IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Domestic periodic
Topic Summary: Cables ran behind skirting (again)
Created On: 02 October 2010 09:37 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02 October 2010 03:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for tonyericsson.
tonyericsson

Posts: 485
Joined: 24 August 2010

Originally posted by: ant1uk

Originally posted by: tonyericsson



Ant you are confusing cables in prescribed zones that are less than 50mm, they do not need to be armoured etc but do need RCD.




I'm not confusing what it says only that I don't remember it saying anywhere that it has to be 50mm or more and RCD protected.



Then again I could be wrong? Please correct me if I am.


No worries, check out the regulation in the big red book or the guidance of the on site guide(wher the regulation is noted to the left,

I find on here that relying on memory solely is often not enough, I always turn to the regs and try to comply and understand why they are there as opposed just going on common sence cos the latter method might land you in hot water.

But to be fair Ant, this reg and the wording are clear but easy to confuse....I had to read it 4 times cos I thought you had a point. Take a look at the reg.
 02 October 2010 03:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for tonyericsson.
tonyericsson

Posts: 485
Joined: 24 August 2010

Originally posted by: rocknroll


I expect a balanced argument from you not snide remarks.:



Hate to disappoint you but it was banter !
I wont bother you with any more banter.
Please accept my appologies if you have been offended.
 02 October 2010 03:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

RNR

As its a new installation should it not at least meet the 17th regardless of risk?

I aggree that the risk is minimal, but given that builders tend to use gripfill and the like to "fix everything it is conceivable that one day someone will need to fix them properly....

Ok so you can find a danger everywhere, but I'm going to backtrack here and aggree with oms that its a risk that could/should have been designed out, not to mention that its not in a prescribed zone.

As for the three part EIC you have done well to get someone to sign for I&T who may not have actually inspected...Limitation on the EIC I suspect not exactly permitted on a new install - but still better than no cert...

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 02 October 2010 03:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ant1uk

Posts: 2376
Joined: 22 June 2010

Originally posted by: tonyericsson

But to be fair Ant, this reg and the wording are clear but easy to confuse....I had to read it 4 times cos I thought you had a point. Take a look at the reg.


I'm reading 522.6.6 and 522.6.7

From how I read it, it says for cables at a depth of 50mm or less from the service.
 02 October 2010 03:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

Originally posted by: ant1uk

I'm reading 522.6.6 and 522.6.7

From how I read it, it says for cables at a depth of 50mm or less from the service.


I also read it as 50mm OR RCD

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 02 October 2010 03:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for briggsy6.
briggsy6

Posts: 495
Joined: 24 September 2003

Originally posted by: ant1uk

Originally posted by: tonyericsson

But to be fair Ant, this reg and the wording are clear but easy to confuse....I had to read it 4 times cos I thought you had a point. Take a look at the reg.


I'm reading 522.6.6 and 522.6.7

From how I read it, it says for cables at a depth of 50mm or less from the service.


Tony is wrong on this, Ant, and you are right. Reg 522.6.6 and 522.6.7 apply to cables which are less than 50mm from the surface of a wall or partition.

If they are deeper than 50mm then no protection of any kind is required and they can be run in any direction you like... not that this is in any way practicable.
 02 October 2010 04:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8826
Joined: 03 October 2005

Originally posted by: Martynduerden

RNR

As its a new installation should it not at least meet the 17th regardless of risk?

The installation is already complete now so how do we compromise, do we rip it all out, chase decorated walls or rip up carpets and floorboards, or do we look at in a balanced way and risk assess it.

I aggree that the risk is minimal, but given that builders tend to use gripfill and the like to "fix everything it is conceivable that one day someone will need to fix them properly....

Agreed the risk is minimal, a risk assessment at last.

Ok so you can find a danger everywhere, but I'm going to backtrack here and aggree with oms that its a risk that could/should have been designed out, not to mention that its not in a prescribed zone.

I have never disagreed with that and if you look back have used that argument myself, but the installation is now complete, how do we judge it.

As for the three part EIC you have done well to get someone to sign for I&T who may not have actually inspected...Limitation on the EIC I suspect not exactly permitted on a new install - but still better than no cert...

