C3s putting you in harms way ??

[LastManOnline]

You say it’s a claim on your prof. Indemnity ins was the matter over an eicr you carried out I take it, or with cabling that you personally installed?

Not on indemnity. It was a public liability claim. I did a standard electrical installation (new wire). As it was an "open ceiling" design with no attic, cables sometimes routed under the floor and up the walls rather than over the ceiling and down the walls.
Cabling in the floor was in pipe and had a layer of damp course over it but was still compromised

 

[telectrix]

Not on indemnity. It was a public liability claim. I did a standard electrical installation (new wire). As it was an "open ceiling" design with no attic, cables sometimes routed under the floor and up the walls rather than over the ceiling and down the walls.
Cabling in the floor was in pipe and had a layer of damp course over it but was still compromised

surely your insurance will repudiate any claim against you and tell the customer to pursue the builders.

 

[i=p/u]

Yeah work it out, I have a test sheet

 

[UNG]

My inspector from Napit basically advised me of the same potential situation as the OP suggested
I was discussing with him EICR coding, whereas I am generally more lenient on my coding than some, he suggested 'why take the chance? It’s you who will end up in court trying to justify it against some hard nosed lawyer waving the code breakers book at you!’
And sadly, the way the world is heading I have to agree with him, trying to be honest and doing the right thing is just giving more leverage to a lawyer if god forbid it ever got that far
so from now on I have tightened my coding up and have been now using the code breakers book rather than the BPG no. 4 which I used to use as a reference

Good salesman that NAPIT inspector I would think a lawyer would using BS7671 as the go to reference rather than some dodgy book with dubious content

 

[LastManOnline]

surely your insurance will repudiate any claim against you and tell the customer to pursue the builders.

Correct. That is precisely what's being proposed. The approach by the insurance company appears to be "kick the bucket down the road" if the builder can, t be sued then go after the concrete supplier. But you can see where all of this is going. The customer is left in complete limbo with realistically no chance of getting compensation. In the meantime his electrical circuits circuits continue to deteriorate, regularly causing rcd to trip. Massive inconvenience and stress.The I had to act. As a result of carrying out some repairs without the loss adjuster first visiting site, I am informed that the underwriter is almost certainly not going to consider getting involved.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Not on indemnity. It was a public liability claim. I did a standard electrical installation (new wire). As it was an "open ceiling" design with no attic, cables sometimes routed under the floor and up the walls rather than over the ceiling and down the walls.
Cabling in the floor was in pipe and had a layer of damp course over it but was still compromised

Can you tell me exactly what has happened, retarders do not normally have an adverse effect on buried service's, this all sounds a bit off to me.

 

[Soi disant]

Not even AFDDs should get to £1200 for a new board unless it's ludicrously large!

So how much are single-module RCBOs with AFD?

 

[Soi disant]

Possible there's a local 7288 I guess to give him partial benefit of the doubt...

Not a conformant way to provide additional protection.

 

[Soi disant]

I would think a lawyer would using BS7671 as the go to reference

Which says what about how to code non-conformances?

 

[Mike Johnson]

So how much are single-module RCBOs with AFD?

Fusebox F2010MX 10 Way SPD Metal Consumer Unit with 10 Mini A Rated DP RCBOs | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Fusebox F2010MX 10 Way SPD Metal Consumer Unit with 10 Mini A Rated DP RCBOs at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.

www.ebay.co.uk

 

[LastManOnline]

Can you tell me exactly what has happened, retarders do not normally have an adverse effect on buried service's, this all sounds a bit off to me.

That is currently the only information I have. I traced all the low, resistance faults to the cables buried in the floor. My initial suspicion fell on possible damage to cables caused by work carried out after the original installation was finished.However after carrying out IR tests It quickly became clear that all cables buried in the ground were affected. I had never ecountered a similar situation before so I started asking around. Eventually I got some feedback from a sparks organisation I am a member of (ECSSA). They preceded RECI. They informed me they have being notified of several cases involving concrete from the same time period.
Obviously digging up the floor would be conclusive proof but that is not an option

 

[old man sparky]

