Good practice?

[DONJAY]

Hi Guys, long story (short as poss) I am a retired sparks. having started with a 7 year apprenticeship, approved to 33k worked in oil refineries m.o.d. airports. ships. industrial. Schools. Thousands of new homes and re-wires, but no longer do any serious electrical work, as too old to self cert and not interested as I once was, and now do decorating and odd jobs, just to keep active, have replaced light fittings and sockets. (no wiring) however I had a customer recently who wanted work done in a bathroom, including change taps, an old habit is to mention what is now eouipotential bonding, I was there in the early days when it was cross bonding!
And suggested that the customer get in touch with a self cert guy, to have the installation checked, just trying to help, give the guy some work! Next thing, I get a nasty letter from my customer saying I don’t know what I'm talking about, and bounced my cheque! (Apparently the protective bonding is fully to 16th edition) And apparently the self cert guy copied and pasted on a letter to my customer a selected part only, of text from 17 th edition, section 701 (which I am sure you guys know more about than I!) which ends with the sentence. Quote=This means that the need for green and yellow cables in bathrooms,and shower rooms, is unlikely to be necessary. Unquote.
Well why stop there? Surely this gives any customer misleading information, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the most important part of 17th ed, is the part that was omitted, ==411.3.1.2, (in a nutshell) 17th Edition (BS7671:2008) removed the need to cross bond. But only on condition that full protection using 30ma RCDs which will trip at 40ms or less are installed instead.
(This is not the case in the 15 year old property! (where the bath taps are directly below a power shower! )Is this correct? Is this what Self Cert is all about? Copying selected parts of regs? I was trying to help the guy!
Any friendly thoughts please, confused DONJAY

 

[Doomed]

Anyone doing work in nearly all areas of a domestic property concerning electrics must be registered with a company such as NICEIC or Napit to conform to the part P regulations, unless they want to pay the local building control loads of money to inspect every job.
The information you are quoting is correct.
The 'self cert' guy should of rcommended that the installation has a RCD fitted, possibly by a board change to cover the whole house. He is sort of correct in saying that bonding is not now needed (as you say because of RCD protection). He had no need to disrespect your advice, and the customer has no reason to get queer with you - it sounds like a con on the customers part to have a reason not to pay you.
Offer the customer the option that you will come in and remove all the work you have done as they are not happy with it.

 

[rocker]

Yea, what you haven't said is whether an RCD is fitted or not. If it isn't, then supplementary bonding would still be required. You say the property is 15 years old, if the original installation is to 16th edition then supplementary bonding should have been in place whether there was an RCD fitted or not.

I don't understand how this customer can justify not paying you, it's not like you were even planning on doing the work, you've just recommended that someone else looks at it.

Do you have a copy of 17th ed or OSG? It may be worth sending a copy of some text from it yourself. I would also, as has been said, get in touch with the customer and let them know that if they are not happy to pay for the work, you will be round to remove it.

As far as this so called electrician, if you know who he is I'd get in touch and have it out with him! He sounds like a 5 week wonder-horse to me, this was probably one of the questions he had in his exam so he read the first sentence but hasn't even picked up the big red book since. You could probably teach him a thing or two, I'd wager.

 

[tlangdon12]

Much better to get in touch with the electrician and ask him to help get the customer happy to pay you. This should be easy if you explain what you were trying to do and how you'd like to be able to refer other customers to him. (Say it, even if you don't mean it). Once he's on your side; you can get paid.

 

[DONJAY]

Many thanks for replies guys, thank you for your time,

it sounds like a con on the customers part to have a reason not to pay you.

Nail on the head there DOOM. shame really i have done a lot of work for this customer, all at £10 an hour! Mostly decorating, plumbing coving etc, unfortunately (as it now seems!) I have always had a policy of informing customers about any possibility regarding the work they need to be done; I’m beginning to regret that! That’s why I mentioned the protective bonding.
Thanks ROCKER, there is an RCD but it is a split board, (from what i remember,) but the RCD may only be for the power shower, and does not even protect kitchen sockets, The guy did also copy and paste for my customer the following. The existing bonding with 4 mill cable and do not remove labels is fully to the 16th edition of the IEE regulations and does not need upgrading, (which I knew) he however suggests that I read the 17th edition as equipotential bonding may not be required in all circumstances, I know that bit too. (The customer then adds) He would also question whether I am qualified to do any electrical work and if I hold competent person status, so that I can Self Certify to IEE regs.! Well no! That’s why I suggested my customer call him! So if i am in plumber mode, and ensuring the protective bonding is in place after changing taps, do i need to self certify? or do i need to call someone who can? i do have a copy of 17th ed. ROCKER but believed only 16th edition applied, hence the need for protective bonding to remain in place, if and when I changed the bloody taps in the bathroom, but as i said I’m no longer into electrical any more because I understand the need for more stringent controls Re-regs, than used to be required in my day. To be honest I’m not sure why 17th ed. Was even mentioned, as surely this does not apply in this case, (there certainly is not full protection from the use of 30ma RCDs which will trip at 40ms or less! but it certainly gave the customer something to play with as ammunition! Is this self cert guy even allowed to question my customer about me?
Thanks again DONJAY

 

[Johno]

Hi donjay, let me get this straight, you changed the taps and did no electrical work but just recommended that the customer had their bonding checked out.

