IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Call out to inspect a first fix today (pictures)
Topic Summary:
Created On: 15 January 2014 03:35 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 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.
 15 January 2014 05:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Alexg

Posts: 406
Joined: 03 February 2004

Glad someone noticed the taped up cable. Yes that is live and use to be an outside socket apparently. All currently exposed to the rain.

Originally posted by: redtoblackblewtopieces

Did the home owners sign a contract with any mention of electrical installation ? . Quickest way to get it sorted is to tell the conservatory company that the local press will be involved unless a registered electrical contractor is paid to put work right and that the installer of present electrical installation is not allowed back.

Is the 2.5 entering the twin metal box with the yellow tape live?

Kevin

Ps one to send the Parlimentary Select Commitee


 15 January 2014 05:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



peteTLM

Posts: 3119
Joined: 31 March 2005

Judging by the copper tail (presumambly for a rad) is quite a distance from the thermalite wall, suggests 50mm celotex board to me. That would achieve the depth required, but this is still rough as hell, and a rubbish install.

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

Every man has to know his limitations- Dirty Harry
 15 January 2014 05:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Alexg

Posts: 406
Joined: 03 February 2004

I asked them to check this, the conservatory company say that are dot and dabbing 12mm board straight onto the brick.

Originally posted by: peteTLM

Judging by the copper tail (presumambly for a rad) is quite a distance from the thermalite wall, suggests 50mm celotex board to me. That would achieve the depth required, but this is still rough as hell, and a rubbish install.


 15 January 2014 06:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for redtoblackblewtopieces.
redtoblackblewtopieces

Posts: 203
Joined: 10 January 2013

So from a rough non compliant install to a potential dangerous one if the water gets in ? Looks like all sockets on a radial, wonder if orginal cable feeding ex.outside socket was on its own circuit or fed from a 13 fcu otherwise looks like a spur off a spur off off a spur...bet the installer got loads of experance and always done it that way.
Kevin

-------------------------
Safety through a Standard
Compliance by Approved Documents
 15 January 2014 06:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Alexg

Posts: 406
Joined: 03 February 2004

From what I can see, that existing cable is a spur off a socket from the kitchen which is on a 32A ring final. I just waved my volt stick pen up to it and it glowed. So yes it appears to be a spur from a spur from a spur. However I have not pulled it apart to look or done any inspection as of yet, this so far has been a quick visual exercise.

Also note the 1mm running through the back boxes which feeds external lights.


Originally posted by: redtoblackblewtopieces

So from a rough non compliant install to a potential dangerous one if the water gets in ? Looks like all sockets on a radial, wonder if orginal cable feeding ex.outside socket was on its own circuit or fed from a 13 fcu otherwise looks like a spur off a spur off off a spur...bet the installer got loads of experance and always done it that way.

Kevin


 16 January 2014 10:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



marclambert

Posts: 309
Joined: 23 June 2010

Hi Alexq
Do I get a royalty for you posting pictures of my work on the internet?
 16 January 2014 11:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for stateit.
stateit

Posts: 2132
Joined: 15 April 2005

Originally posted by: Alexg

Also note the 1mm running through the back boxes which feeds external lights.


Is that actually a problem?

-------------------------
S George
http://www.sg-electrical.com
 16 January 2014 01:37 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8824
Joined: 03 October 2005

However I have not pulled it apart to look or done any inspection as of yet

I rather hope you will do the inspection in a more professional way than you have acted so for, by covertly publishing photos of someones work on the internet for public scrutiny, you have actual committed far more serious violations than the minor Bulding Regulation ones that are somewhat evident from the pictures.

Respect for one's life (private or public) includes:

The right to control the dissemination of information about one's life, including photographs taken covertly.

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!"
-------------------------

Edited: 16 January 2014 at 03:07 PM by rocknroll
 16 January 2014 03:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



marclambert

Posts: 309
Joined: 23 June 2010

Yes RnR that was my point really.
You put it much better however.
regards
Marc
 16 January 2014 03:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11277
Joined: 13 August 2003

I'm not following your logic R&R - it doesn't seem like the photos where taken covertly or improperly (either in the sense of being taken from private land without the landowner's permission nor exposing anything that would be expected to be private as the work is open to the elements and could probably be seen by anyone tall enough to see over the garden fence) nor do they even suggest an identity of the person allegedly responsible for the installation. Far worse appear in the tabloids daily with with (mostly) no claim of any kind of violation.
- Andy.
 16 January 2014 03:59 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8824
Joined: 03 October 2005

Newspapers pay out thousands every week for publishing material that has been obtained covertly and often mis-quoted with no problem, albeit most are settled out of the court system with a cash sum, the point I was mainly making was you all want to be treated as professionals but that is a two way street, you have to act like a professional as well not like a bunch of bitchy big girls telling tales on each other, the OP has by their pre-meditated actions entered into unwanted conduct to a relevant protected characteristic, for the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or integrity by creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual, simples.

None of you are perfect, I bet that if I inspected any of your installations I would find minor breaches of BR and BS7671, but I am not saying I would not pass it like perhaps an unusual route for a cable, on the whole 99.9% of these breaches do not compromise safety that is the basis of risk assessment.

