Queries regarding Inspection Report I've just had completed

[Nigel]

The point of R1 + R2 testing is to confirm safe to energise to then carry out live testing. An utterly pointless test in a periodic inspection scenario as the danger of voltage is already present.

 

[Risteard]

The point of R1 + R2 testing is to confirm safe to energise to then carry out live testing. An utterly pointless test in a periodic inspection scenario as the danger of voltage is already present.

Precisely.

 

[Darkwood]

Well I was taught very differently and no one has yet responded to the obvious issue of not doing a R1 + R2 where the cpc in the cable may be broken and a parallel path has allowed a ELI to give a pass, if people are been taught differently now then I suspect its been based on statistics of the scenario actually causing a real risk and not by the fact a real risk doesn't exist at all.
I will ask again, if you did a periodic and tested say a shower with a broken cpc but you were unaware of it because you got a parallel path on an ELI thus you write the circuit up as a pass - how is that a safe circuit unless the parallel path is a recognised earth return, Mr Plumber could come to repair a leak on a pipe with a plastic push-fit and your parallel path goes leaving an unearthed circuit that requires one.
I personally will continue with my methods and sleep easier knowing that the integrity of the cables cpc is fine as it has been individually tested, I look at it that I am employed by customer wanting an EICR to inspect the full installation unless prior agreement has been done, they want to know circuits are safe to use, if you can get a false positive on a ELI that has found an 'unreliable' parallel path but passed then a real danger can exist.

It seems the industry goal posts have been moved somewhat here and maybe because there is more reliance on RCD protection which now usually covers most domestic circuits, like I said before though I was taught very differently so could be a generation thing but I am no longer arguing what you are taught here, just asking you to evaluate the scenario I put forward, or as I see it, the flaw in the modern method where you can walk away from a broken cpc in a cable that got a pass!

 

[Nigel]

Are you suggesting that a shower has a link from the CPC of the circuit to the pipework?

 

[Risteard]

Are you suggesting that a shower has a link from the CPC of the circuit to the pipework?

He hasn't answered how an R1+R2 test will circumvent this problem either. Electrical testing is imperfect and is why an inspection of all the senses is more important.

 

[Strima]

So how would EFLI testing on a ring final identify an incorrectly wired circuit and discontinuous conductors?

 

[Nigel]

So how would EFLI testing on a ring final identify an incorrectly wired circuit and discontinuous conductors?

If you are talking about end to end tests they are not R1 + R2 tests which is where the thread currently is.

 

[Darkwood]

He hasn't answered how an R1+R2 test will circumvent this problem either. Electrical testing is imperfect and is why an inspection of all the senses is more important.

To the contrary, I have explained on numerous occasions, it brings in a second practice you do not do so you do not entertain the idea, If I remove the shower cover take the Earth and L1 out of the terminals and the same at the distribution then parallel paths are removed and you are testing only the integrity of the cable earth, this is how I was taught, the reasons for doing so I was also taught that you thus eliminate parallel paths which may be unreliable and give false positives.
I don't know when you took your training but I am going back to the late 80's here, no RCD in boards, rewirable fuses and just seeing MCB' becoming the standard, like I said, I am no longer contesting what you are taught, I am asking in your professional opinion where an R1 + R2 can identify and hi-light issues which can be masked by doing a ELI then do you still accept that routinely doing R1 + R2 in domestic EICR's is a waste of time, I am not asking how you were trained to do it, I am asking given the dangerous situations that can be missed do you still consider R1 + R2 a pointless exercise?

R1 + R2 can confirm without parallel paths the cpc of the circuit, this can also be extended to ring mains where you can identify sockets that are spurred of the ring and also see if they are done so safely, an R1+R2 can identify multiple sockets on a single radial line of a spur and this is where a cable can overheat and no be protected by the front end device.
You cannot do this through energised tests as the results can be misleading and/or hiding hidden dangers.

 

[Nigel]

Can someone please explain how a circuit CPC can get a parallel path from?

 

[Darkwood]

Are you suggesting that a shower has a link from the CPC of the circuit to the pipework?

Strange question, have you ever seen a double insulated shower, the element, the copper tank are all usually earthed, if water is fed in copper pipe then you have a possible parallel path and you need to distinguish as I was taught that you are not testing the parallel path but the earthing conductor of the circuit unless both can serve the same purpose by design IE the armour of swa and using a core as earth.

 

[Darkwood]

Can someone please explain how a circuit CPC can get a parallel path from?