Then a registered spark came round and said it's fine as it is, as you don't know what you are on about. So they cancelled your cheque for fitting the taps.


If this is the case but you know that the bonding or RCD is not up to scratch then if I were you I would calll the NIC or elecsa or whoever he is registered with and make a complaint.

 

[Des 56]

To be honest I’m not sure why 17th ed. Was even mentioned, as surely this does not apply in this case, (there certainly is not full protection from the use of 30ma RCDs which will trip at 40ms or less! but it certainly gave the customer something to play with as ammunition! Is this self cert guy even allowed to question my customer about me?
Thanks again DONJAY

Your statement above may not be correct
Allthough the regulations are not retrospective,all installations are compared to the current regs for compliance with the current,deviations to the current regs would be noted on a pir etc
Any new work carried out in the bathroom would also be done with the current ed in mind

I’m no longer into electrical any more because I understand the need for more stringent controls Re-regs, than used to be required in my day.
New is not always better,I think we have taken a backward step or 2 with both control and standards

The existing bonding should have remained and be verified as suitable,removal would have been a reduction in the quality of the installation,even if 17th edition omition of supplementary bonding clause was used, and satisfied

The guy sounds like he was up his own rear with with little sight of what he was supposed to see,perhaps becuse of the rose tinted specs he may have worn

I agree with the earlier post that this was a non payment strategy being used and likely not related to your electrical advise

 

[rocker]

Yep, this is a load of rubbish, to me it seems whats happened is you've suggested the customer looks into having something done, the electrician has got the wrong end of the stick (for whatever reason) thinking that you are trying to charge the customer and do the work yourself, so has given a 'second opinion', and the customer has used this as ammunition to start a grievance with you and save a few quid. The quotation that the electrician sent the customer is misleading and incorrect as there is no RCD protection on one or more bathroom circuits, meaning that supplementary bonding IS required even if it was a 17th installation, which it isnt, it's a 16th which means supplementary bonding would have been required regardless. The fact that there's no RCD protction and he has given this advice goes to show that either he hasn't even looked at it, or he doesn't know the regulations which he claims to.

OK, it was never put in place previously (when 16th was current), but in this situation it is still a requirement at 17th. And okay, so there's no electrical work actually taking place so do we need to do the supplementary bonding? I say yes (or fit an RCD), would any of you happily leave a house without alerting the customer after, say, straightening up a wonky lightswitch (no actual electrical work), if you could tell it had insufficient earthing arrangements?

You have at no time tried to swindle any money out of the customer for unnecessary work, their witholding of funds is entirely unjustified - if they don't cough up, threaten them with small claims court.

 

[DONJAY]

Thanks again guys, as to my thread title, Good Practice, I don’t know if you guys copy and paste regs in full or part to customers. But there could be cause to be wary of doing so, ROCKER and other guys are right, this customer has either received this copy of reg’s (already edited) or edited them in order to save a few quid ! My mistake was to use the title as I knew it in my ancient past--cross bonding! I used that title also because I thought it would be less confusing for the customer! Although in terms of the customer basically means the same thing, but the customer wrote with great delight that I had made a fuss about equipotential bonding, (obviously having been told the correct title by the guy!)
I am writing to the customer, to say Thank you for appreciating that I do take protective bonding seriously enough to mention! And that it is still a requirement! (Plus a lot more) as you may gather I am very old, and have no need to keep up with the correct terminoligy! When cross bonding came in, it seemed to apply to many things, when I was working sub contract for m.o.d this term was even used by my employers, to describe the installation of bonding to fuel depot storage tanks! and supporting frames, to prevent static sparks! But I know it is a slang word. However I am sure the customer or the guy would have found something/anything to use as ammunition, to save a few quid, I know what to do now to chase this up! Thanks! I don’t want to bore you guys, but a job I have also done for over 20 years was domestic repairs, mainly washing machines dishwashers, etc, which was pretty good, especially after the factory and oil refinery work, there were a few perks to be had! And diagnostic work, But on every job I would glance at the bonding. When connecting up under the sink, it is amazing how many bonding clamps are disconnected, missing, or cables chopped off because kitchen fitters, some plumbers don’t know what they are for! You may think well ‘it happens’, but when you come across brand new machines that are connected up with crossed polarity, inside the machine from the factory! It can be alarming, (I found 22 in all!) I also had quite a few machines developing a particular fault, and the customer would often say, it has a fault, how much will it cost? Don’t touch the sink and the machine door at the same time! (Most often the earth inside the machine casing had been ripped off on a violent un-balanced spin, and the heater element had split! (You can see the element coils through the split! But the heater will still work! This may not even trip an RCD depending on how dirty the water was! (though other factors apply also) sometimes at a kitchen sink next to WM, I have come across a stainless sink with continuity to only one tap or none at all! (I have also seen babies being bathed in the kitchen sink , directly below a strip light under the top cupboard, and with a kettle lead plugged in to the socket but not the kettle inches away!) I suppose I am making a point that when an installation is completed with all the protective bonding in place, and tested, the next day the customer could decide to have new taps, with the result that plastic fittings may be used, bonding clamps not re-fitted. Etc. even a self cert guy say it’s not required so is then taken out! And the integrity of the installation compromised, but what can you do? Short of following plumbers around! Or an information label included with all new taps! Perhaps regular testing? As I understand it in 2008, (Please correct me if I am wrong) a regulation was bought in stating that all new properties should have full protection by the use of RCDs, personally I feel all properties old and new, should have this, but would it not be better still for this reg to have specified RCBO protection? Any thoughts on this guys, just out of interest! Apology for waffling, Cheers Thanks again DJ

