LABC being uncooperative

[JohnW2]

I agree. It relates to the OP in as much as they won't be doing any testing, someone else will do that.

Exactly

There seems to be no incentive to get it right first time, as "someone else will check it and tell me what, if anything, is wrong. I can then fix it".

You could say the same about any situation in which a 'repeatable test' was involved (whether an exam, a driving test an MOT or whatever0 - but in all those situations the majority of people are highly "self-incentivised" - i.e. would much prefer to "get it right first time".

In context, failure to get electrical work "right first time" would certainly involve extra work/hassle, and quite probably additional cost for further I&T.

Don't forget that those DIYers who choose to go through the notification process are ones who, at least in some senses' (hence probably 'in all senses') 'want to do things right'. The 'others' probably completely ignore the requirement for notification !

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

Don't forget that those DIYers who choose to go through the notification process are ones who, at least in some senses' (hence probably 'in all senses') 'want to do things right'.

I suppose, but it could in reality be anyone.

whether an exam, a driving test

I would hope you had prepared for your exam, and it isn't your first time a car!

 

[JohnW2]

I actually just found it a bit strange that the OP is doing the work but doesn't care/won't do any testing as someone else will do it, and tell them what is wrong, if anything.

I can understand that feeling, but he's in exactly the same position as the majority of electrical DIYers, in that he is not equipped (and possibly not knowledgeable enough) to do all the required testing. It's probably a bit harsh to say that he "... doesn't care/won't do any testing ..." given that this thread has included a fair bit of discussion about what testing he can do with a DVM. The situation is simply that he is not equipped/able to do all of the required testing.

At least one LABC I have found says if they do a final test on a non professional install at the end, it may only be for the notifiable parts. Anything non notifiable may not be tested.

Well, given that the LABC is only involved/interested in notifiable work, I suppose it's perfectly reasonable that should restrict their I&T requirements in that way. Afte rall, if all of the work, no matter how extensive, were non-notifiable, they would not be involved at all. However, as you go on to say ...

I presume someone shouldn't be installing anything that won't ultimately be tested as ok? I don't know enough about electrical regulations.

Your presumption is correct. All electrical work should be tested, and all should result in an EIC (or Minor Works Cert) being issued - by the DIYer if that's wh has done the work.

However, as we so often discuss, this is a fundamental problem with electrical DIY work, since very few DIYers have the kit (and/or the knowledge/experience) to undertake all of the testing that is theoretically/ideally required. Hence, if one takes the view that no electrical work should be undertaken if it is not 'fully tested', that would amount to saying that virtually no electrical DIY work should be done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose, but it could in reality be anyone.

Of course - but my point is that those who choose to 'obey the rules' and notify their electrical work are probably much more likely to also want to do the work satisfactorily/safely than are those who ignore the notification requirements. In fact, I would suggest that a good few DIYers are (perhaps because they 'have more time') probably more 'conscientious' than are some electricians.

I would hope you had prepared for your exam, and it isn't your first time a car!

Exactly - that's how most people think. Not very many will deliberately prepare themselves (or their car!) inadequately for an exam 'because they can only have another go'. People don't like 'failing'.

During my period of undertaking more exams than I care to remember, I did on occasions choose to sit exams earlier than really allowed me to do as much preparation as I would like (on the basis that I could always "have another go") but, even then, I tried as hard as I could to do enough preparation to 'pass' (and usually, but not always, succeeded!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

During my period of undertaking more exams than I care to remember, I did on occasions choose to sit exams earlier than really allowed me to do as much preparation as I would like (on the basis that I could always "have another go") but, even then, I tried as hard as I could to do enough preparation to 'pass' (and usually, but not always, succeeded!).

Same here. Going a bit OT, my daughter had to pass one of four accreditations for her job (legal requirement). She called to say she had passed, but just did the four of them while she was at it.

Of course - but my point is that those who choose to 'obey the rules' and notify their electrical work are probably much more likely to also want to do the work satisfactorily/safely than are those who ignore the notification requirements. In fact, I would suggest that a good few DIYers are (perhaps because they 'have more time') probably more 'conscientious' than are some electricians.

All agreed. I read most things on the electrics forum and the building notice thing just piqued my interest enough to respond.

 

[senfre_]

I actually just found it a bit strange that the OP is doing the work but doesn't care/won't do any testing as someone else will do it, and tell them what is wrong, if anything.

I definitely do care - it's my house and I want the circuits to stay on once I turn them on..
I will be doing testing throughout, and will probably invest a few hundred quid into testing equipment, but something like a multi-function tester would be an unjustifiable expense for me. That will still give me, say, 90% certainty that there are no faults.
But if / when the BCO rocks up with his Megger around his neck, I'll have total certainty. And seeing as they have to do it anyway, why not lean on it..

 

[denso13]

I will be doing testing throughout

Ok, that wasn't clear before, to me.

But if / when the BCO rocks up with his Megger around his neck, I'll have total certainty.

But you have already confirmed that by your testing. I was thinking more about people not so experienced.

 

[JohnW2]

Same here. Going a bit OT, my daughter had to pass one of four accreditations for her job (legal requirement). She called to say she had passed, but just did the four of them while she was at it.

