Bonding dilemma

[growler]

So I turned up to a job today to install an electric heating system for a company I sub for and straight away found that there is no main bonding to either gas or water. They have recently had a new extension / kitchen and a new consumer unit ( no cert though). The gas bond is not an issue as the meter is located next to the consumer unit but the water bond is a fair distance away and the customer is adamant he doesn't want me to disrupt his house anymore than it is already. I can't just walk away either as their wet system Central heating has been removed and the couple are in there 70s.
what to do ?

 

[7029 dave]

Back in the day the gas and water pipes were commonly used as the earthing system, don't forget lighting was not earthed and the nature of incoming supplies has changed too which rises the risk of network faults piggy backing on bonded services.

Yeah, and totally unacceptable.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I think this has been a good thread. It takes alot of guts to stand up on this forum and admit to doing anything that doesn't follow 'correct practise'. I'm guessing, but I expect the majority of electrical installers would main bond if they could, but if the customer refused they would do the work anyway and make a note on the cert.

I'm glad I haven't been put in the moral position of making that decision yet as bonding has always been there (bar one case - another story). I think I would quote for main bonding to be installed but if they refused the entire job because of that extra work I would be inclined to bond to the most convenient pipe (assuming continuity). If they still refused I would like to think I would decline the work, but I dont know the answer to that yet for sure!

 

[Darkwood]

The thing is in the rare circumstance someone is killed due to Electricution and the circumstances are investigated guess who signed of a cert for their work saying they left the install in a dangerous state!... Knowingly!!

Also if there was one inclination that correct bonding may have made the difference, doesn't have to be definately just has to be possibly then you will see your harris up in court defending why you walked from an unsafe install you had just done work on.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

The thing is in the rare circumstance someone is killed due to Electricution and the circumstances are investigated guess who signed of a cert for their work saying they left the install in a dangerous state!... Knowingly!!

Also if there was one inclination that correct bonding may have made the difference, doesn't have to be definately just has to be possibly then you will see your harris up in court defending why you walked from an unsafe install you had just done work on.

Kind of pushes the installer to one of two extremes doesn't it. Either insist on installing main bonding and walk if they refuse, or do the job and dont issue any kind of certificate!

 

[Darkwood]

Kind of pushes the installer to one of two extremes doesn't it. Either insist on installing main bonding and walk if they refuse, or do the job and dont issue any kind of certificate!

And here lies the moral dilema, your decision would be factored on a few things which may conflict in your mind like say your professionalism against your need to pay the bills... but at the end of the day you should walk; end of!... You are now required to fit RCD protection on all domestic sockets (excluding the rare exemptions), would you fit them unprotected because the customer can't afford a new board etc - same Dilema and can lead to same fatal result. You do it once, then twice then you need to ask yourself who exactly is the cowboy within our trade while passing the mirror..:thinking:

 

[Redvanman]

I've printed off a NIC fact sheet about earthing and give it out when quoting if the customers raising their eyebrows. If they still say no I turn the job down after telling them that any reputable electrician will tell them the same.

 

[Essex_]

So the client has a shiny kitchen, a new CU , no cert, no bonding. This happens ALL the time.

If the customer is adament they won't have it, what do you do? Walk away and let the next cowboy do it or do the gas, note the cert and do the rest of the work properly. I know what I would do.

That is exactly what you should do yes.

 

[richy3333]

If you contact the ESC (or whatever their called now) they'll send you out a free pack of leaflets on earthing and bonding to hand out to customers.

 

[Essex_]

Anyone ?

Probably because toilets were in the garden and heating was by a fireplace. Lol

 

[Essex_]

I think this has been a good thread. It takes alot of guts to stand up on this forum and admit to doing anything that doesn't follow 'correct practise'. I'm guessing, but I expect the majority of electrical installers would main bond if they could, but if the customer refused they would do the work anyway and make a note on the cert.

I'm glad I haven't been put in the moral position of making that decision yet as bonding has always been there (bar one case - another story). I think I would quote for main bonding to be installed but if they refused the entire job because of that extra work I would be inclined to bond to the most convenient pipe (assuming continuity). If they still refused I would like to think I would decline the work, but I dont know the answer to that yet for sure!

I must disagree. Most electricians I know certainly would not just note it on the cert. Totally unacceptable.

 

[micknew]

I must disagree. Most electricians I know certainly would not just note it on the cert. Totally unacceptable.

100% correct.

 

[Leesparkykent]

A departure on a cert is something that doesn't comply with bs7671 yet offers the same degree of safety as compliance. Do you think not bonding the water meets this criteria?
Departures on a cert are not a get out of jail free card.

 

[GEOFF S]

So I turned up to a job today to install an electric heating system for a company I sub for and straight away found that there is no main bonding to either gas or water. They have recently had a new extension / kitchen and a new consumer unit ( no cert though). The gas bond is not an issue as the meter is located next to the consumer unit but the water bond is a fair distance away and the customer is adamant he doesn't want me to disrupt his house anymore than it is already. I can't just walk away either as their wet system Central heating has been removed and the couple are in there 70s.
what to do ?

Will your system be utilising ADS, if so bonding is required, or your work to will be non compliant, which makes you no better than the last cowboy.

Educate the customer, if that fails, walk, YOU will be the cowboy when the next electrician walks in, a bad name can spread fast!!

