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

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

Shame it does wash for the regs.

Shame the OP had a project manager so the electrician has no need to tell the OP anything.

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

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.

Obviously you are jack, although I don't want to know you.

But thanks for agreeing with my initial point. The electrician could have disabled. Or reworked. As there was a choice, it should have been offered to Leif at the time.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

andrew-b wrote: »

I'm not one to forget a post i've commented on, Leif appears to have touched sockets around about 1-5th August.. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3396188

So now we have more of a complete timeline of events.

I looked through that at the start of the thread. He knows what he has done. He mucked about with it while the kitchen install was being done & before the sign off.

It stands & he knows it.

Leif

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?

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

No, I was asking.

"Regarding the "no-one told me not to" argument"

Your analogy is absurd. A householder is not an electrician, they have no idea what is being done. Do you really think it is so hard to guess that someone working on a house might, just might, do something such as change a socket plate, which is a non notifiable task? And it was not in the kitchen, where the work was done. Yes, to YOU it is obvious, but it IS NOT obvious to someone like me, and I know a bit more about electrics (but not much) than most.

When I had my kitchen fitted, the copmany concerned told me exactly what was happening, and when. I was told not to use the sink for one day while the sealant dried. They guessed that I might use it.

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.

zax47

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

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.

Leif

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

Thank you, you have explained very clearly my point of view. Two electricians have told me that a) the rework was not required by regs and b) the price is outrageous.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Obviously you are jack, although I don't want to know you.

But thanks for agreeing with my initial point. The electrician could have disabled. Or reworked. As there was a choice, it should have been offered to Leif at the time.

At any point you can say you are out of your league.

Its way above your head.

Ring??? :rotfl:

DVardysShadow

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Shame it does wash for the regs.

Shame the OP had a project manager so the electrician has no need to tell the OP anything.

The regs do not give any instruction on commercial communications between client and contractor. But I have a copy in front of me, so which particular reg would you refer me to?

In legal terms, the project manager represents Leif here. So I would accept the electrician telling the project manager as telling Leif.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Leif wrote: »

Thank you, you have explained very clearly my point of view. Two electricians have told me that a) the rework was not required by regs and b) the price is outrageous.

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

1984ReturnsForReal_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The regs do not give any instruction on commercial communications between client and contractor. But I have a copy in front of me, so which particular reg would you refer me to?

In legal terms, the project manager represents Leif here. So I would accept the electrician telling the project manager as telling Leif.

:rotfl:


.............

Get a life.

What is the first line on page 157?