New fuse box needed - would it be easier to become an electrician than employ one?

[Arbu]

Well, he has left without having done the bonding (I never asked him to do it there and then), so I suppose he hasn't finished the job yet. Someone who knows about these part p certificates should know whether they can be issued just in relation to the fuse box or not. I'm not sure that I understand your question about how you can know.

If there is already main bonding from the point of entry to the bathroom, then why can the water and gas pipes in the kitchen not be bonded to that? The bathroom is between the entrance to my flat and the kitchen where the water and gas pipes are, so that would seem a lot easier than bringing bonding all the way through the flat from the fuse box to the kitchen, as the electrician wants to do.

I read the wikipedia article on bonding, and it actually seems quite simple. But it doesn't answer my question above. Maybe I need to read more.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, he has left without having done the bonding (I never asked him to do it there and then), so I suppose he hasn't finished the job yet.

Strictly speaking, no it is not finished.

Someone who knows about these part p certificates should know whether they can be issued just in relation to the fuse box or not. I'm not sure that I understand your question about how you can know.

I meant - how can we know what he is going to do.

It is nothing to do with Part P which is a very short Building Regulation that simply states:

That's it; there is no more.


You should, within a reasonable time, have received an Electrical Installation Certificate, a Schedule of inspections and a Schedule of Test Results which will/should contain the details of the main bonding.


Notification is a different matter and replacing a consumer unit is one thing that must be notified to the Local Authority.
A registered electrician has to tell his registration body within thirty days that his work complies with the regulations. No details are submitted apart from a statement such as in this case: "Replacement consumer unit fitted". The body then informs the LA of just that and issues a Compliance Certificate and sends it to you.

So if the electrician lies because he has not actually completed the job by upgrading the bonding how are we to know?

If there is already main bonding from the point of entry to the bathroom, then why can the water and gas pipes in the kitchen not be bonded to that?

There isn't main bonding from the bathroom.
Please forget about bathroom and kitchen and read what I have written about it and the point of entry to the premises.

The bathroom is between the entrance to my flat and the kitchen where the water and gas pipes are, so that would seem a lot easier than bringing bonding all the way through the flat from the fuse box to the kitchen, as the electrician wants to do.

So, he wants to do it right and you are complaining about that.

I read the wikipedia article on bonding, and it actually seems quite simple. But it doesn't answer my question above. Maybe I need to read more.

You definitely do.
You can start by reading and taking note of what I have written and stop asking the same question.

 

[conny]

I have a question.
Do you rent the flat or have you bought it, but not bought the freehold?

Quite simply, if you pay a landlord rent each month without having a vested interest in the property, (i.e. Landlord sells it to someone else and you don't get a share of the proceeds), then all this is the landlords responsibility. Disregard what it said in that link you posted at the start.

 

[JohnW2]

I have a question. ... Do you rent the flat or have you bought it, but not bought the freehold? Quite simply, if you pay a landlord rent each month without having a vested interest in the property, (i.e. Landlord sells it to someone else and you don't get a share of the proceeds), then all this is the landlords responsibility. Disregard what it said in that link you posted at the start.

We've been through all this at length.

The OP is the leasehold 'owner', having entered into a 999 year Lease in 1979. That Lease described him as the 'Tenant' - which, as I have said, appears to be standard legal terminology in this situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Quite often some terms have different meanings according to in which context they are asked. Such as everyday speech, tech speech, legal speech, medical speech etc etc.

"True Twins" and "Legal Tender" are two of the terms some people assume to mean one thing but actually mean another.
I am sure there must be loads of such dual, treble, octo nono centimal etc etc things like that about.
Was it Lewis Carroll said somrthing about meanings?

 

[JohnW2]

Quite often some terms have different meanings according to in which context they are asked. Such as everyday speech, tech speech, legal speech, medical speech etc etc.

Indeed, but, in this case, it seems to me to be reasonable that the law regards a 'leasehold owner' as being a 'tenant'. Both in that situation and the standard 'shortish-term rental' situation, 'ownership' (of the 'freehold') never passes to the occupant, the only real difference being that in one case the occupier ('tenant') pays rent monthly (or whatever), whereas the OP in this thread 'paid up-front' for 999 years rental - hence essentially still 'a tenant'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[conny]

We've been through all this at length.

The OP is the leasehold 'owner', having entered into a 999 year Lease in 1979. That Lease described him as the 'Tenant' - which, as I have said, appears to be standard legal terminology in this situation.

Kind Regards, John

Thanks John. Didn't have the inclination to trawl through all those pages.

 

[Arbu]

"So, he wants to do it right and you are complaining about that."

Don't be so ridiculous. Of course I'm not complaining about him doing it correctly. I am sure he is. But I would like to understand what the difference is between (a) bonding the radiator pipe in my bathroom to the earth in my circuit (which I was told to have done some 15-20 years ago), and (b) bonding the water and gas pipes where they enter my flat (in the kitchen) to another earth point in the circuit (which apparently is not acceptable). I fail to see where you have answered this question. You say that the former was "supplementary" and the latter has to be "main" but I don't see what the difference is.

 

[BlueLoo]

Rules and regulations care not about logic.

 

[JohnW2]

.... But I would like to understand what the difference is between (a) bonding the radiator pipe in my bathroom to the earth in my circuit (which I was told to have done some 15-20 years ago), and (b) bonding the water and gas pipes where they enter my flat (in the kitchen) to another earth point in the circuit (which apparently is not acceptable). I fail to see where you have answered this question. You say that the former was "supplementary" and the latter has to be "main" but I don't see what the difference is.

