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

DVardysShadow

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?

As I see it, after certification, Leif could have changed the faceplates and this would be permitted work. Or before the works commenced.

So, I can accept some of your argument above, that if they were not touched, the electrician would have to own the problem. But as I see it

• [if replacing the sockets is permitted work] he did not need to go deeper with those sockets than with the existing installation
• [if he did feel the need to go deeper] he did not need to go deeper than an inspection
• [if he did feel the need to go deeper than an inspection into something seriously chargeable] he should have gained Leif's agreement first
• remaking 5 sockets is not £150 worth

although I would agree that if he found a problem with those sockets, the problem would belong to Leif.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Leif wrote: »

You keep saying "because he had to", but I am asking for an explanation of WHY he had to.

I have told you time & time again why he has to.

You ignore it time & time again.

He has to, its the regs, anything other option would result in more cost to you, so what exactly is your problem? You don't want to pay it. Simples.

He is testing an installation he is responsible for. Not an installation you.are responsible for.

I will not bother commenting on the way you have tried to [STRIKE]direct[/STRIKE] the thread supplying minimal & often misleading information.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You challenged me, I met the challenge. I did not have to get out of my chair.

Your response to this is making you look rather disturbed.

No you didn't get out of the chair. You bought it online.. :rotfl:

Your responses in this thread tell me more about you Jack.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You are talking rubbish. It is a paper copy, which I own, ordered by phone, before this discussion started. edit: The corrigendum dated July 2008 is printed as 4 sides of A4 on a loose folded A3 sheet

So whatever you deduce about me is only valid in your own little world.

Righty right.

Mine has a barcode. And an address on the back, and is red with my name written in pencil on it from when I did the 17th.

Nighty night MrVardysShadow.

5 sockets & none on the ring after a new consumer unit install!! CLASSIC...

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Oh by the way MrVardysShadow

Why do you feel the need to delete your posts? Not for the first time mind you. You seem to make a habit of it.

As for

although I would agree that if he found a problem with those sockets, the problem would belong to Leif.

that is totally incorrect. The problem belongs to the electrician as does his responsibility to check the sockets after he knows someone has mucked about with them. And check them even more so when he knows its a novice...

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Oh by the way MrVardysShadow

Why do you feel the need to delete your posts?

In the hope that you would do the same.

Our conversation is yielding nothing much to help Leif. I had hoped for a sensible dialog which actually shed some light on the situation and explored the issues. So I suggested we look at the IEE regs. But you are more determined to denigrate me by puerile suggestions that I don't have a paper copy of the IEE regs, to berate Leif for an innocent mistake which his electrician has used to extort more money from him and generally make yourself noxious with baseless insults over my level of knowledge.

Leif

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I have told you time & time again why he has to.

You ignore it time & time again.

He has to, its the regs, anything other option would result in more cost to you, so what exactly is your problem? You don't want to pay it. Simples.

He is testing an installation he is responsible for. Not an installation you.are responsible for.

I will not bother commenting on the way you have tried to [STRIKE]direct[/STRIKE] the thread supplying minimal & often misleading information.

If I have ever supplied misleading information it has only been because I do not understand the regs, and what they electricians do. There was no reason for you to be so abusive simply because I did not understand.

I am repeating myself, but you have not explained why (according to you) the regs say that they did not have to rework the original sockets, but they did have to rework them after I replaced the face plates. How could they know the original ones were okay, especially given that the visual evidence was that they were a mess, indicative of amateur bodging?

If that really is what the regs say, then they seem stupid. Just an opinion, but one I will stick with until someone gives a credible answer to the question.

Leif

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In the hope that you would do the same.

Our conversation is yielding nothing much to help Leif. I had hoped for a sensible dialog which actually shed some light on the situation and explored the issues. So I suggested we look at the IEE regs. But you are more determined to denigrate me by puerile suggestions that I don't have a paper copy of the IEE regs, to berate Leif for an innocent mistake which his electrician has used to extort more money from him and generally make yourself noxious with baseless insults over my level of knowledge.

I am happy to acknowledge that I made an innocent mistake. But I also think the project manager bears some responsibility for not alerting me to the need to leave ALL electrics alone, during what was quite a long period of time. The electrician will have known that I installed some lighting fittings after ceilings were overboarded, so he was aware I was doing work, and he could have said to the PM "please get your client to not touch the electrics".

Also the fact that a socket is (if I recall correctly) on the same ring as some lights is troubling. I know the light wire is single core, roughly 2mm, because I installed the light fittings.

Leif

DVardysShadow wrote: »

an innocent mistake which his electrician has used to extort more money from him

I cannot say if that is the case, although it might seem like that. I tend more towards the ballls-up theory, in that the project manager does not organise his time well (failed to turn up to one meeting when I had slept overnight in the house to met him first thing in the morning), and always blames being too busy for not doing things on time. what annoys me most is that as far as the electrics are concerned, these people are very expensive.

DVardysShadow

Leif wrote: »

... I am repeating myself, but you have not explained why (according to you) the regs say that they did not have to rework the original sockets, but they did have to rework them after I replaced the face plates. How could they know the original ones were okay, especially given that the visual evidence was that they were a mess, indicative of amateur bodging?

As you need to ask, he'll only tell you that you know Jack and that it shows how much you know.

As far as I can see, if he is basing it on the regs, he is failing to recognise that the Appendix 6 Installation Certificate makes provision for wholly new installations, additions to installations and alterations to installations. To me, your work is outwith your electrician's scope of Alteration to an existing installation.

I will agree that the electrician could have found a problem with your work. And if he did, any costs arising for rectification would be down to you. But your essential point is right. The electrician needed to do no more with your reworked sockets than he would have had to do with any of the installation. The work you did is permitted work. So the rework he did [if he actually did] was out of his choice

Now it may be that there is something in Part P which places extra responsibilities, but so far, this has not been argued. It seems to me that the electricians have been briefed on this matter and they have been briefed in excess of what is actually required by the governing documents - possibly they are working from statements in interpretational documents rather than source documents.

If this is the case, it is having rather a chilling effect. Undoubtedly, replacing a consumer unit to obsolete standards with a new consumer unit will be an improvement. But if there are too many hurdles in the way, people will be understandably apprehensive about getting good jobs done and will stick with outdated kit.

Certainly, 1984RFR's overbearing rants and superiority trips as an undoubted practitioner in the industry are portraying the worst side of a trade which now has the luxury of a degree of monopoly protection. What is needed is straightforward ways of getting things done which improve electrical safety, not professionals lording their 'powers' over people.