We are discussing reliance on the ELI test to confirm the integrity of the circuit cpc, unless you remove the cables physically to do the test then you may get parallel paths on circuits feeding boilers, showers, water heaters etc through copper pipework, this is not classed as a reliable earthing option although in the old days it was the method of choice, this then gives the possibility that a broken cpc in a circuit with such a parallel path could be passed as safe when in fact it is dangerous.
At some point in the last 3 decades there has been a shift in teaching methods and I am simply asking how it is justified given the scenarios I have pointed out. If it is simply down to industry risk assessment has found this scenario is so rare that it doesn't warrant the full routine of tests then fair enough, I can understand that, I however have simply asked using a professional opinion how one can be confident a circuit is safe to use if this dangerous situation may be missed by following current testing guidelines.

 

[Strima]

If you are talking about end to end tests they are not R1 + R2 tests which is where the thread currently is.

No I mean R1+R2 tests which would help identify correct wiring of the RFC. If you had a discontinuous conductor on a an RFC would an EFLI test pick this up? Would an EFLI test identify a spur off a spur?

 

[Nigel]

Strange question, have you ever seen a double insulated shower, the element, the copper tank are all usually earthed, if water is fed in copper pipe then you have a possible parallel path and you need to distinguish as I was taught that you are not testing the parallel path but the earthing conductor of the circuit unless both can serve the same purpose by design IE the armour of swa and using a core as earth.

Every single shower I have installed and/or worked on is always separated from the internal earths of the shower by a plastic inlet.

 

[Nigel]

We are discussing reliance on the ELI test to confirm the integrity of the circuit cpc, unless you remove the cables physically to do the test then you may get parallel paths on circuits feeding boilers, showers, water heaters etc through copper pipework, this is not classed as a reliable earthing option although in the old days it was the method of choice, this then gives the possibility that a broken cpc in a circuit with such a parallel path could be passed as safe when in fact it is dangerous.
At some point in the last 3 decades there has been a shift in teaching methods and I am simply asking how it is justified given the scenarios I have pointed out. If it is simply down to industry risk assessment has found this scenario is so rare that it doesn't warrant the full routine of tests then fair enough, I can understand that, I however have simply asked using a professional opinion how one can be confident a circuit is safe to use if this dangerous situation may be missed by following current testing guidelines.

I would suggest that if a sparks cannot look at a Zs reading and not know if it is where it should be in the realms of then they really should not be doing EICRs. If there is an odd reading then you can decide to dig deeper. A blanket decision to test R1+R2 is not, necessary for a competent tester.

 

[Darkwood]

Every single shower I have installed and/or worked on is always separated from the internal earths of the shower by a plastic inlet.

To be honest its been a while for me in domestic but that may be the case for the majority of showers now but I only chose that as an example, I just remember them been hard piped through no plastic, either way it was the hypothetical, if you struggle seeing the shower scenario then think boiler, water heater, immersion tank if that makes it easier... It was merely an example.

 

[Darkwood]

I would suggest that if a sparks cannot look at a Zs reading and not know if it is where it should be in the realms of then they really should not be doing EICRs. If there is an odd reading then you can decide to dig deeper. A blanket decision to test R1+R2 is not, necessary for a competent tester.

I agree to some extent but you missed my whole point, if you can get a false positive that means there is no indication that something is amiss, I don't think anyone will argue with you about a slightly higher reading on an ELI to what you expect will ring alarm bells, I am talking about dangerous circuits been masked by a parallel path thus not raising such concerns.

 

[Nigel]

No I mean R1+R2 tests which would help identify correct wiring of the RFC. If you had a discontinuous conductor on a an RFC would an EFLI test pick this up? Would an EFLI test identify a spur off a spur?

Personally I would measure across L-N when confirming the correct wiring of the ring final using the figure of eight test and then testing at each outlet on the circuit.

The R1+R2 test is to confirm there is a return path from every point, not that it is wired correctly although the results can be used to confirm this if wired in singles.

 

[Risteard]

To the contrary, I have explained on numerous occasions, it brings in a second practice you do not do so you do not entertain the idea, If I remove the shower cover take the Earth and L1 out of the terminals and the same at the distribution then parallel paths are removed and you are testing only the integrity of the cable earth, this is how I was taught, the reasons for doing so I was also taught that you thus eliminate parallel paths which may be unreliable and give false positives.
I don't know when you took your training but I am going back to the late 80's here, no RCD in boards, rewirable fuses and just seeing MCB' becoming the standard, like I said, I am no longer contesting what you are taught, I am asking in your professional opinion where an R1 + R2 can identify and hi-light issues which can be masked by doing a ELI then do you still accept that routinely doing R1 + R2 in domestic EICR's is a waste of time, I am not asking how you were trained to do it, I am asking given the dangerous situations that can be missed do you still consider R1 + R2 a pointless exercise?

