advice sought

[betty swollocks]

hi guys,

i have been asked by a company i do quite a lot of work for to test and issue a cert for a kitchen refurb which i havn't seen or worked on.

They paid a fitter to install the kitchen, including electrics and gas(gas safe fitter was used and cert issued correctly) however a call to this fitter has revealed that a spark was initially asked to do the work but after first fix he was informed by the customer that he wasnt prepared to now upgrade his old rewireable wylex cu for rcd protection or pay for his old yellow buttoned earth leakage device to be removed as agreed and so the spark informed the customer he couldnt now complete the work and left.

At this point the kitchen was installed without the completed electrics which the fitter has installed himself to 'remedy' this, (basically three sockets in cupboards for appliances,)

this is something i always refuse to do but because of the amount of work these people give me i cant see how i can refuse, the company owner has asked me as a personal favour to help resolve this and my (long winded) question is

what should i do to ensure i cover myself from all aspects?

my thoughts would be henlys to split tails to 1way cu with rcd main switch diverting the downstairs ringmain to this, fully testing the circuit to ensure its safe to energise(although its been completed and in use for over a month now) but im concerned about cable routing although most of it sounds to be visable behind/beneath units

anybody been put in this position before or any advice would be gratefully appreciated

thanks

p.s. bonding is correctly in place and the company is footing the bill for remedial action.

 

[Zeespark]

Betty, I would politely turn the job down, your name is on the certificate up if things head south. And nice to see you by the way, been missing you.

AndyGuinness

 

[Lurch]

The testing other peoples work bit is up to you, obviously you shouldn't but fir 3 sockets I wouldn;t worry too much.

As for the RCD on the ring, why the Henleys and board? Remove cables from fuse\MCB for ring main, move the cables over to an RCBO fitted in an enclosure next to the board and feed this RCBO with a bit of 6mm from the now spare 30A fuse\MCB in the board.

If you fit the RCBO as above then you could issue an EIC for this and the testing of the ring will indirectly cover the sockets in the kitchen which you didn;t fit.

 

[Andy™]

get them to contact LABC and notify that way, and you can issue PIR for the work?

or if your happy that the work was done correctly, split tails and sign it as your own.

or use a 3 part EIC and get builder to sign design & construction, you sign I&T?

 

[betty swollocks]

thanks stuart, thats pretty much the way i was thinking, in my mind its no different than being called out of the blue to change a cu only to find afterwards the homeowner had added a new circuit/ringmain the week before, indirectly you would be testing and certing that work...

hia Andy, have looked in time to time but have just been mad busy in the last 6months

hows things with yourself?

 

[Zeespark]

Dont ask got an elderly relative dying of cancer so shall be up and down to South Wales alot in the near future I think. But overall getting there. Got a job interview away from the industry in April, so hopefully it will be the start of getting Myself sorted.

AndyGuinness

 

[betty swollocks]

sorry to hear that, i have two mates with cancer at the moment, ones having treatment the other has simply been told to go home!... horrible disease

whats the interview for?

 

[Zeespark]

Distribution side of tesco's. Its not the most ideal job in the world, but I have a million things to get sorted, and claiming JSA would mean it taking alot longer than the

 

[Andy™]

thanks stuart, thats pretty much the way i was thinking, in my mind its no different than being called out of the blue to change a cu only to find afterwards the homeowner had added a new circuit/ringmain the week before, indirectly you would be testing and certing that work...

no, you would only be signng off your work, i.e the CU change. existing wiring would not be covered by your cert or notification

 

[steptoe]

The testing other peoples work bit is up to you, obviously you shouldn't but fir 3 sockets I wouldn;t worry too much.As for the RCD on the ring, why the Henleys and board? Remove cables from fuse\MCB for ring main, move the cables over to an RCBO fitted in an enclosure next to the board and feed this RCBO with a bit of 6mm from the now spare 30A fuse\MCB in the board.

If you fit the RCBO as above then you could issue an EIC for this and the testing of the ring will indirectly cover the sockets in the kitchen which you didn;t fit.

I would go this route, would it be possible to try talk the builder round to a complete CU upgrade?

I do CU upgrades quite often at work and just note on cert (extent of work covered box) that it is a CU upgrade, and test all circuits.

 

[ianmacd]

[quote name='Andy

 

[betty swollocks]

cheers lads, customer wont have the spark back as they 'had choice words' about his change of mind on replacing cu.

ive spoken to sparks and he says all he has done is split the ring at an above worktop socket, dropped two cables down(crimping one end of existing to one leg of new in backbox) run a loop of around 3m in total for 3 sockets for appliances in two cupboards, reconnected new hob to existing supply outlet and same again for extractor.

tbh it would be easy enough to rip out and reconnect everything and sign it off after rcding the circuit.

the customer seems to be trying it on big time in that he hasnt paid for the kitchen

 

[ianmacd]

Think his life has been put in danger by his lack of maintaining his electrical system (and possibly by trying to rip off a kitchen fitter).

 

[Andy™]

sounds like getting involved may be dodgy

 

[Lurch]

[quote name='Andy

 

[betty swollocks]

i know andy thats what i think.

if he really thought his life was in danger you'd think he would be screaming about the lack of any downstairs sockets because obviously he would have pulled the fuse for the circuit for his own protection..

 

[NozSpark]

It would depend what tests you did. As I've said before I tend to always do a PIR when doing a CU change so you're covered, even if you don;t note down all the results and still only issue an EIC for the board you still know yourself that everythign is working as it should. On the job in this case I would do the same, and not directly issue a cert for the sockets but issue an EIC for the RCBO and test the ring including the additions but without directly issuing a cert for that portion of the work, because you can;t as you never did it. Not a completely by the book way of doing it, but nothing wrong with it if you do look at it from the by the book angle as you have tested and certed your work, and for your own piece of mind you have tested the ring including the additions.

That is also the other way of looking at it. It would depend how clued up the householder was and whether or not the EIC for the sockets came up as an issue. Technically you can test them but can;t issue a cert. It's the missing cert that could cause the problem.

That's exactly the way I'd do it,,, I'd also Part P the RCBO

 

[ProDave]

Surely in this case you issue an EIC with the original sparks name for design and construction, and just your name for test (after fitting RCBO ) That surely is the correct way, you are not then pretending it was your job, you are telling it as it is.

Could you not speak to the original sparks first? I know the customer won't have him back, but at least he could confirm to you the cable routing, and lack of hidden junctions etc so you could be reasonably sure the work IS safe.

 

[ianmacd]

Surely in this case you issue an EIC with the original sparks name for design and construction, and just your name for test (after fitting RCBO ) That surely is the correct way, you are not then pretending it was your job, you are telling it as it is.Could you not speak to the original sparks first? I know the customer won't have him back, but at least he could confirm to you the cable routing, and lack of hidden junctions etc so you could be reasonably sure the work IS safe.

Looks like he did talk to him in #12

 

[Andy™]

Surely in this case you issue an EIC with the original sparks name for design and construction, and just your name for test (after fitting RCBO ) That surely is the correct way, you are not then pretending it was your job, you are telling it as it is.Could you not speak to the original sparks first? I know the customer won't have him back, but at least he could confirm to you the cable routing, and lack of hidden junctions etc so you could be reasonably sure the work IS safe.

slightly OT, but in this case, who should notify? the person who designs? constructs? or the person who tests? these could be 3 different people, from 3 different companies, and 3 different scam providers