Need a regulation no.

[Adrian]

This thread has been going longer than it would of took me to correct the c3 

Rather than give someone an unsatisfactory eir I correct simple things as I do the eir

 

[Sidewinder]

This thread has been going longer than it would of took me to correct the c3 

Rather than give someone an unsatisfactory eir I correct simple things as I do the eir

It's not simple though, if the cable needs replacing, it could be a day's work & I ain't doing that for nowt.

Plus you have no idea of the remit that I have with the client, I may have Carte Blanche, but if I can't justify it then, I won;t get paid.

Plus, the property owner could sue for criminal damage if I do any structural works, or changes to their property without permission.

You really need to understand the back story.

Oh, and it's not "would of took me", it's "would have taken me".

 

[Adrian]

Are you trying to make an unsatisfactory cert so you don't feel responsible for the installation if you gave it a satisfactory

 

[Sidewinder]

Are you trying to make an unsatisfactory cert so you don't feel responsible for the installation if you gave it a satisfactory

No I have to report factually on the installation based on the criteria that I have to work with.

 

[ProDave]

If there is some really unusual contracural / legal reason why your client is responsible for a cable that he didn't install, then the only sure way is to replace it with a  SWA cable. Then it's nothing to do with a code on an EICR but a recommendation that you give to your customer that this is the only sure way forward.

I can't conceive a situation like this and why he might be responsible and why you think the cable is installed where someone might drill into it. but I know some of thr jobs you do are in out of the ordinary situations.

If that is your concern, then the CPC bit is a red herring. What difference will it make if the extra CPC is taped to the t&e or is 6 feet away?   If someone drills into it and touched the L:, then the location of the CPC will not make a jot of difference.  Your argument is that it's not SWA or not in steel conduit, nothing to do with where the CPC is routed.

 

[Sidewinder]

If there is some really unusual contracural / legal reason why your client is responsible for a cable that he didn't install, then the only sure way is to replace it with a  SWA cable. Then it's nothing to do with a code on an EICR but a recommendation that you give to your customer that this is the only sure way forward.

I can't conceive a situation like this and why he might be responsible and why you think the cable is installed where someone might drill into it. but I know some of thr jobs you do are in out of the ordinary situations.

If that is your concern, then the CPC bit is a red herring. What difference will it make if the extra CPC is taped to the t&e or is 6 feet away?   If someone drills into it and touched the L:, then the location of the CPC will not make a jot of difference.  Your argument is that it's not SWA or not in steel conduit, nothing to do with where the CPC is routed.

The client is not an electrical contractor, but they did engage a so called competent (dubious imho) electrical contractor to do the work for them, thus ultimately they are liable, this is the issue.

Yes it is a bit, out of the ordinary PD, you are correct.

The issue is my client has responsibility for the cable, but no record of it or where it may run, plus they have no control over the building it is installed in.

If, the cable were intact and complete, and correctly (IMHO) installed, then perhaps I could let it go, but, as there are questions over the competence of the installer 134.1 etc. then I have to err on the side of caution, iykwim.

 

[ProDave]

Yes but my point is the concern is the installation method or tyoe of the cable, and nothing to do with the seperate CPC that may or may not be "in the vicinity" of the t&e

Code it on the basis of you believe the installation method is wrong and recommend steel conduit or SWA cable as a replacement.

When was it installed? if under 17th then you have a valid concern at not being >50mm deep and not having rcd protection.

 

[NozSpark]

If I understand you correctly.... your client actually owns this cable and the building within the property (which are both temporary) and that the occupant has only allowed it to be installed for the duration and use of the additional building?

 

[Rob_the_rich]

If the routes of the line conductor and the extra cpc were in the "immediate vicinity", and their csa was the same, then R1=R2, does it?

 

[Sidewinder]

If I understand you correctly.... your client actually owns this cable and the building within the property (which are both temporary) and that the occupant has only allowed it to be installed for the duration and use of the additional building?

Not quite Noz,

There are 4 parties involved.

Myself who is tasked by the client with their EICR's, remedials & electrical safety advice, in a consultancy role.

My client, who owns the outbuilding in the garden of the property, and the cable in question, and also retains full responsibility for maintenance of the outbuilding and its attached services.

The resident of the property who is the user of the outbuilding.

The owner of the property which is a social housing landlord, who we believe gave permission for the adaptions & ongoing maintenance works.

My client has had a clear out when a previous employee left, and when the department moved office a lot of stuff was binned it seems!

We have now moved to electronic records and another department keeps them with the user data, so hopefully things will be more traceable & retained.

I can't do anything remedial wise or code anything unless I can put a reg no. to it, or justify it with reference to a clause in a standard, e.g. BS7671, or a clause in a law or regulation e.g. say EAWR or PUWER.

