UK SWA Cable termination

[Electrics]

Has he put the SWA in that conduit? Like, the whole lot, or just the inner cores?

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Think the conduit has singles in (if you mean the white conduit)

 

[littlespark]

I think the conduit is going out, supplying the sockets. The feed swa comes in the back of the CU, without a gland

 

[westward10]

Haven't paid anything yet but will need to contact him soon to see if he can put right.

I'm up to speed with what he needs to do on the shed side of things, however correct me if I am wrong.

Gland the end of the armoured cable into a box on exterior wall and the carry cable through from box to the board (cable is not long enough to gland on inside). Add an earth wire from SWA gland to consumer unit, add a mains switch and adapt wiring to suit.

Can anyone tell me, what should he be doing on the supply end at the house? Is he on the right track with the RCB and MCB getting fed from the mains switch?

I'm assuming he also needs an earth coming from a gland at supply end in addition to the earth from the SWA cable, do both earth's go to same place?

If someone may be kind enough to explain what should happen at the supply end, it will help me have the conversation with him and I can guage the response and decide what to do from here.

As always all advice is very much appreciated.

On a side note, I think I know the answer, but is it possible to run three double sockets from a Spur?

My understanding is that if spurred from a socket, max is one double socket. Multiple can only be added if they are fused or taken from a junction?

You haven't paid him that is good. As previously stated find an electrician to correct this shambles it is no good asking on here in the hope this individual will follow suit and carry out the compliant job they should have done in the first place. Wash your hands of them.

 

[telectrix]

do not get him back. he is a complete idiot. don't pay. get a real sparks to quote on putting it right.

 

[mjjm986]

I think the conduit is going out, supplying the sockets. The feed swa comes in the back of the CU, without a gland

Yeah that's right, conduit has the cables feeding the sockets.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Can anyone point to the regulation confirming that SWA glands must be used?

510.3 is the only one I can think of which states equipment shall be erected taking into account the manufacturers instructions. Not too sure if the SWA manufacturer actually make a recommendation of using armoured glands however.

 

[DPG]

Can anyone point to the regulation confirming that SWA glands must be used?

510.3 is the only one I can think of which states equipment shall be erected taking into account the manufacturers instructions. Not too sure if the SWA manufacturer actually make a recommendation of using armoured glands however.

Good workmanship would cover this. How else would you terminate a SWA without a gland and maintain good workmanship.

Except possibly using a PVC compression gland for isolating the earth if TTing something maybe.

 

[brianmoooore]

As rough as it is, I think you'd struggle to find regulations that this install has broken.
The steel wires are only connected at the shed end, which is bad practice, but contravenes nothing, as long as the copper equivalent csa of the number of wires connected is sufficient, which I would estimate they are. Should have sleeving on them, but that's a minor point.
At the house end, the only regulation breaches (from an English point of view) that I can see, are the single sheathed blue and brown, lack of strain relief, non fire resistant enclosures, and possible IP rating issues.

 

[DPG]

As rough as it is, I think you'd struggle to find regulations that this install has broken.
The steel wires are only connected at the shed end, which is bad practice, but contravenes nothing, as long as the copper equivalent csa of the number of wires connected is sufficient, which I would estimate they are. Should have sleeving on them, but that's a minor point.
At the house end, the only regulation breaches (from an English point of view) that I can see, are the single sheathed blue and brown, lack of strain relief, non fire resistant enclosures, and possible IP rating issues.

And most of those things would be against the good workmanship regulation.

 

[telectrix]

conravenes the "good workmanship" reg..... nuff said.

 

[Vortigern]

If you gland at least the supply end properly then you protect the outer sheathing if it becomes live. If you cut through the SWA with an earthed armour there will be a protective device operating whereas without that earthing the outer armour will not necessarily operate the protective device. no?

 

[brianmoooore]

And most of those things would be against the good workmanship regulation.

Fully agree, but if you're going to challenge this work, you really need black/white violations of regulations, not something as subjective as poor workmanship.

 

[brianmoooore]

If you gland at least the supply end properly then you protect the outer sheathing if it becomes live. If you cut through the SWA with an earthed armour there will be a protective device operating whereas without that earthing the outer armour will not necessarily operate the protective device. no?

Correct, but there's no actual reg. to support this; just good sense and good practice.

 

[telectrix]

amendment 3 to 18th. "thou shalt not install a monkey's abortion" there.

 

[DPG]

Fully agree, but if you're going to challenge this work, you really need black/white violations of regulations, not something as subjective as poor workmanship.

You can't put every example of bad workmanship in as a reg. The regs would be 3 times the thickness they are now.

Reg 8264.34.344.33 'All compression glands must be tightened sufficiently'

Etc.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

And who decides the standard of work which falls below good workmanship?

We all agree that this is poor workmanship, but there will be plenty of people who do the job correctly but their work looks rough... would that be classed as bad workmanship?

 

[mjjm986]

Even to my untrained eye workmanship is poor and I'm not.happy with it however, if we put the workmanship aside for a second, can someone please tell me what needs to be done to make it safe?

If a gland with an earth was added at the supply end to protect the outer metal in the SWA sheathing, does that make it a safe install?