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Donjay...just to clarify supplementary bonding requirements.
Supplementary bonding may be required in special locations as defined in Bs 7671....this does not include kitchens.There is no requirement to supplementary bond pipes and sinks in kitchens,and there never has been....this is a myth that has persisted for donkeys years.I wish I had a quid for every sink I've grovelled under ,attempting to connect a earth wire to an impossibly located tag....years ago I found out it was all a waste of time.Sink manufacturers dont help dispell this mythical practice by continuing to provide tags to their sinks,and even stating in their literature that their product must be earthed!
Supplementary bonding may be required in bathrooms as stated by the guys. Where required it should be connected between conductive parts within the location..(earth terminals of earthed electrical equipment)...and incoming metallic sevices liable to introduce an outside earth potential to the location,thus bonding ideally should take place at the point of entry.Once the incoming metallic services are within the location they can no longer introduce an external earth potential,so it follows that electrical continuity of the pipes is then irrelevant...so there can be as many plastic joint as the plumber sees fit to install.The hazard has been dealt with by bonding at the point of entry.
In practice it may not be practical to bond at the point of entry,thus it may be carried out at a more convienient location such as an airing cupboard.In this case it would be necessary to ensure electical continuity of the pipes between the point of bonding and the point of entry to the location....but once within the location plastic inserts would be irrelevant as again electrical continuity is no longer necessary.
Hope this helps!

 

[DONJAY]

Thanks for that wirepuller, i was told to put it in hundreds of houses, but that was a very long time ago, in the dark ages i reckon, but this bonding was installed in my problem customers property. Anyway i only really popped in for advice, and to seek a direction , and i am gratefull for the help and advice i have had, so i am sorted! back to decorating now. Best Wishes for Christmas you guys, Bye all DONJAY

 

[DONJAY]

Greetings all. Sorry to pop in again guys, no luck with the bill being paid, possibly because i sat on it for too long, till now, However having looked at the customers letter many many times, i missed the obvious!
The electrician posted the following for the customer===------He suggests that i read the 17th edition as equipotential bonding may not be required in all circumstances!
Well i looked at that many times, with the result that i finaly realised what he is refering to, is the main bonding! not supplementary, or protective, or cross bonding
(therefore please note the following)

(quote) What is Main Bonding
Main bonding or equipotential bonding is the earthing of a property’s main water pipe and, if there is one, gas pipe. This is an electrical regulation and it stipulates that the earthing cable must be of a certain minimum size and must be at a maximum of 600mm away from the main water stop cock and the gas inlet pipe.
This is to protect the people that occupy the property from electric shock, in the event of a fault, from services that do not use electricity and provide a fault path to earth.
It is the duty of an electrician to check for bonding to your non electrical services before any work is started, and in the absence of bonding must inform you that this must be done first before any further work commences. (quote)




Legal Requirements
If the main (or supplementary when required) bonding is not present, it is considered to be a serious electrical fault (i.e. one which would record as a level 1 failure on a periodic inspection report). As a result anyone carrying out Part P notifiable modifications to any part of an electrical installation should also check and rectify any Bonding faults at the same time. Note that although there is no general legal obligation on house owners to upgrade the electrical system to meet the current requirements as laid down in BS7671 (the "wiring regs") any work that is part P notifiable cannot legally be carried out (either DIY or paid for) without the correct bonding being in place.
It is not uncommon for professional electricians to refuse to undertake any form of electrical work (part P or otherwise) unless they are also instructed to perform any remedial work on the main bonding at the same time since otherwise this could put them in a very questionable legal position.

I would say he gave was the wrong information! what do you guys reckon? Cheers DONJAY

 

[Paul.M]

You've hit the nail on the head with your legal requirements statement and its perfect for any domestic electrician and customers to understand that bonding is required before any other work is carried out.

The problem of people not wanting to pay for bonding has poped up on here several times and a lot of sparks have walked away from the quote due to it.

In your case (original post) all you did was to offer your extensive years of experience to a customer pointing out that the bonding may not be adequate and needs looking at by an electrician with up to date quals seen as you are now retired from the industry. This is the thanks you get for caring about peoples safety! At least you can sleep at night.

 

[Guest123]

If you refer the 'spark' to reg 131.8 of BS 7671 2008, it clearly states that no additions or alterations to an electrical installation should be carried out unless the existing earthing & bonding arrangements are adequate.