Work not to regs? (by NICEIC member)
- Thread starter Skyhigh
- Start date
Sponsored Links
They are only really presented to Joe Public by themselves - and, since they are a commercial organisation, it's perhaps not surprising that what they present is somewhat 'biased'
In particular, they seem often to give Joe Public the impression that only their members (or, perhaps, also members of one of the several other similar organisations) are 'allowed' to undertake certain types of electrical work - which is simply not true. Like any 'trade organisation', they are quite probably primarily concerned about the interests of their members and themselves, rather than Joe Public.
Also seemingly of annoyance to some electricians is the fact that they sometimes make up their own 'rules' ('guidance') relating to things which are not actually required by the Wiring Regulations - which could sometimes be interpreted as potentially creating 'unnecessary work' for their members to undertake.
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 25,068
- Reaction score
- 2,910
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
It does seem both the LABC and the scheme providers do seem to try and wash their hands of any responsibility for the work.
There is a contract between the scheme provider and scheme member which normally says BS7671 should be followed etc. Where with LABC it says BS 7671 or other regulation I seem to remember and BS 7671 is not law.
However some of the requirements of BS 7671 are law, and they are there because CENELEC or building regulations require it.
So we are told that all electrical installation enclosures need to be type tested, i.e. consumer unit not a distribution unit, but I can't find where it says that, likely some HSE rule, but never found it, could be Chinese Whispers?
Easy to say I would not do it that way, harder to say that breaks a law. We have all seen jobs which don't comply with BS 7671, but as to if worth correcting that is another question, when mother needed a lift to get her in/out of bed, the ceiling light was moved, and he put it direct into plaster board, no way would that take 5 kg without pulling out, but I was not going to hang 5 kg so did not pull him up on it.
I did complain about fitting non RCD protected sockets and lack of Minor Works certificate, in the end I gave up, was clear they were not going to return and do it properly.
The 6 years seems odd, since until government landlord law an EICR is every 10 years no one would ever find out if done incorrectly. But interesting would be the date put on the consumer unit for it to be tested?
But at the end of the day you know where the cables run, and after this your not likely to forget, so your unlikely to have a problem, as to next owners of the property, not sure what would happen should they hit a cable, I note the Emma Shaw case yet again, installed 2006, death 2007, court case 2014. It was not the electrician who installed it, or the plaster who damaged it, or the plumber who did not glue the pipe, or even the electricians mate who took the readings but the foreman who was found guilty due to selecting wrong person to do the work. The HSE clearly went back through records, but it was not the guy I expected who was found guilty. As to if you could be found guilty as you are aware of the problem I don't know, but seems unlikely, I would think the electrician, and with other cases courts have said if the fault had not been raised the person would not have been found guilty, but once raise that person should have corrected, so if in the future some thing does go wrong and the electrician has not been given the option to correct it, then he will not be libel, if he is given the option and gets it wrong, then he is libel, so seems he must be given the option to correct it.
I have a problem with this house, the three core and earth cable from the Utility room to Flat (converter garage) changes colour red, yellow, blue to brown, black, grey so clearly a joint and one core open circuit, not a clue where the cable runs, so my method was to use 12 volt very low current not the original 230 volt, should some thing go wrong it will not hurt anyone. But like you, nothing on the installation certificate raised when garage made to flat to say anything had been done to the boiler feed.
So to protect yourself in the future you don't have much option but to allow him to correct his errors.
There is a contract between the scheme provider and scheme member which normally says BS7671 should be followed etc. Where with LABC it says BS 7671 or other regulation I seem to remember and BS 7671 is not law.
However some of the requirements of BS 7671 are law, and they are there because CENELEC or building regulations require it.
So we are told that all electrical installation enclosures need to be type tested, i.e. consumer unit not a distribution unit, but I can't find where it says that, likely some HSE rule, but never found it, could be Chinese Whispers?
Easy to say I would not do it that way, harder to say that breaks a law. We have all seen jobs which don't comply with BS 7671, but as to if worth correcting that is another question, when mother needed a lift to get her in/out of bed, the ceiling light was moved, and he put it direct into plaster board, no way would that take 5 kg without pulling out, but I was not going to hang 5 kg so did not pull him up on it.
I did complain about fitting non RCD protected sockets and lack of Minor Works certificate, in the end I gave up, was clear they were not going to return and do it properly.
The 6 years seems odd, since until government landlord law an EICR is every 10 years no one would ever find out if done incorrectly. But interesting would be the date put on the consumer unit for it to be tested?