Should the wires from the SWA then stay as is, connected the the earth terminal in the consumer unit in the shed?

I'm really worried about the safety aspect, I can ask for it to be tidied up and am happy.to argue that point, safety is my top priority though, as this is my mums house and I want to make sure it's safe.

 

[westward10]

You have been told several times to seek the services of an electrian they will know how to rectify it. The forum whilst happy to help DIY members draw a line whereby the advice given maybe applied incorrectly.

 

[telectrix]

the supply end of the SWA needs to be properly glanded. not really important about the other end. if cable is short, then a galv. metal box can be used for the gland, then cable extended into CU.

 

[mjjm986]

as long as the copper equivalent csa of the number of wires connected is sufficient, which I would estimate they are. Should have sleeving on them, but that's a minor point.

Can. I ask what you mean by the copper equivalent CSA of the number of wires mean?

At the house end, the only regulation breaches (from an English point of view) that I can see, are the single sheathed blue and brown, lack of strain relief, non fire resistant enclosures, and possible IP rating issues.

Also if you don't mind, could you breakdown the above for me, what can be done to fix these issues please.

 

[mjjm986]

You have been told several times to seek the services of an electrian they will know how to rectify it. The forum whilst happy to help DIY members draw a line whereby the advice given maybe applied incorrectly.

Understood. I won't be applying any measures myself. I'm finding it difficult getting another electrician to come out, so just looking for advice on what can be done to put it right, so I know I know what to look for if the electrician puts it right.

 

[DPG]

Can. I ask what you mean by the copper equivalent CSA of the number of wires mean?

Also if you don't mind, could you breakdown the above for me, what can be done to fix these issues please.

Just get a decent electrician in. They will not need you to tell them what needs doing, and may even be offended if you try to do this.

Or are you thinking of doing the work yourself?

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Understood. I won't be applying any measures myself. I'm finding it difficult getting another electrician to come out, so just looking for advice on what can be done to put it right, so I know I know what to look for if the electrician puts it right.

There may be someone on here who can visit you. Which area are you in?

 

[mjjm986]

Just get a decent electrician in. They will not need you to tell them what needs doing, and may even be offended if you try to do this.

Or are you thinking of doing the work yourself?

Definitely not gonna touch it myself, I wouldn't touch electrics, that's a job for trained professionals.

It's just if I get the chap back, I'd like enough knowledge to know if he's putting it right. I'll keep looking for another electrician.

 

[mjjm986]

There may be someone on here who can visit you. Which area are you in?

Co Down Northern Ireland. Have found a chap who can hopefully take a look at it today.

 

[telectrix]

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Co Down Northern Ireland. Have found a chap who can hopefully take a look at it today.

Great, let us know what he comes back with!

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

I see they're doing it wrong as well! You're supposed to not use glands and take the armouring directly into the MET. Silly GSH Electrical!

 

[Lister1987]

131.3.1 Protection from Thermal effects - With a layer of insulation missing the thermal insulating properties is compromised,

132.7 Type & Method of installation - Not using correct installation methods re; glands

133.3 Conditions of installation - Without the gland there will be stresses on the cable that it's not design for

134.1.1 Good workmanship - No explaination needed

134.1.4 Connections, without thr correct glanding you won't have an electrically and mechanically sound connection.

134.2.1 Initial Verification - I'd like to think this wouldn't pass a decent IV with the cable in that state.

And that's just Chapter 13, you could easily pull regs from Parts 4 & 5to bolster the argument

 

[Electrics]

Fully agree, but if you're going to challenge this work, you really need black/white violations of regulations, not something as subjective as poor workmanship.

Don't agree. There's no reg against putting in trunking on the ---- but i'd still challenge it.

 

[Electrics]

And who decides the standard of work which falls below good workmanship?

The person paying the bill.

 

[Petej999]

Hi All,

Looking some advice. Had someone install a SWA cable to exterior outhouse. In the outhouse everything.looks.great, new consumer board and three double sockets all installed and looking good. My.concern is with how the SWA cable has been terminated at the main board in the house. Surely the SWA should have been terminated into a junction box or something similar, then a feed to the new RCBO's? Should I be concerned or leave as is?
View attachment 91350

Cable/conductor support for final connections/IP ratings/ installation practice are three of the poor design and installation \s I would question.

 

[Lister1987]

You can't put every example of bad workmanship in as a reg. The regs would be 3 times the thickness they are now.

Reg 8264.34.344.33 'All compression glands must be tightened sufficiently'

Etc.

You can't but that is why 134.1.1 exists and where peer discussion comes into its own; I'd like to think there isn't a single electrician or even learner on here that would see no gland use as anything other than poor workmanship, I mean how do you defend it?

And who decides the standard of work which falls below good workmanship?

We all agree that this is poor workmanship, but there will be plenty of people who do the job correctly but their work looks rough... would that be classed as bad workmanship?

As above; peers, either other sparks or if they're part of a CPS then the area assessor for that CPS, I can't see any defending that lash up.

