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

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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many hurdles in the way, people will be understandably apprehensive about getting good jobs done and will stick with outdated kit.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.

MrVardy.


You are downright dangerous & should stop giving out advice immediately.

Enough is enough. You're looking foolish now.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

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

You are repeating yourself & I never said that at all. Please feel free to cut & paste my quote. Which you will not find.

zax47

To answer the question you keep asking (and I thought I answered already) - Those sockets needed checking purely by virtue of the fact that you had worked on them. Had you not, then the original ones did not need checking in isolation, but would have been TESTED along with the entire installation (new and existing) once the CU change was complete.

The electrician is signing off all the work as HIS work and as being correct. The scope of a CU change includes ALL the installation, both new AND existing circuits, sockets, switches etc - which he will test & check, it makes him responsbile for lots of things he may not have touched but MUST check & test.

If any 3rd party does some work on the installation then he must satisfy himself as to the integrity of that work if he is going to sign it off as safe. This would still apply if it was another electrician who changed the sockets - we cannot sign off another persons work without checking it, whether an electrician or DIYer. What if he signed it off as safe then there's a problem with those sockets....

Whether this comes under the agreed scope of the contracted works or is an extra charge is your only point for argument, but the fact they WERE checked IS correct within the bounds of the CU change and the fact SOMEONE ELSE worked on them.

DVardysShadow

zax47 wrote: »

To answer the question you keep asking (and I thought I answered already) - Those sockets needed checking purely by virtue of the fact that you had worked on them. Had you not, then the original ones did not need checking in isolation, but would have been TESTED along with the entire installation (new and existing) once the CU change was complete.

The electrician is signing off all the work as HIS work and as being correct. The scope of a CU change includes ALL the installation, both new AND existing circuits, sockets, switches etc - which he will test & check, it makes him responsbile for lots of things he may not have touched but MUST check & test.

If any 3rd party does some work on the installation then he must satisfy himself as to the integrity of that work if he is going to sign it off as safe. This would still apply if it was another electrician who changed the sockets - we cannot sign off another persons work without checking it, whether an electrician or DIYer. What if he signed it off as safe then there's a problem with those sockets....

Whether this comes under the agreed scope of the contracted works or is an extra charge is your only point for argument, but the fact they WERE checked IS correct within the bounds of the CU change and the fact SOMEONE ELSE worked on them.

But where does this requirement arise from? I cannot see any need for the electrician to do any different with Leif's rework than with any other part of the existing installation.

The electrician is already in the position on a consumer unit change of signing off the work of others from decades past - it is already scoped within the job. And the work Leif was carrying out was permitted work on his own installation. So the electrician would only be signing off Leif's work on the same terms as he would be signing off the work of unknown others.

I think you are correct, the only point of argument is whether those sockets were scoped as part of the job. I don't see that the electrician has any excuse to treat them any differently from any of the rest of the existing installation. But this is what he appears to be doing.

zax47

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But where does this requirement arise from? I cannot see any need for the electrician to do any different with Leif's rework than with any other part of the existing installation.

The electrician is already in the position on a consumer unit change of signing off the work of others from decades past - it is already scoped within the job. And the work Leif was carrying out was permitted work on his own installation. So the electrician would only be signing off Leif's work on the same terms as he would be signing off the work of unknown others.

I think you are correct, the only point of argument is whether those sockets were scoped as part of the job. I don't see that the electrician has any excuse to treat them any differently from any of the rest of the existing installation. But this is what he appears to be doing.

It comes from this "The scope of a CU change includes ALL the installation, both new AND existing circuits, sockets, switches etc - which he will test & check, it makes him responsbile for lots of things he may not have touched but MUST check & test"

He doesn't "sign off the work of others from decades past". He checks and tests the existing installation and it now becomes HIS work as soon as he signs to say it's safe. That's why he will often pay more attention to the existing installation and anything done by 3rd parties than the new work he's done (he trusts himself...) .

Adding a new CU with RCD often finds out problems and wiring "faults" that are not evident in an installation protected by fuses (borrowed neutrals for example).

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

MrVardy.


You are downright dangerous & should stop giving out advice immediately.

Enough is enough. You're looking foolish now.

You don't need to take my advice. And if it is wrong, you should point out the error.

Indeed enough is enough, you are becoming hysterical.

DVardysShadow

zax47 wrote: »

It comes from this "The scope of a CU change includes ALL the installation, both new AND existing circuits, sockets, switches etc - which he will test & check, it makes him responsbile for lots of things he may not have touched but MUST check & test"

So

• where does that come from?
• and how does it require Leif's rework to be treated differently to all the other parts of the installation?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You don't need to take my advice. And if it is wrong, you should point out the error.

Indeed enough is enough, you are becoming hysterical.

Your errors have been pointed out time & time again. Yet you persist.

The electrician is responsible for the whole house installation to the point of signing off.

There is NO get out clause for the OP which you continue to insist.

zax47

DVardysShadow wrote: »

So

where does that come from?

You've got the Big Red Book, look in the appendix at Schedule of Test Results - includes ALL circuits affected by the work, in case of a CU change that's ALL circuits.

and how does it require Leif's rework to be treated differently to all the other parts of the installation?

purely as it's NEW work, and done by a 3rd party.

DVardysShadow

zax47 wrote: »

He doesn't "sign off the work of others from decades past". He checks and tests the existing installation and it now becomes HIS work as soon as he signs to say it's safe. That's why he will often pay more attention to the existing installation and anything done by 3rd parties than the new work he's done (he trusts himself...) .

That is fair comment, but Leif's work is no different to the work from decades ago.

zax47 wrote: »

You've got the Big Red Book, look in the appendix at Schedule of Test Results - includes ALL circuits affected by the work, in case of a CU change that's ALL circuits.

and how does it require Leif's rework to be treated differently to all the other parts of the installation?

purely as it's NEW work, and done by a 3rd party.

You have substantiated that Leif's work needs looking at. But it is not new work, it is replacement of sockets, which is permitted work. It needs no more looking at or treating differently than the rest of the installation. If you argue some more that it does need the terminations remaking on the basis of the red book, you are arguing that this must be done to the whole installation.