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!"
-------------------------
 16 January 2014 04:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11277
Joined: 13 August 2003

the OP has by their pre-meditated actions entered into unwanted conduct to a relevant protected characteristic

I thought the protected characteristics where defined as: age;
disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

are you suggesting the pictures of an electrical installation are related to any of those?
- Andy.
 16 January 2014 05:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Phillron

Posts: 1168
Joined: 18 January 2007

RnR
You are prone,on occasion to post useful information with a fair pinch of common sense thrown in
You are also prone to airing ( as some sort of third party responder to the electrical trade) some utter nonsense on occasion

Your last few posts come into the second bracket

These "minor" wiring problems as you suggest are not up to any standard where the public and the use of electrical systems is concerned

You seem to be interested only in issues of privacy and protection of the perpetrator of that shambles
It would be interesting to see what will be made of the second fix yet to come

Whoever it was that took it upon himself to install such amateur attempts at electrical installation was bordering on criminality

This is certainly not an occasion to have privacy rather than safety interests as the response
Someone is getting conned by a rouge and you are defending their right to secrecy
 16 January 2014 05:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4586
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: Phillron
Someone is getting conned by a rouge and you are defending their right to secrecy

Self interest perhaps?. The civil service may not be paying enough, and there is some moonlighting involved.

Regards
 16 January 2014 05:52 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8824
Joined: 03 October 2005

Whilst not specific it all comes under the general umbrella of a persons rights, I am not defending them but pointing out that everyone has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.

Whilst you might offer bullsh!t excuses about in the public interest yada yada my point was that this was unprofessional and mainly for the sole purpose which is rampant on this public forum and that was to denegrate the individual that carried out the work, like all of you are perfect.

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!"
-------------------------
 16 January 2014 06:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5823
Joined: 18 January 2003

A straight question for RnR.

Is it worth while the customer phoning Building Control and asking them to intervene?
 16 January 2014 06:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19461
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

A straight question for RnR.



Is it worth while the customer phoning Building Control and asking them to intervene?


If they pay a fee, then yes - they can also contact an approved inspector from within the private sector to do the same thing

In either case, they will simply ask for BS 7671 compliance demonstated by a relevant EIC. If that can't be produced, then a third party may carry out a EICR in place of that EIC.

Having looked at the photo's, and being certain in my mind that it's as rough as a badgers a**e, I'm appalled to say that I've seen worse, and when this is covered up by dot and dab and the conservatory is in place, then subject to a 30mA RCD or not, it's probably not the greatest drama this thread would suggest it is.

I guess what needs to change here is attitudes - principally those of the consumers. Having lashed out loads of dosh on this plastic greenhouse, you would like to think they asked the company relevant question about any subcontractors they intended employing, what thier status was and would they be getting relevant paperwork.

Too late, the consumer has realised that it's probably not quite right and has asked the OP to advise them.

Personally I would have done just that, with a recommendation that no further work proceeds until the electrical installation is rectified and that building control become involved (some of that building work looks and sounds equally as dodgy to me). If the plastic greenhouse people wanted to get funny, then a combination of retention monies and the threat of a bit of a public shaming works well

The OP would have been better advised when acting in the interests of his clients to suggest sending the photos to the director of said plastic greenhouse company, listing the defects and remedial action required and stating that if not dealt with within 7 days, the photos and the company name would be posted to you tube and any other suitable social media

Never underestimate the power of twitter feeds on firms who want you to "like" them

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 16 January 2014 07:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OldSparky.
OldSparky

Posts: 592
Joined: 28 June 2011

Originally posted by: rocknroll

However I have not pulled it apart to look or done any inspection as of yet


I rather hope you will do the inspection in a more professional way than you have acted so for, by covertly publishing photos of someones work on the internet for public scrutiny, you have actual committed far more serious violations than the minor Bulding Regulation ones that are somewhat evident from the pictures.



Respect for one's life (private or public) includes:



The right to control the dissemination of information about one's life, including photographs taken covertly.



regards


christ get a grip here. No need to be so self righteous.

the job is ***** we all know it cowboys like this need to be exposed.

i would have done the same.

I am with you all the way alex.

was it in cornwall, i might know the company pm me.

and no i am not perfect but i bet neither are you.

how come you were on site Alex?
 16 January 2014 08:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5823
Joined: 18 January 2003

Part p and its associated self self certification schemes was brought in to try and prevent this kind of fiasco.

Now in its present form it does absolutely nothing to prevent or resolve shoddy installation work such as this.

The only course of action is to threaten the installation company with Trading Standards and private court action, just as it was before part p.

Part p is dead, it has been butchered beyond resuscitation, from now on it is all about personal reputation. Being a member of a register may enhance your reputation, but lets be honest it won't be any real problem flying under the radar.

Caveat emptor is once again the motto.

Andy
 16 January 2014 09:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for ebee.
ebee

Posts: 5666
Joined: 02 December 2004

"I rather hope you will do the inspection in a more professional way than you have acted so for, by covertly publishing photos of someones work on the internet for public scrutiny, you have actual committed far more serious violations than the minor Bulding Regulation ones that are somewhat evident from the pictures. "

Rock,
sorry mate but I am absolutely gobsmacked with your comment.

Pluto - far out, on another planet!

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

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Call out to inspect a first fix today (pictures)

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

See Also:



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