Indeed. In the distant past, I did do a few exams which were not actually 'necessary' at the time but whose subject matter overlapped sufficiently with ones that I 'had to do' to mean that I didn't have to do too much extra work to do both - and that kept some of my future 'career options' a bit more open.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I reached out to my LABC to get an idea of the likely inspection fees, and once they caught wind that I didn't have formal qualifications, they flat out refused to deal with me ("I'm afraid it's a non starter").

I will be doing testing throughout, and will probably invest a few hundred quid into testing equipment, but something like a multi-function tester would be an unjustifiable expense for me. That will still give me, say, 90% certainty that there are no faults.

Now I am confused, to start you say LABC are to inspect and test, they your inspecting and testing? I now also have the problem with lack of test equipment.

The insulation tester and clamp on meter are cheap enough at £35 each, lucky also have my old insulation tester that also does low ohms, but loop impedance tester and RCD tester are darn expensive, I can borrow them, but then still need calibration certificates, so likely best idea is to hire. It seems between £50 to £60 per week, and a plug in tester with loop costs around £60 so hiring does seem the cheap option, the plug in testers do not go low enough to test a ring final.

I did have a problem getting the LABC inspector to allow me to test, they wanted me to pay for a third party tester, and my son asked the question (We both have our C&G 2391) if my dad passes it, and the third party tester fails it what will you do, accept the one with the higher qualifications is normal, and my dad has a degree. Only then did the LABC inspector say he would accept an installation certificate signed by me, not my son, which is not really what we wanted, as son had the insurance not me. So he looked at the test equipment laid out and my statement that I was hardly likely to put my parents in danger, and allowed me to sign.

Some 5 - 10 years latter we came to sell the house, and at first could not find the paperwork, so applied to the LABC for copies, told it would take 4 months and would cost how ever long it took council worker to find documents, in other word go away and don't be silly.

So one asks what was the point? So much for traceable records, we did in the end find the documents, and as I read them I realised there was no link between the completion certificate and the EIC, I could clearly just write out a new one covering what ever I wanted. And the three certificates said very little as to what superseded what, so one had no idea who was responsible for the work, kitchen, CU change, and wet rooms all had two sets of documents with nothing to say who did what.

The only reason I informed the LABC was we thought the builders had already done it. Other wise I would have not bothered. But you can't untell them.

 

[cdbe]

A £150 EICR will sort everything out, unless you have some massive point to prove. Was accepted by my LABC when I did DIY work in connection with my loft conversion. Having been involved in a few recent house sales/purchases it appears to be the only thing of interest to buyers and their solicitors - the jargon helps I think - EIC vs EICR (bit like everyone used to think a condensing boiler and a combination boiler were one and the same), that extra letter means it's got to be better right?

Even that section posted a few pages back says that the LA will (presumably depending on the extent of the work) get an electrician to carry out an EICR

 

[senfre_]

Now I am confused, to start you say LABC are to inspect and test, they your inspecting and testing? I now also have the problem with lack of test equipment.

The LABC will do a full test, but I wouldn't want to pay their inspection fee just for them to come and and find the polarity is wrong on a circuit or something, so I'll be testing what I can myself.

 

[EFLImpudence]

- EIC vs EICR ... ... , that extra letter means it's got to be better right?

No.

You only have to see EICRs reported on here to see that a lot are just nonsense.

 

[cdbe]

No.

You only have to see EICRs reported on here to see that a lot are just nonsense.

It was a rhetorical question. It's gets the tick in the box, the standards or lack of are an issue for a largely self policing electrical industry - I presume we haven't had any (or many) dead children yet to shake things up.

One of my EICR's was barely better than a "working from home version" didn't go upstairs as the woman was hiding under her mask, in and out in 10 minutes. My "box" was ticked, there is no laid down time to carry out the test for lay people to attempt to judge thoroughness or any thing else, not that we are expected too.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Fair enough.

The whole system in England - with virtually the only thing notifiable being a 'replacement' CU (if you can't get round the other two categories then you really should not be doing any electrical work) - should be scrapped.

 

[ericmark]

The what is included with the inspection question was why although using an EICR form the LABC who enguage the inspector not the home owner.

The EIC allows one to enter readings by enquiry, so it would be possible to get some one with the instruments to complete the schedule of reading and copy these readings.

But the EICR can't say if cables are in safe zones. Also we tend to measure to assist with design.

So for example when replacing a consumer unit if the earth leakage is 2.5 mA for 6 circuits then no reason they should not be all on one 30 mA RCD, my house for 14 RCBO's however shows around 26 mA, to put that on 2 RCD's would be silly.

Be it the loop impedance, earth leakage, where an existing installation is added to, or modified, we can't measure the lenght of cable in meters, so we use the resistance, impedance, to work out volt drop and prospective short circuit current. be it a loop impedance tester or low ohm meter, we need to measure.

And inductive and capacitive linking can't be measured using DC, so clamp on ammeter is required.

Plus the knowledge to to interpret the readings.

Once trained as an electrician I did a 36 hour course to teach and test my knowledge to do inspecting and testing, plus another 18 hours for equipment, and another 18 hours for the rule book, as a night class this took best part of a year, you can't expect to learn this without taking the time.