R1 + R2 can confirm without parallel paths the cpc of the circuit, this can also be extended to ring mains where you can identify sockets that are spurred of the ring and also see if they are done so safely, an R1+R2 can identify multiple sockets on a single radial line of a spur and this is where a cable can overheat and no be protected by the front end device.
You cannot do this through energised tests as the results can be misleading and/or hiding hidden dangers.

Again I ask how disconnecting both ends of the cpc meets the requirements of an (R1+R2) test. The whole point of the test is to prove that the cpc is correctly connected which a completely disconnected cpc does not and cannot prove, and can be reconnected incorrectly therefore invalidating anything ascertained with the test. That isn't the recognised procedure for (R1+R2) testing.

 

[Darkwood]

You remove R1 and R2 at one end of the circuit and connect together (connector not a link from the earth bar to mcb), you then go to the other end and do the same but this time you put your meter across both R1 and R2, we were taught this method as it ensures you are only testing the circuit earth and not getting erroneous readings from what could be unreliable parallel paths, if it has changed and you were taught different then that be the case but throughout this thread I have expressed that doing it as you suggest can leave the circuit unsafe for the reasons expressed, I have on several occasions now said that if we forgot which is the method used now and taught can you not see the issues I raised and in your professional opinion are you still happy to walk away from an EICR knowing you may 'maybe on a rare occasion' have left a dangerous circuit..

I understand why you use your method.
I understand that is how they teach it now
I am not arguing that it is wrong as it expressed it may just be statistically so rare that it doesn't warrant proving the actual integrity of the cpc itself but just that you have a return path that passes requirements.

All of the above I understand, it is your professional opinion I am after and do you agree that your method can leave a dangerous situation in some cases?

If the answer is yes then I have made my point although I am not suggesting you are testing it wrong, clearly those minds that decide these matters will have factored such risks into their guidance.

I note when looking around the internet I found this is actually a subject raised on many occasions over the yrs and with conflicting answers depending where you sourced it but I have seen already a couple of older threads that do have this method been mentioned and expressing they were taught that way as was I.
Please remember I came from a generation where our Megger's were wind up (irrelevant I know) and domestic electrical safety was just basic, no RCD's or Arc detection devices in sight.
There was also a drive to change all lead piping into premises into plastic, this is probably why we had to be certain of cpc integrity and also that parallel paths were taken out of the equation as many circuits were losing earthing as it was lost by upgrades to gas and water mains, I will remind you that using the piping was once the method of choice so you can appreciate the risks in isolating it with plastic incomer. I also remember this caused a lot of hassle and people were reporting getting shocks at the time, it was even on the news if I recall so they then rolled out information leaflets to get your Earthing and Bonding checked before the works were done, some companies brought their own Sparks in to survey each installation and then quoted for any additional work to correct the installation before the work could be done.
This maybe why we have very different teachings but also shows you the obvious weakness/flaw in modern testing methods, wouldn't you agree.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Thank you very very much for taking time for a very informative response.

I've spoken to the electrician in question and tried to clarify what we needed to do to get a 'satisfactory'. I asked him if it would be cheaper for him to carry out the remedial works (c1 and c2) and therefore (if I'm understanding correctly, no requirement to perform another full EICR or if I carried out the remedial work and he then perform a full EICR again.

His response is never clear, he first advised that he wouldn't be able to do the work until after Xmas, he then started going on about downlights in the loft, I then said I'm talking about the C1 and C2 work not the C3's as I thought they were just recommendations and have no effect on whether a report gains a satisfactory or unsatisfactory. He responded that as far as he was aware all issues on the report had to be remedied but he advised me to check with building regs (uh?!).

I then stated that I was still struggling to understand why I needed to pay the full amount when originally he advised that the work would take aprox 3 hrs and he was only actually here for two because he couldn't carry out the dead testing due to the state of the CU and that he still had to go home and do the report and because it was so bad it took him longer than usual, he said it wouldn't be very nice if he rang me up and said the report is taking him longer than usual because of the state of things which he had to keep checking with NICEIC. When I said he could have still performed the dead testing another way he asked me how he could have done that!

