Agree with you there Monkey, maybe we should send them a message about Tysoft?
AndyGuinness
AndyGuinness
English is his 2nd or maybe even 3rd language,Where to start,,,,First of all it looks like the guy has only just learnt to write... FFS that's untidy!
Most of the codes on that are over done
Code 1 should only be used for things that a a real immediate danger... I.e. Exposed live parts
No RCD protection on an older CU should only be a code 4
IMO this was done by someone who doesn't really understand PIRs or by someone who is trying to generate work for themselves... Or maybe both
Do you remember the colour of you old CU?
sorry Theory, but that is probably a little better than most I have come across,First thingif any member on this site gave me a PIR presented in that state i would throw it back at him and tell him to do it again !!! FFS
Another thing he has obviously been assessed by NIC to do PIR's and use their forms and not the green ones
i would have phoned them up and complained
Stinks of a something not right
why not go to the NIC website and find out if they is actually registered ???????
put in his post code on 'find a contractor' see if he is there........ i wonder
Steps,,,,,,,i would be very disappointed if that was a 5WW
Hello ChrisIt would be interesting to know what the 'unknown' circuit turned out to be. As for the rest, I agree with everybody else's comments.Cheers. Chris
Agreed, but if you look at the PIR there is nothing indicated on it, that any competent spark would not be able to rectify relatively quickly. Take the high Zs, at the sockets, because the rings continuity tests look ok (ish) its almost certain the high reading are due to faulty sockets or loose connections (with the cores twisted together). This is almost certainly the case with the landing and bedroom sockets where vacuums, hairdryers etc are plugged into frequently. I cant remember the last time i did a PIR and there was not a high Zs some frequently use sockets.nsbs,You have a point, that may be true, thing is none of us have actually seen the install, so there may have been other circumstances that initiated the works?
Also how is lack of RCD code 2. Its a code 4. Can't see how the socket and lamp holder are broken but if the basic protection is compromised then would have thought that was a code 1.Slim: I assume you had an Electrical Installation Certificate for the CU change and are expecting a building compliance cert too?
Hello,
No certificates at all.
I was not aware that these certificates were to be expected.
We had agreed on a Detailed Report Itemising All Remedial Work and although I have received a "Report", it contained anything but details. I have asked for another.
It is a legal requirement of the building regulations Part-P that an Electrical installation Certificate and a Building regulations compliance certificate are issued when a Consumer unit, (fuse box), is replaced. If you do not have these documents I would suggest you complain to the NICEIC, as something is not right.Also how is lack of RCD code 2. Its a code 4. Can't see how the socket and lamp holder are broken but if the basic protection is compromised then would have thought that was a code 1.Slim: I assume you had an Electrical Installation Certificate for the CU change and are expecting a building compliance cert too?
Hello,
No certificates at all.
I was not aware that these certificates were to be expected.
We had agreed on a Detailed Report Itemising All Remedial Work and although I have received a "Report", it contained anything but details. I have asked for another.
Doc H.
Doc,It is a legal requirement of the building regulations Part-P that an Electrical installation Certificate and a Building regulations compliance certificate are issued when a Consumer unit, (fuse box), is replaced. If you do not have these documents I would suggest you complain to the NICEIC, as something is not right.
Doc H.
thanks for your comment. I think you are spot on. This should be brought to the attention of the NICEIC.
Enter your email address to join: