Am I too fussy?

[Sidewinder]

I have some certs here for a domestic job I'm putting a price together on.

My prospective client has recently bought the house, just previous to this there was some electrical work done as follows:

{SIC}

"Replace consumer unit. Upgrade earthing. New ring main & cooker circuit in kitchen. Partial upgrade to earthing on lighting circuits."

With the following comments on existing install:

{SIC}

"No earth to upstairs lighting (cables available in attic). No earth to downstairs light switches (light fittings earthed) Warning notice posted. Would benefit from upgrading throughout."

The cut out is sealed by a DNO sticker, now, but he has an exact description of the main fuse.

The contractor has measured Ra by loop test, thus really "Ze" value not a true Ra.

He has not recorded this in the Ze box on the cert, he has entered N/A, he has recorded this in the Ra box.

OK not such a drama perhaps?

He has then gone on and completed all tests on all circuits, very thorough including r1, r2 & rn on the 2 ring final circuits.

However, there are no entries for Zs for any circuit, they are all marked as N/A.

Any comments?

 

[Andy™]

sounds like someone doesnt know the basics

is there an R1R2 for the lighting?

 

[Technician]

I thought a calculated value of (R1+R2) plus Ze giving Zs (Calculated)

had to be done with a live Zs measurement taken, and the greater

result entered. Cannot see how N/A for Zs can be a valid entry.

No, not being too fussy.

Unless...Not Allowed???

 

[kerching]

Maybe n/a. Does not mean not applicable. But actually means "not *****d"!.....

 

[wozz]

where was Rn recorded? maybe he thought Zs testing was a bit risky therefore went for safer r1+r2?

 

[M107]

RCD on the board? if so he could have put 1667 ohm for Zs I suppose, my Nicey assessor always asks why I measure & put down Zs for circuits on a TT system when 1667 ohm across all circuits would suffice.

Problem with the lighting cpc & board change is the very nice booklet from scheme operators gives a nice copout for people who need to do a consumer unit change with out putting in lighting cpc on the older circuits.

 

[Andy™]

I thought a calculated value of (R1+R2) plus Ze giving Zs (Calculated)had to be done with a live Zs measurement taken, and the greater

result entered. Cannot see how N/A for Zs can be a valid entry.

No, not being too fussy.

Unless...Not Allowed???

you dont have to do a live Zs, it can be done by calculation only of Ze+R1R2

but it should not have N/A

 

[Sidewinder]

Andy,

There was no R1+R2 for the lights without cpc's

 

[PC Electrics]

Similarly on ccts with no cpc there can't be any Zs.

Otherwise he should have filled in a Zs, either by calculation or actual measurement (which is especially easy on socket and cooker circuits with a ccu).

 

[streetlighter]

Maybe he didnt have a loop tester with a D-LOK facilty for testing the RCD protected circuits

 

[Sidewinder]

Still should have dome as PC suggests though and entered Zs=Ze+(R1+R2)

 

[SteveT]

What is it with Zs measurements and them being 'dangerous'. Although a live test, at a skt this is done with a plug top, at light fittings with lightmates and clip to earth. All no trip. No need to be in contact with anything but the meter

May have to hold probes at cooker and shower. with reasonable skill and care these are not dangerous in a domestic enviroment and really should always be done.

Caveats as above ie no CPC

 

[Graham Lister]

[quote name='Andy

 

[Sidewinder]

Graham,

We are not talking about ring circuit end to ends these are all completed, just the Ze's which have nothing to do with ring final circuit end to end continuity.

Anyway, IMHO if a so called competent electrician cannot undertake the necessary live testing safely to complete fully an EICR, or PIR then they had better find another career path.

The "issue" may be administrative, but never the less, the more I think about this combined with the other things I saw, the more unhappy I am with the certs.

 

[Graham Lister]

Is it not acceptable to get a Ze reading from an earth rod using a loop tester? guidance note 3 doesn't preclude this method does it?

 

[Sidewinder]

No it does not Graham, but this is NOT an Ra reading.

Also there were other discrepancies.

It does also not preclude the completion of the Zs values.

 

[steptoe]

I agree,

you want to call yourself an electrician, but you are not confident enough to do any live testing,?

if you dont have any confidence in your ability, then how on earth can anyone else be expected to even think you are competent?

 

[Graham Lister]

Graham,We are not talking about ring circuit end to ends these are all completed, just the Ze's which have nothing to do with ring final circuit end to end continuity.

Anyway, IMHO if a so called competent electrician cannot undertake the necessary live testing safely to complete fully an EICR, or PIR then they had better find another career path.

The "issue" may be administrative, but never the less, the more I think about this combined with the other things I saw, the more unhappy I am with the certs.

Calculation or measurement is acceptable for a Zs reading. Why if you do R1+R2 and then obtain a Ze for the installation do you then have to do a seperate Zs measurement? what is it confirming that isn't already confirmed?

 

[steptoe]

correct connection of equipment.

 

[Graham Lister]

I agree,you want to call yourself an electrician, but you are not confident enough to do any live testing,?

if you dont have any confidence in your ability, then how on earth can anyone else be expected to even think you are competent?

Sorry but I have seen posted on this forum many times about how people shouldn't work live. Now the opinion seems to have changed that it makes you hard if you do.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was made at 23:24 ----------

correct connection of equipment.

No