A word of warning, as it seems that our trade is the one of the few, where some spark's just love to tell you how amazing and knowledgeable they are compared to the other guy.
Maybe you are !! maybe your not !!
But be under no illusion, your living in exactly the same greenhouse.
And there is always gonna be some guy, one day, who will feel and maybe justifiably so.
That they can do exactly the same to you.
The scheme providers just love to give the impression that by paying the extra dosh, and having that Approved logo, your some how going to be a better more technically minded person. Its all an illusion guys, because if something goes south. They will be the first ones to stab you in the back.
As time has passed I am seeing those who belong to (The Firm) become more accountable and more in harms way.
And those that are the real cowboys slip nicely under the radar with quick hit and run actions that nicely line there pockets.
They wont be on this forum, because they operate in stealth mode. We are the rabbits caught in the headlights.
The enemy is out there and creeping up on you. It ain't some poor bloke who might get the odd thing wrong.
Watch out for one another, and let those without sin cast the first stone. ?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

That is currently the only information I have. I traced all the low, resistance faults to the cables buried in the floor. My initial suspicion fell on possible damage to cables caused by work carried out after the original installation was finished.However after carrying out IR tests It quickly became clear that all cables buried in the ground were affected. I had never ecountered a similar situation before so I started asking around. Eventually I got some feedback from a sparks organisation I am a member of (ECSSA). They preceded RECI. They informed me they have being notified of several cases involving concrete from the same time period.
Obviously digging up the floor would be conclusive proof but that is not an option

Keep us updated with this @LastManOnline , I'm interested to hear how this pans out. Perhaps it will become a common problem in the coming years?

A couple of thoughts: Hard to see how you are responsible for this. As your insurer says, you did nothing wrong so how could you be? Was it known at the time of install that concrete retarder could affect cables inside conduit this way? Bad luck for the homeowner, but why should you take the hit?

Also, cables in conduit in the floor - could it be rodent damage? Perhaps mice are using the conduit runs as tunnels.

 

[Mike Johnson]

That is currently the only information I have. I traced all the low, resistance faults to the cables buried in the floor. My initial suspicion fell on possible damage to cables caused by work carried out after the original installation was finished.However after carrying out IR tests It quickly became clear that all cables buried in the ground were affected. I had never ecountered a similar situation before so I started asking around. Eventually I got some feedback from a sparks organisation I am a member of (ECSSA). They preceded RECI. They informed me they have being notified of several cases involving concrete from the same time period.
Obviously digging up the floor would be conclusive proof but that is not an option

The only thing I can see that would ring true about this if the builder used High Alumina Cement, this has been banned in the UK since 1984, I have no idea about its legality in ROI, but know that it is still available in certain countries and used.

 

[brianmoooore]

If the cables are in conduit, can't you pull one out for inspection?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Should have said it was banned in 1974, doesn't time fly when you are enjoying yourself.

 

[Risteard]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

Are you with Arachas?

 

[LastManOnline]

Keep us updated with this @LastManOnline , I'm interested to hear how this pans out. Perhaps it will become a common problem in the coming years?

Will do. Am waiting on a (hoped for) report from ECSSA

A couple of thoughts: Hard to see how you are responsible for this. As your insurer says, you did nothing wrong so how could you be?

This is the perplexing bit. I am told that if I was negligent I,m covered, but if someone else is, I, m not!!. Make sense

Was it known at the time of install that concrete retarder could affect cables inside conduit this way? Bad luck for the homeowner, but why should you take the hit?

Homeowner is a longtime customer. He has had a lot going on. While I could legally walk away, it's in reality not an option I can consider.

Also, cables in conduit in the floor - could it be rodent damage? Perhaps mice are using the conduit runs as tunnels.

Highly unlikely

 

[LastManOnline]

Are you with Arachas?

Will email you

 

[LastManOnline]

If the cables are in conduit, can't you pull one out for inspection?

Very difficult to do. Have tried. I would personally love to get to the bottom of it. Without going in to any detail you can appreciate the stress this has caused the homeowner and his family.This was designed as an upmarket "granny flat", open ceiling with visible timbers. Virtually all the rewiring has to be surface. So the priority now is to minimise the already considerable inconvenience.

 

[Risteard]

Eventually I got some feedback from a sparks organisation I am a member of (ECSSA). They preceded RECI.

More accurately both used to have an SSB licence. RECI is actually the older body. I've always been with RECI and never ECSSA.

 

[Risteard]

Will email you

Cheers.

 

[LastManOnline]

More accurately both used to have an SSB licence. RECI is actually the older body. I've always been with RECI and never ECSSA.