Cheers

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Not aware that bonding is required for ADS?

 

[ipf]

Nice one Spin. Just come across this thread. Used to be EEBADS.....Earthed Equipotential Bonding AND Automatic Disconnection of Supply.

 

[Chr!s]

Not aware that bonding is required for ADS?

Hope your joking lol section 411 ADS, 411.3.1.2


Regards

 

[telectrix]

spin is correct. bonding has nothing to do with ads. for ads it is required that exposed conductive parts are earthed.the purpose of bonding is to reduce PD between exposed conductive parts and extraneous conductive parts in the event of a fault.

 

[Chr!s]

spin is correct. bonding has nothing to do with ads. for relevantit is required that exposed conductive parts are earthed.the purpose of bonding is to reduce PD between exposed conductive parts and extraneous conductive parts in the event of a fault.[/QUOTE

Your both wrong!

411 sets out the requirements for ADS, you need to meet them, 411.3.1.2 being the relevant section.

regsrds

 

[bugsy]

IHave not read through the whole thread but who did the initial survey prior to the proposed installation
and if if I wasn't carried out our someone's been taught a valuable lesson when providing a quote

 

[telectrix]

spin is correct. bonding has nothing to do with ads. for relevantit is required that exposed conductive parts are earthed.the purpose of bonding is to reduce PD between exposed conductive parts and extraneous conductive parts in the event of a fault.[/QUOTE

Your both wrong!

411 sets out the requirements for ADS, you need to meet them, 411.3.1.2 being the relevant section.

regsrds

you are correct in your post that bonding must be installed. my argument is that ADS relies on earthing of exposed conductive parts to operate, whether or not bonding is installed.

 

[GEOFF S]

Spin

Not aware that bonding is required for ADS?

Tel

spin is correct. bonding has nothing to do with ads. for ads it is required that exposed conductive parts are earthed.the purpose of bonding is to reduce PD between exposed conductive parts and extraneous conductive parts in the event of a fault.

Tel

you are correct in your post that bonding must be installed. my argument is that ADS relies on earthing of exposed conductive parts to operate, whether or not bonding is installed.

Im shocked!!

This is basic stuff, i suggest you read Chapter 41, 411. ADS relies upon various reqiurements!!

Cheers

 

[telectrix]

OK. imagine an installation with no bonding, but with main earthing. we'll say for argument's sake that it has a Ze of 0.3ohms. as there's no bonding, then the pefc will be 230/0.3 = 766.67 A. now tell me that ADS will not operate.

the purpose of bonding extraneous conductive parts is to reduce PD between these and exposed conductive parts in the case of a fault to earth. .

 

[GEOFF S]

OK. imagine an installation with no bonding, but with main earthing. we'll say for argument's sake that it has a Ze of 0.3ohms. as there's no bonding, then the pefc will be 230/0.3 = 766.67 A. now tell me that ADS will not operate.

Okay, so within your equipotential zone, where does the shock risk exist, hand to hand, hand to foot or both.

Cheers

 

[spark 68]

OK. imagine an installation with no services, but with main earthing. we'll say for argument's sake that it has a Ze of 0.3ohms. as there's no bonding, then the pefc will be 230/0.3 = 766.67 A. now tell me that ADS will not operate.

Might be a better way of phrasing it.

I have the popcorn ready

 

[telectrix]

Okay, so within your equipotential zone, where does the shock risk exist, hand to hand, hand to foot or both.

Cheers

i'm not saying that bonding is not essential. what i am saying is that ADS does not rely on bonding in order to operate.

 

[GEOFF S]

OK. imagine an installation with no bonding, but with main earthing. we'll say for argument's sake that it has a Ze of 0.3ohms. as there's no bonding, then the pefc will be 230/0.3 = 766.67 A. now tell me that ADS will not operate.

the purpose of bonding extraneous conductive parts is to reduce PD between these and exposed conductive parts in the case of a fault to earth. .

I think you need to understand there is more to ADS than just disconnection, if you can not understand that then i suggest you become a little more knowledged on how to provide Protection against electric shock (CH41) and how to correctly apply Section 411 ADS.

You clearly have no concept of what it is you are trying to acheive.

Cheers

 

[telectrix]

Might be a better way of phrasing it.

I have the popcorn ready

or "extraneous services" might be even better.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I think you need to understand there is more to ADS than just disconnection, if you can not understand that then i suggest you become a little more knowledged on how to provide Protection against electric shock (CH41) and how to correctly apply Section 411 ADS.

You clearly have no concept of what it is you are trying to acheive.

Cheers

OK, how does the application of 411.3.1.2 contribute to meeting the Max disconnection times in 411.3.2?

(reg numbers are BGB)

 

[GEOFF S]

i'm not saying that bonding is not essential. what i am saying is that ADS does not rely on bonding in order to operate.

You havent answered my question!

If the room containing your exposed conducitve part contained no earth potential is there a shock risk form the exposed conductive part under fault?

Cheers

 

[GEOFF S]

OK, how does the application of 411.3.1.2 contribute to meeting the Max disconnection times in 411.3.2?

(reg numbers are BGB)

Hi

At no point have i suggested it does!!

I clearly stated that if your means of electric schock protection is ADS, if no Protective Bonding is present where required the it would be non compliant.

The replies were, what has bonding got to do with ADS, well as i said read Section 411, its a requirement.

Cheers