But at the end of the day you know where the cables run, and after this your not likely to forget, so your unlikely to have a problem, as to next owners of the property, not sure what would happen should they hit a cable, I note the Emma Shaw case yet again, installed 2006, death 2007, court case 2014. It was not the electrician who installed it, or the plaster who damaged it, or the plumber who did not glue the pipe, or even the electricians mate who took the readings but the foreman who was found guilty due to selecting wrong person to do the work. The HSE clearly went back through records, but it was not the guy I expected who was found guilty. As to if you could be found guilty as you are aware of the problem I don't know, but seems unlikely, I would think the electrician, and with other cases courts have said if the fault had not been raised the person would not have been found guilty, but once raise that person should have corrected, so if in the future some thing does go wrong and the electrician has not been given the option to correct it, then he will not be libel, if he is given the option and gets it wrong, then he is libel, so seems he must be given the option to correct it.
I have a problem with this house, the three core and earth cable from the Utility room to Flat (converter garage) changes colour red, yellow, blue to brown, black, grey so clearly a joint and one core open circuit, not a clue where the cable runs, so my method was to use 12 volt very low current not the original 230 volt, should some thing go wrong it will not hurt anyone. But like you, nothing on the installation certificate raised when garage made to flat to say anything had been done to the boiler feed.
So to protect yourself in the future you don't have much option but to allow him to correct his errors.
Two things the NIC actually care about
1. Collecting membership money.
2. People using thier logo who haven’t paid their membership money.
That is it. Everything else is just an inconvenience to them.
1. Collecting membership money.
2. People using thier logo who haven’t paid their membership money.
That is it. Everything else is just an inconvenience to them.
Sponsored Links
Did you point out that the tails are (as far as I can tell) in line with the consumer unit? So technically in a safe zone?
I don't like the idea of tails being less than 50mm from the surface, even if in line with the consumer unit.
But then again I don't like the idea of messing about running an SWA cable and struggling fitting glands into a switch fuse in a meter box.
Nothing wrong with the tails being 3 inches or so from the plasterboard finish, someone would have to be careless using a drill on that just hanging a picture.
The steel plate sounds tempting if you're that bothered, if you can be bothered to patch up the wall.
Pity they didn't protect that bit of cable while they had the chance, but there you go.
And the end of the day you need to compromise and work out what is important and practical (switch fuse) and what can maybe be left alone, particularly if the regs can be interpreted to make it acceptable.
I don't like the idea of tails being less than 50mm from the surface, even if in line with the consumer unit.
But then again I don't like the idea of messing about running an SWA cable and struggling fitting glands into a switch fuse in a meter box.
Nothing wrong with the tails being 3 inches or so from the plasterboard finish, someone would have to be careless using a drill on that just hanging a picture.
The steel plate sounds tempting if you're that bothered, if you can be bothered to patch up the wall.
Pity they didn't protect that bit of cable while they had the chance, but there you go.
And the end of the day you need to compromise and work out what is important and practical (switch fuse) and what can maybe be left alone, particularly if the regs can be interpreted to make it acceptable.
In relation to all this talk about switch-fuses, it should perhaps be pointed out that, as far as I am aware, this is a 'DNO thing', which has nothing to do with compliance (or otherwise) with BS7671.
If, as has been suggested, those 'tails' are 16mm² T+E, then, as far as BS7671 is concerned, they would presumably be adequately protected by the upstream DNO fuse, wouldn't they?
Kind Regards, John
I keep saying tails, it is a 16mm2 T+E as far as I can make out.
A switch fuse would at least provide a neat way of terminating those unsheathed cores from the T+E. Tails from meter to switch fuse, then T+E.
Does seem generally accepted that a switch fuse should be used, and may be of some reassurance what with the T+E prone to possibly getting drilled through.
Might as well keep the DNO happy, even if it does mean there meter cupboard will get filled up.
Still if BS7671 doesn't require it...
A switch fuse would at least provide a neat way of terminating those unsheathed cores from the T+E. Tails from meter to switch fuse, then T+E.
Does seem generally accepted that a switch fuse should be used, and may be of some reassurance what with the T+E prone to possibly getting drilled through.
Might as well keep the DNO happy, even if it does mean there meter cupboard will get filled up.
Still if BS7671 doesn't require it...
Last edited:
Exactly - and, as I said, if so, it is almost certainly adequately protected by the DNO fuse as far as BS7671 is concerned.
In other words, if someone felt that a switch-fuse needed to be installed, that would presumably be for some reason other than achieving compliance with BS7671.
Kind Regards, John
Doesn't matter - they still have to be mechanically or RCD protected, or buried >=50mm deep. 522.6.202 - see the note that says "Where indent (i) but not indent (ii) applies, the cable shall be provided with additional protection by means of an RCD having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1"
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