There is a line between rough as a badgers arse and dangerous. Any electrician that cares about Thier work won't have to be worried, the shysters and the seat-of-the-pants , the lash it on, flick a switch 'it works don't it?" Sparks on the other hand....

131.3.1 Protection from Thermal effects - With a layer of insulation missing the thermal insulating properties is compromised,

132.7 Type & Method of installation - Not using correct installation methods re; glands

133.3 Conditions of installation - Without the gland there will be stresses on the cable that it's not design for

134.1.1 Good workmanship - No explaination needed

134.1.4 Connections, without thr correct glanding you won't have an electrically and mechanically sound connection.

134.2.1 Initial Verification - I'd like to think this wouldn't pass a decent IV with the cable in that state.

And that's just Chapter 13, you could easily pull regs from Parts 4 & 5to bolster the argument

Chapter 13 is all you need, if you have an installation that breaches one of the fundamentals then it needs rethinking, redesigning and redoing.

Caught the arse-end of an E5 webinar last night that was genuinely interesting and it focused on Chapter 13 and transposition to EAWR regulations, how (with not much effort) you can turn a non-statutory 'regulation' into a statutory regulation in the correct sense of the work

Once you've got the chapter 13 violations and transposing to EAWR, you can then build on that foundation with other regulations from parts 4, 5 & 7. It's certainly something I'm going to be exploring more and bettering my understanding of .

 

[nicebutdim]

At the house end, the only regulation breaches (from an English point of view) that I can see, are the single sheathed blue and brown, lack of strain relief, non fire resistant enclosures, and possible IP rating issues.

Same regulations apply here, just no Part P of building regs.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

The person paying the bill.

What if that person hasn't got a clue what's a decent job and what isn't? Say this was that person's house and they said it was good - does that mean it's good?

 

[Vortigern]

I really don't think you can dismiss 134/good workmanship. I don't think it just means it should look neat although that is part of the craft. I think it means workmanship that will avoid danger to life or property. If the armour is not earthed I can see scenarios arising that someone could be electrocuted. In which case not taking into account manufacturers instructions that no doubt include using a gland to properly terminate the SWA would be poor and dangerous workmanship. Harm arising from that would mean there would be no defence in saying you followed regulations/statute i.e. being competent to avoid danger to person etc. as per EAWR due to poor workmanship.

 

[mjjm986]

Thanks for all your input everyone. Interesting to see everyone's take and I learned a little as well ?

Had another electrician take a look today, he agreed that it was not a professional job and is going to make it good for me. Said he would be redoing connections on both ends in line with what you all suggested.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

What was the outcome with the original "electrician" if you don't mind me asking?

Have you spoke to him about it?

 

[mjjm986]

What was the outcome with the original "electrician" if you don't mind me asking?

Have you spoke to him about it?

Gonna speak with him in Saturday, gonna pay him for what he has done so far, but tell him I have gotten some one else to complete the rest of the work. Second part of the job was to do some garden lighting and another shed.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Keep it simple @mjjm986 . You're going to get confused by all the differing advice and viewpoints on the forum if you try and take it all in and understand every post. Just get the new guy out and let him sort it out.

I think it would be harsh not to pay the original chap at all. However much the new guy charges to put it right, take that amount off from what you were going to pay the other chap.

 

[Electrics]

Gonna speak with him in Saturday, gonna pay him for what he has done so far, but tell him I have gotten some one else to complete the rest of the work. Second part of the job was to do some garden lighting and another shed.

Are you going to pay him for the bits that have to be redone?

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Are the sockets and light in your shed working at the minute? Did the original bloke give you a test certificate?

 

[mjjm986]

Are the sockets and light in your shed working at the minute? Did the original bloke give you a test certificate?

Yes everything is working, haven't received a test cert, didn't think to ask for one at beginning of job, but will ask for one when I make payment.

 

[mjjm986]

Keep it simple @mjjm986 . You're going to get confused by all the differing advice and viewpoints on the forum if you try and take it all in and understand every post. Just get the new guy out and let him sort it out.

I think it would be harsh not to pay the original chap at all. However much the new guy charges to put it right, take that amount off from what you were going to pay the other chap.

Will definitely pay him, I've no problem with that, for me it's not about the money, more about peace of mind with it being my elderly parents house.

The new chap was able to tell me exactly what needed fixing, I didn't even have to say a word. That give me confidence that it will be put right and rest of job will be good.

I can still reuse the rest of the install, just tidy it up.

 

[mjjm986]

Are you going to pay him for the bits that have to be redone?

Was thinking I just pay him what he's charged up to now and move on.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Would it be even cheekier for me to ask how much he quoted you?

I wouldn't have a problem paying him if he was asking for what that standard of work deserves which is probably the cost of the parts only.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Was thinking I just pay him what he's charged up to now and move on.

You seem like the type of person who would feel guilty about paying any less, so I guess you just pay and move on, as you said ?

 

[mjjm986]

Would it be even cheekier for me to ask how much he quoted you?

I wouldn't have a problem paying him if he was asking for what that standard of work deserves which is probably the cost of the parts only.

Will cost me £320.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Will cost me £320.

If you mean the initial blokes charging you that there's no way he would be getting it.