"Main bonding" has been required 'for ever'. It connects together the 'earth' system within your house (which is connected to pipes {hence taps etc.}, cases of things like washing machines/dishwashers/dryers etc.) with anything metal (usually a pipe) which enters your house having been in contact with 'true earth' (usually by being underground in some of its path), and that main bonding should be applied as close as possible to where the metal pipes/whatever enter the property.

The purpose of main bonding is to avoid a situation in which, due to a fault, the 'earth system with your house became 'live', but there was also something else at 'true earth potential that had entered the house. In that situation, someone simultaneously touching both (something connected to your house's earth and something at 'true earth potential) would get an electric should, because there were touching two things at different electrical potentials - and 'bonding' them together prevents them ever being at appreciably different

'Supplementary Bonding' ("SB") was, in the past, required in kitchens, bathrooms and some other places. In essence, it involved connecting together (with electrical cables) simultaneously touchable metal things in the location =- again, with the idea of preventing people simultaneously touching two things at different electrical potential, and therefore getting a shock.

However, for a good few years now it has been realised that SB is not usually of any great benefit (if 'main bonding' is all in place). The situation today is therefore that SB is never required anywhere other than in a bathroom etc. - and, even in bathrooms, it is very rarely required, since it is regarded as acceptable not to have it if a number of conditions are met (which they nearly always are) - the main 'condition' (for omitting SB) being the p[presence of RCD protection.

Hope that helps.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Yes that is well put by John.
Bonding is important, it generally makes things potentially a lot safer/
However, in some circumstances it can render a few situations less safe.
So if the rules state bonding required then bond it. If not then do not bond it.
Main bonding is undertaken to address the problem of any potential being introduced into a premises (usually earth potential or thereabouts).

Wherever you go on this planet, there is always a difference of electrical potential between any two points of contact.
Just in the same way as wherever you go on this planet you will always meet someone from Southend on sea.

Bonding conductors are equalising conductors

 

[EFLImpudence]

But I would like to understand what the difference is between (a) bonding the radiator pipe in my bathroom to the earth in my circuit (which I was told to have done some 15-20 years ago), and (b) bonding the water and gas pipes where they enter my flat (in the kitchen) to another earth point in the circuit (which apparently is not acceptable). I fail to see where you have answered this question. You say that the former was "supplementary" and the latter has to be "main" but I don't see what the difference is.

That is a fair question.

The answer really is a matter of size of bonding conductors and location of connections.

The Main Bonding conductor (usually) has to be 10mm² - this is in case it has to carry a high current because of the loss of the neutral conductor in a fault - and run to the Main Earthing Terminal.

It would actually make no difference where the MB conductor was connected to the pipe but it must be connected at the point of entry - because that is the point where any external potential enters the premises and more importantly to ensure that that point is never disconnected from the MET by alterations to the pipework within the premises - by the insertion of a length of plastic pipe for example.

So, you see your Supplementary Bonding in the bathroom - reducing potential difference between pipe and appliance/accessory - is not sufficient to satisfy these requirements.

Your SB is represented by the red line in this diagram:

 

[JohnW2]

Yes that is well put by John.

Thanks

Bonding is important, it generally makes things potentially a lot safer/

Indeed - and there is no situation in which it is acceptable to not 'main bond' extraneous-c-ps which enter a property.

However, in some circumstances it can render a few situations less safe. .... So if the rules state bonding required then bond it. If not then do not bond it.

Agreed - but that only really applies to supplementary boding since, as above, if extraneous-c-ps enter the property, there will always be a requirement to bond them.

The only possible scope for discussion/argument is in relation to whether or not a conductor entering a premises qualfiees as an extraneous-c-p. I often cite the short 'underground' pipe which brings LPG into my house, which travels in the middle of a pretty deep pile of gravel. If EFLI 'measured it' during thee summer, he might well conclude that it was 'not an extraneous-c-p' (and therefore did not need main bonding). However, if someone else 'measured' when everything was waterlogged, they might come to a different conclusion!

Bonding conductors are equalising conductors

The are - or, at least, 'roughly equalising' conductors - since if any current flows through them, the potentials at the two ends will not be exactly equal!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Arbu]

OK, so the electric circuits in my flat use thinner cables than are used for main bonding and those thinner cables are not adequate for bonding. The supplementary bonding in my bathroom used that and it wasn't ideal, but it was better than nothing in the absence of RCDs and thicker cable to bond metal items in the bathroom.

My metal pipes at entry should be bonded with the thicker cable and it's no use attaching this to the earth cables in my kitchen as they will be too thin. So the bonding needs to go all the way to the point where the main electricity cable enters my flat.

Is it rather serious that my flat has seemingly had no main bonding for 30 years plus?

 

[JohnW2]

My metal pipes at entry should be bonded with the thicker cable and it's no use attaching this to the earth cables in my kitchen as they will be too thin. So the bonding needs to go all the way to the point where the main electricity cable enters my flat.

The main bonding cables(s) must go to the Main Earthing Terminal ("MET") of your electrical installation, which is usually in the vicinity of (sometimes inside) your Consumer Unit - which, in turn, will usually be close to the point of entry of electricity into the flat.

Kind Regards, John