There are other issues, for example, there is a 40A 30mA RCD mounted within the house, the board in the outbuilding has no rcd, upstream of the RCD is flat twin, downstream is SWA to the board in the outbuilding.

In the event of a trip, the user has to re-enter the main property to reset the RCD, I'm not happy about this, plus it means I can only do testing & remedial works when the user is at home.

Ignoring this sub-main for a minute.

I want to put a main switch in the enclosure where the RCD is and put an RCD in the board in the outbuilding.

However, I can't do that unless I can give a sound engineering reason, backed up by a "rule".

This way the decision to code & the agreement to do remedial works will stand up to external scrutiny, or audit, which may be required.

 

[Sidewinder]

If the routes of the line conductor and the extra cpc were in the "immediate vicinity", and their csa was the same, then R1=R2, does it?

Yes Rob, that is correct, however an MFT is not sufficiency accurate to distinguish this with the size of the cable in relation to the length of the sub-main unfortunately.

You would need say a high current low resistance micro ohm meter such as for example a Megger DLRO such as these:

http://isswww.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=dlro

 

[ProDave]

There are other issues, for example, there is a 40A 30mA RCD mounted within the house, the board in the outbuilding has no rcd, upstream of the RCD is flat twin, downstream is SWA to the board in the outbuilding.

In the event of a trip, the user has to re-enter the main property to reset the RCD, I'm not happy about this, plus it means I can only do testing & remedial works when the user is at home.

Ignoring this sub-main for a minute.

I want to put a main switch in the enclosure where the RCD is and put an RCD in the board in the outbuilding.

However, I can't do that unless I can give a sound engineering reason, backed up by a "rule".

This way the decision to code & the agreement to do remedial works will stand up to external scrutiny, or audit, which may be required.

So like I say it's simple.

You want to remove the RCD so the 17th eddition rules about burried / hidden cables must apply. i.e the t&e must be either in steel conduit or proven to be >50mm deep in ther walls. You can quote the reg numbers for that. And advise you can only go ahead and replace the rcd with a main switch if you can either inspect the entire length of the cable run, or replace it with SWA or a cable in steel conduit, or indeed another t&e surface mounted (in trunking perhaps)

It's got nothing to do with that separate CPC and where that may or may not be routed.

 

[kerching]

Quote.......

e RCD is and put an RCD in the board in the outbuilding.

However, I can't do that unless I can give a sound engineering reason, backed up by a "rule".

.....unquote

Circuits should be designed and arranged to minimise inconvenience......HAVING TO RETURN  TO  THE HOUSE TO,RESET IT IS A TAD INCONVENIENT.    .cannot find the reg number. If only there was some way to search the online version........maybe one day 

 

[Rob_the_rich]

Quote.......

e RCD is and put an RCD in the board in the outbuilding.

However, I can't do that unless I can give a sound engineering reason, backed up by a "rule".

.....unquote

Circuits should be designed and arranged to minimise inconvenience......HAVING TO RETURN  TO  THE HOUSE TO,RESET IT IS A TAD INCONVENIENT.    .cannot find the reg number. If only there was some way to search the online version........maybe one day 

314.1 (I)

also with regards to accessibility, 132.12, 513.1 and 529.3 might be used?

 

[Rob_the_rich]

Are there any bonding requirements in the outbuilding? perhaps that is why larger csa was used. Has the installation company any records for the installation?

 

[Sidewinder]

Are there any bonding requirements in the outbuilding? perhaps that is why larger csa was used. Has the installation company any records for the installation?

Some bonding requirements, after a fashion.

No one knows who did the install, my client used to have their own team, if they did it then there are no records.

If it was done by a contractor, my client has no idea who the contractor was as they have no records for the works.

 

[Sidewinder]

So like I say it's simple.

You want to remove the RCD so the 17th eddition rules about burried / hidden cables must apply. i.e the t&e must be either in steel conduit or proven to be >50mm deep in ther walls. You can quote the reg numbers for that. And advise you can only go ahead and replace the rcd with a main switch if you can either inspect the entire length of the cable run, or replace it with SWA or a cable in steel conduit, or indeed another t&e surface mounted (in trunking perhaps)

It's got nothing to do with that separate CPC and where that may or may not be routed.

I've muddied the waters somewhat with mentioning the RCD.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be PD.

All I originally wanted was the reg that Rob_the_rich came up with.

That's enough for me to FI the cable.

The RCD not even protecting the T&E anyway.

So I can remove the RCD and not change the protection of the T&E what so ever.

Downstream of the RCD is SWA to the building.

It is between the RCD & the meter that I have the issues.