In addition, I asked him why the certificate had "This is not a valid certificate/report" pre-printed all over it and apparently he said he sent me the wrong one...boy am I confused!!

I don't know whether I am dealing with somebody who is just trying to make my life as difficult as possible because I decided to do the electrics myself or whether he just isn't very good, even though out of 60 reviews he has 9.9/10, that's why I hired him.

You’ve been conned by someone who doesn’t have a clue how to do an EICR or what the actual codes mean. Get yourself another spark to do the EICR pronto IMHO the cert probably isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

 

[Risteard]

You remove R1 and R2 at one end of the circuit and connect together (connector not a link from the earth bar to mcb), you then go to the other end and do the same but this time you put your meter across both R1 and R2, we were taught this method as it ensures you are only testing the circuit earth and not getting erroneous readings from what could be unreliable parallel paths, if it has changed and you were taught different then that be the case but throughout this thread I have expressed that doing it as you suggest can leave the circuit unsafe for the reasons expressed, I have on several occasions now said that if we forgot which is the method used now and taught can you not see the issues I raised and in your professional opinion are you still happy to walk away from an EICR knowing you may 'maybe on a rare occasion' have left a dangerous circuit..

I understand why you use your method.
I understand that is how they teach it now
I am not arguing that it is wrong as it expressed it may just be statistically so rare that it doesn't warrant proving the actual integrity of the cpc itself but just that you have a return path that passes requirements.

All of the above I understand, it is your professional opinion I am after and do you agree that your method can leave a dangerous situation in some cases?

If the answer is yes then I have made my point although I am not suggesting you are testing it wrong, clearly those minds that decide these matters will have factored such risks into their guidance.

I note when looking around the internet I found this is actually a subject raised on many occasions over the yrs and with conflicting answers depending where you sourced it but I have seen already a couple of older threads that do have this method been mentioned and expressing they were taught that way as was I.
Please remember I came from a generation where our Megger's were wind up (irrelevant I know) and domestic electrical safety was just basic, no RCD's or Arc detection devices in sight.
There was also a drive to change all lead piping into premises into plastic, this is probably why we had to be certain of cpc integrity and also that parallel paths were taken out of the equation as many circuits were losing earthing as it was lost by upgrades to gas and water mains, I will remind you that using the piping was once the method of choice so you can appreciate the risks in isolating it with plastic incomer. I also remember this caused a lot of hassle and people were reporting getting shocks at the time, it was even on the news if I recall so they then rolled out information leaflets to get your Earthing and Bonding checked before the works were done, some companies brought their own Sparks in to survey each installation and then quoted for any additional work to correct the installation before the work could be done.
This maybe why we have very different teachings but also shows you the obvious weakness/flaw in modern testing methods, wouldn't you agree.

As I have pointed out already, any and all tests leave the risk of dangerous defects being undetected. This is why testing supplements inspection and is not as important as inspection and does not replace it. It is also why care must be exercised when designing and constructing installations. If you believe that any and all faults can be found with testing - or even through inspection and testing - then that is a deeply flawed view. Periodic inspection and testing is not a perfect process - but then no human process is or can be.

 

[MFS Electrical]

A very poor excuse. If anything doing the dead tests would have been a good opportunity to rectify the 'poor state' for minimal effort.

Unless it was wired in singles then it would just be a headache nevertheless there are ways to carry out The required tests without locating the CPCs.

 

[Darkwood]

As I have pointed out already, any and all tests leave the risk of dangerous defects being undetected. This is why testing supplements inspection and is not as important as inspection and does not replace it. It is also why care must be exercised when designing and constructing installations. If you believe that any and all faults can be found with testing - or even through inspection and testing - then that is a deeply flawed view. Periodic inspection and testing is not a perfect process - but then no human process is or can be.

I also agreed and raised that point earlier, however what I raised is something that can easily be checked for with minimal effect in the majority of cases domestic wise, this is what i am trying to get across, many of the issues that are not detected during an EICR cannot be detected because they simply cannot be observed without major disruption like pulling the property apart and/or picked up by any test procedure, this one can and is why I am asking for your professional opinion, not excuses for not doing it.

