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

Leif

pauletruth wrote: »

hang on they did the install. left and came back to test and cert it. is that not just a little odd. you would expect the cert/check to be done at the completion of the job,

That is exactly the point I have being trying to make, but which others have ignored. Is it normal to test, then wait two months before certifying? Perhaps it is, but I find it hard to believe, then again, I'm not an electrician, and I am only guessing.

Leif

zax47 wrote: »

Are you serious?

The whole of each of your lighting circuits is rated at 5A or 6A load maximum (protected by a 5A fuse or 6A breaker at the CU). A single socket can draw up to 13A, and a double socket potentially up to 26A (although it is not advsed to have 2 high load devices each drawing 13A on the same double socket).

Sockets are usually installed on a ring circuit to offset the maximum potential load vs the diameter of the cable required. Sockets may be installed on a radial circuit but could need 4mm cable (depending on the design load), not the 2.5mm cable generally used for a ring. Sockets on a radial using 2.5mm cable must be protected by a 20A fuse or breaker, rather than the 32A one used for sockets on a ring, to protect the CABLE from damage due to overloading.

Lighting is installed on a radial circuit as it's only low load and uses 1mm or 1.5mm cable. A single socket on a lighting circuit can thus exceed the rated capability of the 1mm or 1.5mm cable!

On the few occasions where you may put a socket on a lighting circuit (say in a loft, to power a TV aerial amplifier) then it should be marked "For light loads ONLY- 3A MAX", it MUST be connected by an FCU (fused connection unit) and the FCU MUST be fused down to 3A (NOT 13A), again to protect the CABLE from damage and prevent a fire.

Of course, a qualified electrician will take this into account when designing the installation, whereas a DIYer will just bodge it and hope.

Got it yet......

Can you not see that phrases like "Are you serious" and "Got it yet" are confrontational? If you step back, you might realise that what to you is obvious, is not at all obvious to the average householder. Most people do not understand the details of ring circuits. I only know the reason for ring circuits because a colleague explained it to me. Someone should not have to first understand about wiring before they can hire a building company to do work.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Leif wrote: »

That is exactly the point I have being trying to make, but which others have ignored. Is it normal to test, then wait two months before certifying? Perhaps it is, but I find it hard to believe, then again, I'm not an electrician, and I am only guessing.

Why are you bothering going back there?

That has been done & covered.

He left the testing until the end. Your house was UNOCCUPIED. It was a BUILDING SITE.

He could of tested twice & obviously you would have paid more for that service. So what is your problem.

Leif

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I suggest you go back & read your own thread.

It seems you have just concentrated when someone has said they are ripping you off.

What is this 2 month thing?

Its not 2 months, as you well know, and have been told. He left his testing until the end of the kitchen work & you well know it.

Middle of July: The electricians chased cables into the kitchen walls, and wired some of them to the old fuse box.

August 1, kitchen fitter shouts at project manager who gets the other kitchen cables wired to the old fuse box. Kitchen fitted ~7 August.

12 September new fuse box goes in an certificate issued.

"He left his testing until the end of the kitchen work & you well know"

Quite how I am supposed to know that is beyond me. So, they could have tested in mid July, in early August, or in mid September. And during that period from ~15 July to 12 September I am supposed to somehow know that I should not touch any socket in the house, not just in the kitchen. And you think the project manager should not have realised that if a householder was working on the house (walls stripped back to bare plaster, floors stripped back to bare screed), he should have said "Don't touch the electrics".

Project managers and trades people must assume clients are completely ignorant of the work they are doing. It is obvious not to mess about in the kitchen, as I did not want to interfere. But not touching socket ELSEWHERE is not obvious.

Leif

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Why are you bothering going back there?

That has been done & covered.

He left the testing until the end. Your house was UNOCCUPIED. It was a BUILDING SITE.

He could of tested twice & obviously you would have paid more for that service. So what is your problem.