Correct. I am still registered with both. I find ECSSA better for legal advice.

 

[Risteard]

Correct. I am still registered with both. I find ECSSA better for legal advice.

I presume you hadn't many issues with MICA in Kerry? Big issue around Donegal with Cassidy's in Buncrana supplying affected blocks for years. Unbelievable cracking as a result.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Is the conduit in the concrete plastic or steel?

 

[LastManOnline]

I presume you hadn't many issues with MICA in Kerry? Big issue around Donegal with Cassidy's in Buncrana supplying affected blocks for years. Unbelievable cracking as a result.

No. Have, nt heard it hear locally. Sounds bad

 

[LastManOnline]

Is the conduit in the concrete plastic or steel?

Plastic

 

[UNG]

Which says what about how to code non-conformances?

So how many companies or people would you give 20 quid to for their generic opinions on coding a generic issue and what legal standing would any of them have

Given that BS7671 is the reference book we all work to and is the recognised standard I think any non conformances would be judged against that not some book of generic opinions of which even the contributors seem to have differing opinions when you speak to them

It seems that these days the lack of qualifications, skill and experience has to be supported by these assistive generic documents what happened to being suitably qualified, skilled and experienced for the task in hand and being able to make the informed decision when needed

 

[Soi disant]

Fusebox F2010MX 10 Way SPD Metal Consumer Unit with 10 Mini A Rated DP RCBOs | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Fusebox F2010MX 10 Way SPD Metal Consumer Unit with 10 Mini A Rated DP RCBOs at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.

www.ebay.co.uk

So how much are single-module RCBOs with AFD?

 

[Soi disant]

So how many companies or people would you give 20 quid to for their generic opinions on coding a generic issue and what legal standing would any of them have

Given that BS7671 is the reference book we all work to and is the recognised standard I think any non conformances would be judged against that not some book of generic opinions of which even the contributors seem to have differing opinions when you speak to them

Which says what about how to code non-conformances?

Not identify whether something is a non-conformance or not, what do the Wiring Regulations say about what code to give any non-conformance?

 

[Mike Johnson]

I often say to others, do some work for yourself for a change, if you want to know something look it up.

 

[Soi disant]

I often say to others, do some work for yourself for a change, if you want to know something look it up.

I think you've completely failed to realise why I'm asking the question.

UNG keeps saying that things should be coded on the basis of what BS 7671 says, not what a publication from NICEIC/NAPIT/et al says.

So I'm asking him what the Wiring Regulations say about what code to give any non-conformance?

 

[UNG]

Not identify whether something is a non-conformance or not, what do the Wiring Regulations say about what code to give any non-conformance?

Did you actually read ALL of my post and did you actually digest any of it before you responded.

Why are you so insistent that the gospels according to NAPIT and / or the NICEIC is law' they are full of generic circumstances with generic codings that in the case of codebreakers even the contributors can agree on

There is no substitute for proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and EXPERIENCE when it comes down to making the decision at the coalface for what coding is needed for a non compliance with BS7671. If you are not able to do that then IMO you should not be doing EICR's, back when I did the 2391 the book you needed was the current BS7671 to make that informed decision not a load of dodgy money making publications

To be honest the biggest non compliance currently is the lack of proper training or the task in hand which should be coded as a C1+++

 

[westward10]

I think you've completely failed to realise why I'm asking the question.

UNG keeps saying that things should be coded on the basis of what BS 7671 says, not what a publication from NICEIC/NAPIT/et al says.

So I'm asking him what the Wiring Regulations say about what code to give any non-conformance?

BS7671 only gives one suggestion for a Code and that is a minimum Code 3 for lack of additional rcd protection.

 

[Lister1987]

I think you've completely failed to realise why I'm asking the question.

UNG keeps saying that things should be coded on the basis of what BS 7671 says, not what a publication from NICEIC/NAPIT/et al says.

So I'm asking him what the Wiring Regulations say about what code to give any non-conformance?

Profile has you down as a Domestic Installer, have you got any test & inspect/EICR experience?

Think about the codes and what they mean (don't have my book so can't quote word for word);

C1 - Immediately dangerous, should be rectified immediately or at least made safe (which would then (possibly) knock down to a C2) - I can see it, I can touch it, it will kill me now

C2 - Potentially dangerous, has the potential to elevate to a C1 dependant on external influences - Something has to happen to elevate to a C1 - Remedial as soon as practicable

C3 - Non-compliance but not dangerous

Now think about what things you're likely to find.