If there is a serious incident at a later date we have the signature of the person who designed and installed the installation thereby offering protection to the inspector (our own or outside contractor), if the person who designed and installed it decides to persue the inspector questioning their competence then so be it in a civil court (thats what your insurance is for).


regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 02 October 2010 04:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4586
Joined: 07 April 2004

Why use the argument for RCD protection?, that would be compounding the felony, quite simply the cables behind the skirting board are not run in a prescribed zone and don't conform............period. The installation requires an unsatisfactory code, cut and dried, probably code 2, thinking about it!
I think the scheme providers would give the same answer, not to mention the lack of insurance cover if there is a problem, why gamble on any outcome by taking unnecessary risks?.

Regards
 02 October 2010 04:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Grounded.
Grounded

Posts: 336
Joined: 29 November 2005

Code 4 on a PIR. It does not comply with the regulations, but does not imply that the installation is unsafe.
Would you really give unsatisfactory for a code 4?
 02 October 2010 04:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

Originally posted by: rocknroll

Originally posted by: Martynduerden



RNR



As its a new installation should it not at least meet the 17th regardless of risk?


The installation is already complete now so how do we compromise, do we rip it all out, chase decorated walls or rip up carpets and floorboards, or do we look at in a balanced way and risk assess it.


You could also argue that accepting it and "compromising" is doing a dis-service to the original client, letting the builder who has proved they were not competent "get away with it".

I understand that it is completed work but if non compliant work is continually passed how can we hope to improve standards.

I am not sure insurance is there to protect you against known errors, I would suspect they would refuse to pay out in such an event.

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 02 October 2010 05:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8826
Joined: 03 October 2005

So what you are all saying is that you would follow the 'red domestic bible' to the letter and require that the installation be ripped out and start again for non personal reasons (the person who did it is a builder) without compromise and not use your skill,judgement or common sense as to whether it is safe or not even if it deviates slightly from the 'regulations'.

At the moment the sun is out and I am sitting on the patio drinking a nice coffe with a lace of 'Jamesons' as I am about a mile from the village I am surrounded by fields, I cant work out if the smell is coming from the fields or my computer.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 02 October 2010 05:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ant1uk

Posts: 2376
Joined: 22 June 2010

Originally posted by: rocknroll

So what you are all saying is that you would follow the 'red domestic bible' to the letter and require that the installation be ripped out and start again for non personal reasons (the person who did it is a builder) without compromise and not use your skill,judgement or common sense as to whether it is safe or not even if it deviates slightly from the 'regulations'.


That is not the inspectors problem. The inspector writes an honest report of the installation and the methods used. It is likely the BC will want an EIC which the OP can not do as he didnt follow the install from the start. He will have to give a PIR and code 4 as this install method does not comply to regulations. what happens next is not his problem end of......
 02 October 2010 05:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

Originally posted by: rocknroll

So what you are all saying is that you would follow the 'red domestic bible' to the letter and require that the installation be ripped out and start again for non personal reasons (the person who did it is a builder) without compromise and not use your skill,judgement or common sense as to whether it is safe or not even if it deviates slightly from the 'regulations'.



At the moment the sun is out and I am sitting on the patio drinking a nice coffe with a lace of 'Jamesons' as I am about a mile from the village I am surrounded by fields, I cant work out if the smell is coming from the fields or my computer.

regards


Does that view not simply make you one of the "it works" brigade I don't personally see a great risk in this particular scenario and as its a PIR it can only warrant a code 4 even though that code does imply it did once conform, I could not tell you when "zones" were established in the regs.

I suggest that if we follow your opinion as a rule, standards cannot improve, I would put good money on the cables being there out of convenience and not the builders use of his skill or judgement .

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 02 October 2010 05:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Angram

Posts: 551
Joined: 23 March 2009

This is a really helpful discussion because I may have a problem, in the near future, in
installing extra sockets where lifting the floor is not possible.
I had thought of going behind the skirting but rejected it as unacceptable.

The reason was: No-one expects to find cables there because no-one does it and so
it would be dangerous ! It's not a "preferred" alignment in the guides.