How many times do I have to tell you it was not unoccupied. I was there EVERY evening, and EVERY weekend, I sometimes slept there, but not often. I spent more time there than at my flat. :mad: Or are you saying that from mid July to mid Spetember I was not supposed to go to the house because there builders were there for perhaps 7 days in total?

zax47

Leif wrote: »

That is exactly the point I have being trying to make, but which others have ignored. Is it normal to test, then wait two months before certifying? Perhaps it is, but I find it hard to believe, then again, I'm not an electrician, and I am only guessing.

It's perfectly normal - which you don't seem to be getting...

We will do some basic installation tests (at first fix) as we go along then the final live tests, inspection and certification at the very end of the job when all works are finished. As I understand it, you came along in the middle of that process and fiddled with things - whether what you changed was part of the new works or not is not relevant.

Regardless of what you thought the scope of the works was (kitchen sockets, CU change, whatever), as the CU was changed it made ALL the installation & circuits (old & new) in the building come under the responsibility of the certifying electrician. Work then occured which he didn't do, so he had a duty to check it (and re-do if he felt it warranted) before signing the job off.

Regarding the "no-one told me not to" argument, I didn't go out and shoot anyone today, but no-one told me not to. Lots of things don't happen, but people aren't specifically told "don't do that". Why didn't you ask the sparky on the job to change those sockets whilst he was there? Did you even mention them to your project manager? He isn't pyschic, did you honestly expect him to have to say "don't touch anything", not knowing that you intended to do?

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

See above. I hope the experts have clarified it for you & you now know that there was no possible way 5 sockets didn't involve a ring.

But hey. You knew that all along & just want to be rude for the sake of it?

Yeah right....

Actually, I only responded as I did because I found you becoming generally offensive. Homework: search this thread and identify the first occurrence of the word ring. It is you saying it is a ring, based on nothing, so I think I had a fair point.

zax47

Leif wrote: »

August 1, kitchen fitter shouts at project manager who gets the other kitchen cables wired to the old fuse box. Kitchen fitted ~7 August.

12 September new fuse box goes in an certificate issued.

That's the point at which the WHOLE INSTALLATION is tested and certified, the entire building, ALL the circuits - both new work and existing. It's the end of the job, and would not (indeed, could not) have been done before this point.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually, I only responded as I did because I found you becoming generally offensive. Homework: search this thread and identify the first occurrence of the word ring. It is you saying it is a ring, based on nothing, so I think I had a fair point.

Of course you made a fair point.

You quite often see 5 sockets on a spur or a radial.

You need to brush up on your knowledge.

I take that back. You made no point other than making the point you know jack.

OP mucked about with the ring. The electrician has 2 choices. Disable or rework.

DVardysShadow

zax47 wrote: »

It's perfectly normal - which you don't seem to be getting...

We will do some basic installation tests (at first fix) as we go along then the final live tests, inspection and certification at the very end of the job when all works are finished. As I understand it, you came along in the middle of that process and fiddled with things - whether what you changed was part of the new works or not is not relevant.

Regardless of what you thought the scope of the works was (kitchen sockets, CU change, whatever), as the CU was changed it made ALL the installation & circuits (old & new) in the building come under the responsibility of the certifying electrician. Work then occured which he didn't do, so he had a duty to check it (and re-do if he felt it warranted) before signing the job off.

Regarding the "no-one told me not to" argument, I didn't go out and shoot anyone today, but no-one told me not to. Lots of things don't happen, but people aren't specifically told "don't do that". Why didn't you ask the sparky on the job to change those sockets whilst he was there? Did you even mention them to your project manager? He isn't pyschic, did you honestly expect him to have to say "don't touch anything", not knowing that you intended to do?

Thanks for the explanation which is helpful. But for me the argument does not wash. Leif is no more psychic than the electrician, so I would say it is down to the electrician to communicate his requirement that the installation is not altered - as he is the professional with the requirement. It was obvious Leif was having extensive works done. Otherwise [as long as Leif did nothing to the consumer unit], the electrician should bear it.

As for £150 for the rework, unless he ran new cable, it is completely disproportionate. But if he was minded to charge that, it should have been notified at the time and Leif given options to exclude the circuits from the work.