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

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

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.

More hysterical overreaction.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

More hysterical overreaction.

More poor advice & total lack of understanding of the rules surrounding the bad advice given by yourself.

Well done. You surpass yourself.

You are dangerous

zax47

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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

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>.

I have never said that though, have I? I said it was required to CHECK them, as they were done by a 3rd party (whilst the other work was in progress) and not the certifying electrician. It's perfectly legitimate to remake them if felt warranted following checking. Whether he HAD to remake them, I can't say, I didn't see them.

We're talking at crossed-purposes here - I've never said he HAD to remake them, but only that he had a duty to CHECK them before signing them off as safe. The validity of remaking them is a decision only he could make, once he checked them, and nothing either of us say now can change that.

Leif

zax47 wrote: »

I have never said that though, have I? I said it was required to CHECK them, as they were done by a 3rd party (whilst the other work was in progress) and not the certifying electrician. It's perfectly legitimate to remake them if felt warranted following checking. Whether he HAD to remake them, I can't say, I didn't see them.

We're talking at crossed-purposes here - I've never said he HAD to remake them, but only that he had a duty to CHECK them before signing them off as safe. The validity of remaking them is a decision only he could make, once he checked them, and nothing either of us say now can change that.

I don't think that differs markedly from the views expressed on the other forum. So as a result of my intervention they NEEDED to retest the five sockets, but they also made a decision before and after I changed them as to whether or not they needed reworking. They might have reworked them twice, or just once.

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

More poor advice & total lack of understanding of the rules surrounding the bad advice given by yourself.

Well done. You surpass yourself.

You are dangerous

The hysteria continues.

Leif

andrew-b wrote: »

In the absence of photos proving how you left the sockets, can you describe how you actually rewired each of these sockets? As in did you ensure there was no visible copper, did you sleeve the earth in yellow/green sleeving, did you ensure the wires were tucked out the way of the faceplate screws, did you check the cable and individual wires for damage, did you earth the backing box again using green/yellow sleeving? Your description of your work on these sockets is very much centred around the aesthetics which matter very little to it's operation. What really matters is did you connect these sockets correctly.

Could we have pictures of the 5 sockets in question as they are now (i.e ..turn off the main switch at the consumer unit, unfasten the faceplates carefully and take photos of the inside before screwing back ensuring wires are tucked away from the screws.)

How many sockets are there actually in the house, and how many of those are in the kitchen?

I wired them up exactly as per the originals, except that sometimes the ends of the wires were a mess, so I tidied them up. They have indeed 'reworked' them, as one had a green and yellow striped sleeve on one wire, and that was not there before. So if I did not do them correctly, then they were not originally done correctly. It seems to me that they should either have reworked them twice, or not at all. What they have done is trust the previous 40 years of work on the sockets, but not mine.

zax47

Leif wrote: »

I wired them up exactly as per the originals, except that sometimes the ends of the wires were a mess, so I tidied them up. They have indeed 'reworked' them, as one had a green and yellow striped sleeve on one wire, and that was not there before. So if I did not do them correctly, then they were not originally done correctly. It seems to me that they should either have reworked them twice, or not at all. What they have done is trust the previous 40 years of work on the sockets, but not mine.

With all due respect, as soon as you start to mess with stuff like this you are duty bound (DIYer or Electrician) to make sure your work complies with the current (BS7671:2008 (amended 2011)) 17th Edition IET Wiring Regulations. On this occasion you did not, you did not sleeve the earth cables, nor ensure there was the required earth lead between earth connection, socket and back box. He will have taken one look at your work and re-worked them to comply. Just copying what was there is simply not good enough, there's a reason we train and are qualified and that's to know this stuff....

Just because the old/existing sockets didn't meet todays regulations, doesn't mean they didn't meet the standards in force at the time of their original installation (and are not safe) - which is all they WERE required to do, right up to the point at which you changed them! The IET Wiring regs. are not retrospectively applied, until you make a change, amendment or addition to the installation then you cannot be made to update things to meet current regs, but as soon as you do then any work you do MUST comply with them. It appears that yours didn't.

Put simply, if you change anything you must ensure the work you do meets the current regs. If you leave well alone then you cannot be made to upgrade to the latest regs, provided the installation is safe.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Requirements-Electrical-Installations-Incorporating-Regulations/dp/1849192693/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320090133&sr=1-1

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Leif wrote: »

the ends of the wires were a mess

I would love to know what "a mess" actually means to you?

Do you mean bent over double?

DVardysShadow

zax47 wrote: »

Just because the old/existing sockets didn't meet todays regulations, doesn't mean they didn't meet the standards in force at the time of their original installation (and are not safe) - which is all they WERE required to do, right up to the point at which you changed them! The IET Wiring regs. are not retrospectively applied, until you make a change, amendment or addition to the installation then you cannot be made to update things to meet current regs, but as soon as you do then any work you do MUST comply with them. It appears that yours didn't.

Put simply, if you change anything you must ensure the work you do meets the current regs. If you leave well alone then you cannot be made to upgrade to the latest regs, provided the installation is safe.

Best argument so far.

Of course, we are in a twilight zone between IEE regs and Part P compliance. As I understand it, replacing sockets on existing circuits is not notifiable under Building Regs. So I would argue that simple replacement of components while maintaining the original circuit implementation is not a material change to the existing circuit, which should be allowed to chunter along in happy compliance with whatever edition of the regs it was installed under.

Another example is replacement of a damaged cable - again not notifiable. It makes sense to me that as a matter of public policy you would not want people soldiering on with a damaged cable in place, in order to avoid reimplementation of the whole circuit to the current edition of the IEE regs.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Best argument so far.

Of course, we are in a twilight zone between IEE regs and Part P compliance. As I understand it, replacing sockets on existing circuits is not notifiable under Building Regs. So I would argue that simple replacement of components while maintaining the original circuit implementation is not a material change to the existing circuit, which should be allowed to chunter along in happy compliance with whatever edition of the regs it was installed under.

Its not an argument it is the regs.

Now you can argue as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact you are WRONG.