 

[Risteard]

You remove R1 and R2 at one end of the circuit and connect together (connector not a link from the earth bar to mcb), you then go to the other end and do the same but this time you put your meter across both R1 and R2, we were taught this method as it ensures you are only testing the circuit earth and not getting erroneous readings from what could be unreliable parallel paths, if it has changed and you were taught different then that be the case but throughout this thread I have expressed that doing it as you suggest can leave the circuit unsafe for the reasons expressed, I have on several occasions now said that if we forgot which is the method used now and taught can you not see the issues I raised and in your professional opinion are you still happy to walk away from an EICR knowing you may 'maybe on a rare occasion' have left a dangerous circuit..

I understand why you use your method.
I understand that is how they teach it now
I am not arguing that it is wrong as it expressed it may just be statistically so rare that it doesn't warrant proving the actual integrity of the cpc itself but just that you have a return path that passes requirements.

All of the above I understand, it is your professional opinion I am after and do you agree that your method can leave a dangerous situation in some cases?

If the answer is yes then I have made my point although I am not suggesting you are testing it wrong, clearly those minds that decide these matters will have factored such risks into their guidance.

I note when looking around the internet I found this is actually a subject raised on many occasions over the yrs and with conflicting answers depending where you sourced it but I have seen already a couple of older threads that do have this method been mentioned and expressing they were taught that way as was I.
Please remember I came from a generation where our Megger's were wind up (irrelevant I know) and domestic electrical safety was just basic, no RCD's or Arc detection devices in sight.
There was also a drive to change all lead piping into premises into plastic, this is probably why we had to be certain of cpc integrity and also that parallel paths were taken out of the equation as many circuits were losing earthing as it was lost by upgrades to gas and water mains, I will remind you that using the piping was once the method of choice so you can appreciate the risks in isolating it with plastic incomer. I also remember this caused a lot of hassle and people were reporting getting shocks at the time, it was even on the news if I recall so they then rolled out information leaflets to get your Earthing and Bonding checked before the works were done, some companies brought their own Sparks in to survey each installation and then quoted for any additional work to correct the installation before the work could be done.
This maybe why we have very different teachings but also shows you the obvious weakness/flaw in modern testing methods, wouldn't you agree.

As I have pointed out already, any and all tests leave the risk of dangerous defects being undetected. This is why testing supplements inspection and is not as important as inspection and does not replace it. It is also why care must be exercised when designing and constructing installations. If you believe that any and all faults can be found with testing - or even through inspection and testing - then that is a deeply flawed view. Periodic inspection and testing is not a perfect process - but then no human process is or can be.

I also agreed and raised that point earlier, however what I raised is something that can easily be checked for with minimal effect in the majority of cases domestic wise, this is what i am trying to get across, many of the issues that are not detected during an EICR cannot be detected because they simply cannot be observed without major disruption like pulling the property apart and/or picked up by any test procedure, this one can and is why I am asking for your professional opinion, not excuses for not doing it.

Hardly excuses. I have demonstrated clearly how it will be no more beneficial, yet you are seeking excuses to pretend that it's somehow going to achieve something which a loop test won't.

The very fact that you suggesting that cpc continuity should be proven by disconnecting the cpc makes this clear - your test will do nothing to prove that the cpc is actually adequately connected to exposed-conductive-parts or cpc terminals. My professional opinion is that your belief in this test for periodic inspection and testing is misguided and will not result in safer installations but will cost the client much more in terms of labour and inconvenience with the installation de-energised for lengthy periods.

 

[Risteard]

Incidentally, do you conduct a test for erroneous connections between phase conductors? I realise that this test is not prescribed by BS7671 but surely by your argument you should do it anyway to ensure safer electrical installations. (Other national standards do prescribe such a test, so it's not something I've invented.)

 

[Risteard]

Also do you insulation test between live conductors? If not, why not?

 

[Darkwood]

Also do you insulation test between live conductors? If not, why not?

was taught to and still do... it's like life when a property price estimator can drive passed a house now without any in-depth survey ... fast track and sidestepping half the survey.

 

[Risteard]

was taught to and still do... it's like life when a property price estimator can drive passed a house now without any in-depth survey ... fast track and sidestepping half the survey.

You insulation test between live conductors during periodic inspection and testing? Seriously? In large industrial installations? Without unnecessary dismantling?

 

[Darkwood]

You insulation test between live conductors during periodic inspection and testing? Seriously? In large industrial installations? Without unnecessary dismantling?

