"terminate and test 5 No electric sockets" ???

Leif

zax47 wrote: »

You may be right... As you might guess from my posts, I am more communicative with my customers and thus avoid situations like this.

However, CU change automatically includes re-assesment, testing and certifcation for ALL the circuits connected to it, whether new or exisiting, so Leif could not exclude them from the scope of works for that job.

"I am more communicative with my customers and thus avoid situations like this."

I think that is a key point. You MIGHT be 100% correct in your assessment i.e. that I interfered. But, perhaps you would say to the customer "I'll be back in 5 weeks, do not touch any electrics". The project manager has very poor communication skills, and most of the time makes excuses due to being so busy i.e. he is so busy he cannot find the time to deal with me. It is my belief, which you disagree with, that he should have warned me not to touch any electrics during that 5 week gap, since he knew full well I was working on the house.

This is a slight aside, but I found out by accident that the boiler had been commissioned. And I had to pull the project manager back as he was about to leave for the last time in order to get him to explain how to use the boiler. Numerous sources including Worcester Bosch told me that explaining the boiler to the customer is a standard part of the installation process. Customer comms is a part of the job of a trades person IMO. Most other people I have dealt with are good.

Canucklehead

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Then if I were you I would never listen to a word they say ever again.

Read it here.;)

CH

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Obviously you feel a need to prove something.

I feel the need for you to tell me the first line of page 157.

Then you can look at page 156.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Canucklehead wrote: »

Read it here.;)

CH

Sums it up really.

:rotfl:

Leif

I will ask for the umpteenth time a question. Namely, why is it that they did not rework the original sockets, but they chose to rework the sockets after I changed the face plates?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Leif wrote: »

I will ask for the umpteenth time a question. Namely, why is it that they did not rework the original sockets, but they chose to rework the sockets after I changed the face plates?

For the UMPTEENTH time.

BECAUSE HE HAS TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To not do so would be NEGLIGENT!!!!!!!

Or.

He could have disabled the whole installation & you would have been faced with a far bigger bill from another electrician than £150!!!

zax47

Leif wrote: »

And why have two electricians on another forum told me that they did not NEED to rework the faceplates i.e. the regs did not require it? They MIGHT have needed to retest. But rework was an extra task they took on themselves. Without my approval, and then charged me. What I do not understand is why they should ASSUME the sockets were originally fine, and did not need reworking, but then when I changed the face plates, they then assumed they were not fine. One electrician told me I should feel insulted.

You made a change outwith the control of the certifying electrician before he had finished the job. If they hadn't been touched and then proved a problem during his testing then it's his problem. The fact that you changed them made it necessary to check (and re-work if felt warranted) that what you did didn't itself create a new problem. How's he to know without checking them?

Yes, I saw your post on UltimateHandyMan - in my opinion you didn't explain the situation anywhere near as clearly as you (finally) have here, especially the project cycle and the appropriate times of the seperate job elements within the timescale. I think you might get a different response if you did.

Perhaps you should also ask on http://www.talk.electricianforum.co.uk and see what the real pro's say. But you must be honest and give ALL the detail you (ultimately) have here, about the sequence of works, what happened and when. I'm confident they'll be in agreement with me, at least about the necessity for checking your work, if not the charge.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

(c) fault protection.

up yours.

Then look at "connection of conductors" on 156 you T***


And by the way. You never had it in front of you so stop the bollox.

Leif

zax47 wrote: »

You made a change outwith the control of the certifying electrician before he had finished the job. If they hadn't been touched and then proved a problem during his testing then it's his problem. The fact that you changed them made it necessary to check (and re-work if felt warranted) that what you did didn't itself create a new problem. How's he to know without checking them?

Yes, I saw your post on UltimateHandyMan - in my opinion you didn't explain the situation anywhere near as clearly as you (finally) have here, especially the project cycle and the appropriate times of the seperate job elements within the timescale. I think you might get a different response if you did.

Perhaps you should also ask on http://www.talk.electricianforum.co.uk and see what the real pro's say. But you must be honest and give ALL the detail you (ultimately) have here, about the sequence of works, what happened and when. I'm confident they'll be in agreement with me, at least about the necessity for checking your work, if not the charge.

I was and am being honest, but not being an electrician, I did and do not know what is important. After I started that other thread, I found out the certification date. And part way through this thread I found out when I had changed at least one of the face plates. Hence I add information as and when I am asked relevant questions. Yes, I did not present all the relevant facts from the start, but that is due to ignorance.

Leif

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

For the UMPTEENTH time.

BECAUSE HE HAS TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To not do so would be NEGLIGENT!!!!!!!

Or.

He could have disabled the whole installation & you would have been faced with a far bigger bill from another electrician than £150!!!

You keep saying "because he had to", but I am asking for an explanation of WHY he had to. He tested the original sockets, but ASSUMED they were wired correctly, so he did not rework them. Then when he saw that I had changed the face plates, he had to test them again. I accept that statement, although I find it odd that the project manager would allow them to be tested, and then left when he knew I was working in the house, and not say to me "don't touch ANY electrics". But you say he also had to rework them. What I do not understand is why he should assume the original sockets were okay, but not the changed ones. Does that question not make sense?

The original sockets were a bodge. One had a double mounting box, with two single plates on them, one being an aerial, and the other a plug socket. Another had been converted from a single to a double by a bodger, with nasty bodged plaster repairs around it.

After I changed the plates, the sockets all looked neat, with very neat patched plaster around them. So why assume the original ones were all wrired fine, but mine weren't, when the evidence might suggest the contrary?

Oh, and getting back to a point made earlier, could he certify the electrics if one of the sockets was on a lighting circuit? I assumed he could not, then I was shouted down and told I was talking nonsense.