 'as many as you like' sockets (on ring or spurred).

However, as I said before, those are the 'extreme' calculations ('worst/best case') that I usually present. What I'm really asking you is whether you always feel the need for that degree of certainty, or whether you would sometimes/often feel that it was "unlikley" that the short leg would be overloaded even though there were more than two 13A outlets within 8m (or 19m) of the end of the ring.

When the next poster asks about a spur, is the first question going to be "How far along the ring is it?".

Interesting question. I suppose that if we want to advise on the basis of 'proper design decisions', then that question should really be asked, as well as asking about what other sockets/spurs were nearby on the ring. If there were already several sockets and/or spurs quite close to an end of the ring, I would usually feel inclined to advise against originating any further spurs from that region of the ring, wouldn't you?

.... Aren't they all the same? Near the end of the ring being the relevant point.
So, elsewhere on the ring and they would be alright.

They're obviously all conceptually similar. It's only definitely 'alright' if one is in that middle region of the ring (middle 34m of 50m ring with CCC=27A, middle 12m of 50m ring with CCC=20A) where overloading of one leg of the ring cable is 'impossible' (if total load on circuit does not exceed 32A) - the further one moves out of that region, the greater does the risk of overload become.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yeah but, no.

Your (over)loading worries apply to sockets on the ring just as much as a spur so making the spur safe is surely a good start.

The 13A fusing for spurs with more than one socket is to protect the spur cable, not to reduce loading on the ring.

The CCC of a ring cable must be 20A minimum but the regulation also demands 2.5mm² minimum (except MICC) - why is this?
What do they think is going to happen?

 

[JohnW2]

Your (over)loading worries apply to sockets on the ring just as much as a spur ...

Yes, but one unfused spur serving umpteen sockets would (if 'close' to an end of the ring) be far more likely to result in overload of the ring than is one socket added to the ring at the same place.

The 13A fusing for spurs with more than one socket is to protect the spur cable, not to reduce loading on the ring.

Maybe, but who knows what was the thinking behind what Appendix 15 says?

The CCC of a ring cable must be 20A minimum but the regulation also demands 2.5mm² minimum (except MICC) - why is this? What do they think is going to happen?

Goodness knows - you're asking the wrong person!! Given that it's only CCC which matters electrically, were they perhaps for some reason thinking that 1.5mm² had greater susceptibility to mechanical damage? Maybe this was written by the same person who feels that 1mm² cable is never acceptable for a 'power' circuit?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'd love to know how you feel the OP could handle the situation any better.

By defusing the situation, and ending up with a better resolution.

Sounds like Paul was being aggressive, threatening and prepared to do as he threatened.

All of which - the aggression, the threatened actions, possibly the refusal to leave, are criminal offences. If the cowboy had a claim against the OP then his recourse is via the courts, not by gaining entry and setting about the process of criminal damage and theft. And I'm sure he knows that full well.

 

[PHILOSOPHERDAN]

Dear Mr Sheds – or may I call you ‘Ban-All’?


Perhaps you need to reread my posts. I was speaking on the telephone to him – I was not present - which automatically limits my range of options. Perhaps you have lived a charmed life and have not encountered someone angry, not too bright, and unwilling to listen. In response to every attempt to reason with him or calm him down he just repeated his threats, getting gradually more hysterical and impatient.


Paul seemed to genuinely believe it was a civil matter and he was entitled to take out his wiring – especially once the policeman left without correcting. I certainly had no reason to think he did not believe this, and so would not carry through on his threats. It was this which I had to base my calculation upon. Furthermore I did not know the law myself at this point - though obviously what was relevant here was my estimation of Paul’s beliefs about the law.

 

[PBC_1966]

Excuse me if this has already been covered somewhere and I missed it, but:

He ended up saying ‘make me an offer to go’ and he ended up saying he would take £150 to leave and not rip his stuff out so I just paid him rather than risk him ripping all his stuff out which would have left me even worse off and without downstairs lighting, and without power to the fridge-freezer.

Exactly how did you pay him when you were elsewhere? By giving a card number over the phone on the spot, perhaps?