Exposed live parts; C1 every day of the week.

Underrated OCPD; C2, which you cant die from touching it, continued use would give rise to danger

Plastic CU with no thermal damage; C3, nothing to indicate the switchgear isn't operating at intended but current regs would want a non flame propogating ferrous metal enclosure.

You get the idea, it's all down to engineering judgement, not what advise guides like Codebreakers et all day.

 

[telectrix]

Profile has you down as a Domestic Installer, have you got any test & inspect/EICR experience?

Think about the codes and what they mean (don't have my book so can't quote word for word);

C1 - Immediately dangerous, should be rectified immediately or at least made safe (which would then (possibly) knock down to a C2) - I can see it, I can touch it, it will kill me now

C2 - Potentially dangerous, has the potential to elevate to a C1 dependant on external influences - Something has to happen to elevate to a C1 - Remedial as soon as practicable

C3 - Non-compliance but not dangerous

Now think about what things you're likely to find.

Exposed live parts; C1 every day of the week.

Underrated OCPD; C2, which you cant die from touching it, continued use would give rise to danger

Plastic CU with no thermal damage; C3, nothing to indicate the switchgear isn't operating at intended but current regs would want a non flame propogating ferrous metal enclosure.

You get the idea, it's all down to engineering judgement, not what advise guides like Codebreakers et all day.

agreed, but BS 7671 does not give us the approriate codes for different situations. the actual code classifications are in guidance notes and best practice giude. this is where individual inspectors may differ over codes. usually between C2 and C3. what 1 guy may see as a potential danger, another may just think improvement recommended. err on the side of caution, you are accused of making up work. be lenient and a resulting fire or injury, it's yous in the dock. in the light of the dark side. we're the front line expendables. only the lawyers win, even if they lose, they get paid 10 x our charges. any 5 week law courses about?

 

[brianmoooore]

it's all down to engineering judgement

 

[UNG]

Underrated OCPD; C2, which you cant die from touching it, continued use would give rise to danger

Do you mean an over rated OCPD which could be dangerous if the circuit is overloaded, all an under rated OCPD would do is trip

Plastic CU with no thermal damage; C3, nothing to indicate the switchgear isn't operating at intended but current regs would want a non flame propogating ferrous metal enclosure.

Current regulations require a non combustible CU or a CU contained within a fire rated enclosure, E.G. metal is only an example and not an absolute requirement when it comes to the construction of a CU

 

[Soi disant]

Did you actually read ALL of my post and did you actually digest any of it before you responded.

Yes and yes.

Why are you so insistent that the gospels according to NAPIT and / or the NICEIC is law'

Please show where I've even suggested that I am.

There is no substitute for proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and EXPERIENCE when it comes down to making the decision at the coalface for what coding is needed for a non compliance with BS7671. If you are not able to do that then IMO you should not be doing EICR's,

That's all true, but you were arguing against the use of best practice guides issued by officially recognised organisers of competent person schemes, saying that non-conformances should only be judged against the wiring regs, so it seemed reasonable to consider the fact that those contain effectively nothing in the way of guidance on codings.

Perhaps if you'd said at the outset that the substitute for scheme BPGs is proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and experience, not BS 7671?

However, you are ignoring the fact that virtually every industry and profession has defined best practices, and the fact that as soon as it's made legally mandatory for non-conformances to be rectified, and made a criminal offence to fail to do so, we really should strive to have a system where non-conformances are coded consistently, day in, day out, from one end of the country to another.

If you think about it, BS 7671 is nothing but a large best practice guide for how electrical installations shall be designed and constructed, and I don't see people saying that we shouldn't have it, that we should just rely on people who carry out design and construction etc having proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and experience.

There is much that is unsatisfactory about the present situation, such as different BPGs giving different guidance, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of having them

 

[Soi disant]

Plastic CU with no thermal damage; C3, nothing to indicate the switchgear isn't operating at intended but current regs would want a non flame propogating ferrous metal enclosure.

You get the idea, it's all down to engineering judgement, not what advise guides like Codebreakers et all day.

And if, after some incompetent fiddling which can never be proved, that plastic CU catches fire, I wish you every luck in defending how your qualifications, skills and experience justified you ignoring what officially recognised competency organisations advised.