I will re-think this now R&R.

The only risk I can see is of a second socket being screwed onto the skirting instead
of regulation height, or PU for a TV aerial amplifier being screwed there if the skirting
is large enough. Maybe a door stop onto the skirting ?

Terence.
 02 October 2010 05:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for patt2.
patt2

Posts: 526
Joined: 05 December 2005

Originally posted by: Martynduerden





, I would put good money on the cables being there out of convenience and not the builders use of his skill or judgement .


I wondered about that. Why would he follow good working practices to only warrant one deviation from the regulations. If the rest of the installation is up to standard it does seem strange to me .
 02 October 2010 06:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Grounded.
Grounded

Posts: 336
Joined: 29 November 2005

Originally posted by: Martynduerden



" as its a PIR it can only warrant a code 4 even though that code does imply it did once conform"


Sorry to disagree Marty, but I don't think a code 4 implies that it did once comply.
Regards
 02 October 2010 06:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for dickllewellyn.
dickllewellyn

Posts: 1150
Joined: 19 March 2010

I feel I'm about to be lynched with my statement, but here goes...

Anyone ever installed cables in a wooden boxing? Or installed surface to the find a carpenter box them in? Any objections to that?

Anyone ever used skirting trunking? Made of plastic was it? Imagine it was made of wood..... now imagine it is designed to mimic a standard skirting board... Any legitimate objections to using a wooden enclosure for insulated AND sheathed cables?

Here's a scenario where I last adopted the skirting as a wiring system (granted we used battons to provide extra depth behind, but I can't see that this makes a huge difference)

Listed thatched cottage.... Wide original oak boards sit on joists with no ceiling below. Walls are wattle and daube, and we are given strict instructions not to damage the surface. Where making good required due to existing cracks etc. specialist plasterers will mix and use traditional plaster and techniques. Walls are single skin. Roof is thatched.

Anyone care to tell me where they would run cables? After many site meetings with architects, designers, LABC, English Heritage etc, the solution was an 8" skirting spaced from the wall on 1/2" battons. Sockets were cut into skirting, so we could argue the horizontaly between points rule, but there were almost certainly stretches without sockets.

I personally see no problem with running cables behind skirting any more than running cables beneath a floor.

-------------------------
Regards
Richard (Dick)

"Insert words of wisdom and/or witty pun here"
 02 October 2010 06:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for patt2.
patt2

Posts: 526
Joined: 05 December 2005

Originally posted by: Grounded

Originally posted by: Martynduerden







" as its a PIR it can only warrant a code 4 even though that code does imply it did once conform"





Sorry to disagree Marty, but I don't think a code 4 implies that it did once comply.

Regards


I stand to be corrected but dose'nt it mean that it dose'nt comply to the current regulations
 02 October 2010 06:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for ebee.
ebee

Posts: 5666
Joined: 02 December 2004

I think one reason for the reg is because the permitted zones are considered to be relativey safe.

Therefore out of zone might well be considered relatively unsafe.

Also, it might be argued that anyone actually knowing the zones exist and avoiding them (OK in the real world it don't always happen I know!) that they may infer that a cable would not be expected in this zone , this inference might cause them more danger thannif they had no idea where the zones are.

It's ruff, it ain't allowed, code 2 unsatisfactory to me.

If they've done that then what else have they done?

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
 02 October 2010 06:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



peteTLM

Posts: 3120
Joined: 31 March 2005

in my humble opinion, im not a fan of cables behind skirting where the skirting is flat against the wall. Its pretending to be something it isnt.

But i do like and i am a fan of the skirting forming boxing in, with the skirting brought forward say 20-30mm.
To me that shouts that there is cables or pipes in there, with drops up to sockets and switches.
Ive seen flats where the managing agents will not tolerate massive wall cutting or floor chasing operations due to the lease, so this is a workable solution.
Are the cables in danger behind the skirting when it forms boxing in- No. Biggest problem is when mice get in there as they have a free run, but no code.
P

-------------------------
----------------------------------------
Lack of planning on your part doesn't make it an emergency on mine....

Every man has to know his limitations- Dirty Harry
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Domestic periodic

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.