Throughout this thread it has been maintained that we are discussing domestic, no one is talking industrial, this brings in many limitations and agreements just not seen or practised in the domesic arena, I have expressed we were taught differently and also given you the reasons, you still haven't give a view as I asked in your professional position that for the sake of a small amount of effort and time you can possibly identify dangerous scenarios that your routine would simply miss, I understand that we simple cannot identify all issues as there are clear limitations to what can be discovered with an EICR but given that a R1 + R2 is a small detour from your routine and it is not a major disruption or effort do you not agree that it provides a better scope on the condition of a domestic install and crucially can identify several issues that could be classed as a danger and missed in your method. I no longer care how you are taught here or who is right or wrong, I just want your professional opinion and not another reply justifying your method.

Finally I will say I seem to be chasing my tail here trying to get you to see my point and you to answer it directly so will bow out of the conversation if you again misdirect the conversation to avoid a direct answer.
We were taught differently, my method is the one I prefer to use, if your method was the only way to do things then why do they even bother putting the result boxes on the certificates regardless where you source them, to me if there was only your method to doing an EICR then the paperwork would not include R1+R2 as space is at a premium on those sheets as it is.

 

[Risteard]

I expressly gave you my view several posts ago had you cared to read it. And talk of insulation testing between live conductors during periodic inspection is frankly laughable.

 

[sheppertonspark]

A difficult one Butch, I don't know the legalities, but if you continue to talk to the CAB and the NICEIC, then copy the Electrician in question as well, this may result in a reaction from the Electrician in question, but it may/should act as a resolution should you, or more importantly the Electrician, should he invoke the payment within 7 day clause on the invoice. I'm sure any attempt to invoke this clause by the Electrician will be looked on favorably, by any resulting court case, be open in all your correspondence to all parties, again good luck, the convening authorities don't like little people, you in this instance (no offence) getting shafted, hope it all goes well.

 

[sheppertonspark]

NICEIC rules state that you the Customer should ask the Contractor for a complaints form which he must provide you with. Failure to do so I believe would result in his expulsion from the "Club".
In my opinion it is a poor report anyway. The summary of the condition of the installation has 2 options satisfactory or unsatisfactory.It should be broken down into concise sections for example in the most basic of installations: Earthing and bonding, circuit and shock protection, wiring system and accessories, the comments he has written here belong on page 3 of the report. Also what is the point of quoting regulation numbers to a layman ? Are you going to spend a hundred quid buying a regs book ? He has correctly stated unsatisfactory because of the shock risk from the sockets being left loose. Why he didn't he just screw them back. Since he wants to be pedantic perhaps play him at his own game. He had a duty of care under Health & Safety laws to take steps to remove the danger present. He did not do so but had "in law" guilty knowledge of the fault present. Did he issue a danger notice ? I doubt it. Seems he has forgotten who the customer is and that he is being paid for his knowledge and expertise, unfortunately a lot of sparks think they are the "Electricity Police".
The NIC's procedure is to encourage the member and customer to resolve the dispute between themselves, if you have fallen out with the guy that is not likely to happen, it will be a long drawn out procedure to get the work done again for free.
My advice would be to bite the bullet and employ another sparks who likes to look after his customers (most of us trade on word of mouth recommendation and are careful not to offend).
I understand you will lose out financially.
P.S. my own personal opinion is that electrics should be left to the professionals.
Rant over.

 

[Santa]

"
P.S. my own personal opinion is that electrics should be left to the professionals.
Rant over."

Herein is my problem as a not quite ignorant member of the public. If the 'professionals' on this forum cannot agree as to what should be included in such a basic test; let alone what is a reasonable charge and a proper approach, how on earth am I supposed to identify a 'competent' electrician?

Also, like many people, including the OP, I (think) I am quite capable of doing my own minor work, like running a spur or even a new RFC. I don't really know, and reading this board I am probably even less clear, about what I am allowed to do. "Get a professional in" you will all chorus but read my first paragraph.

This is not unique to your trade; I have had problems with every trade from plumbers to car repairs, and I bet that most householders have too.

Incidentally, I see that faulty electrical wiring is quite a way down on the list of causes of domestic fires. Curious children are more dangerous it seems.

The Most Common Causes of House Fires

1. Cooking Equipment. Pots and pans can overheat and cause a fire very easily if the person cooking gets distracted and leaves cooking unattended. ...
2. Heating. ...
3. Smoking in bedrooms. ...
4. Electrical Equipment. ...
5. Candles. ...
6. Curious Children. ...
7. Faulty Wiring. ...
8. Barbeques.

 

[sheppertonspark]

Does not warrant a comment