Is this a Part P failure?

glennuk · Dec 26, 2022

Hi all,

New to the forum! Quick background on me: I have a degree in electrical engineering and spent many years working with qualified electricians on house re-wires. I never qualified as an electrician as I went down the IT route but I can rewire a house with no concerns - not that I would as I'm not qualified!!

A friend of mine asked me to review the electrics on his new extension as he is not happy with the work. Here is what I found:

1. None of the back boxes are earthed. Not a failure but poor practice

2. Loose socket back box and broken light box (missing lug).

3. Ring main cable passing through back of lighting back box ( switch box is level with socket in kitchen).

4. Breakers labelled wrong on the new DB.

5. Live wire sticking out the wall with no termination block! I fixed this one as super dangerous.

6. Live wires sticking out the ceiling with no termination block. Also dangerous but out of reach. Not fixed.

7. Armoured cable missing gland and outer casing not earthed.

8. Light switch in bedroom not screwed in to back box. I fixed this one as dangerous.

Photos attached of some of these. The builder did the electrics and signed it all off. There are a number of issues with the extension- not just the electrics. If I was an inspector I would not have passed it! However, poor practice does not necessarily equate to a Part P failure. So my question is do any of the above actually constitute as a failure?

Thanks in advance,
Glenn

brianmoooore · Dec 27, 2022

I don't care what the regs, on site guide, or any of the scams say, I'm with mainline on this one. I do, and always will, connect a fly lead between any metal back box and any earth terminal on a face plate, to ensure maximum safety, even when the face is removed with the power on.

ipf · Dec 27, 2022

Dustydazzler said:
Standard install in 2022

Domestic has gone to Sh!t in the last decade of so

Although well on the way down, it certainly dipped pretty quickly after 2005, when Part P came into being.

ipf · Dec 27, 2022

brianmoooore said:
I don't care what the regs, on site guide, or any of the scams say, I'm with mainline on this one. I do, and always will, connect a fly lead between any metal back box and any earth terminal on a face plate, to ensure maximum safety, even when the face is removed with the power on.

So do I, but that's not the point.

brianmoooore · Dec 27, 2022

ipf said:
dipped pretty quickly after 2005, when Part P came into being.

Which is exactly what I predicted would happen at the time. My exact words to a colleague at the time, were "monkeys bodging installations, now become monkeys bodging installations, with a certificate in their hands, saying they are doing it properly "

ipf · Dec 27, 2022

brianmoooore said:
Which is exactly what I predicted would happen at the time. My exact words to a colleague at the time, were "monkeys bodging installations, now become monkeys bodging installations, with a certificate in their hands, saying they are doing it properly "

You're not the only one. It was obvious that standards had been declining for decades. It's just accelerated and it's something we'll never recover from.
I've been on about it on here for 12 years, having seen how things have developed since the 1970's.

Midwest · Dec 28, 2022

ipf said:
You're not the only one. It was obvious that standards had been declining for decades. It's just accelerated and it's something we'll never recover from.
I've been on about it on here for 12 years, having seen how things have developed since the 1970's.

Some of my colleagues were bodging it 40 years ago, so nothing new there.

Edit, make that 60!

glennuk · Dec 28, 2022

brianmoooore said:
Can you post a pic of the whole of the inside of that meter box, please.

Hi,

Photo attached. Every installation of armourded cabling I've seen has a gland on the end which is then earthed (I manage a Datacentre so I see these everywhere!). Never seen one terminated like this.

[ElectriciansForums.net] Is this a Part P failure?

brianmoooore · Dec 28, 2022

Right, now we can see a clear and definite deviation from the regs, not just some that could be open to interpretation.
You have exposed wires that are only single insulated - the cores of the SWA. All wiring that is not inside an enclosure requires two layers of insulation, like the meter tails. You can see the two layers where they leave the meter. (Also badly done!)

timhoward · Dec 28, 2022

There are several issues there but head and shoulders above the others is:
-Supplier fuse is OCPD device for a sub-main (which presumably exceeds 3m) (questionable CCC)
-lack of earthing/correct installation of SWA
-single insulated conductors accessible

brianmoooore · Dec 28, 2022

Like you say, there are many issues present, but: the 3m rule isn't a reg, and we don't know the length of the SWA. The SWA armour could be earthed elsewhere, but the single insulated wires are a slam dunk.
Think Al Capone. Multiple murders and heinous crimes , undoubtedly, but jailed on income tax evasion charges.

MJPD29 · Dec 28, 2022

That swa is a complete mess. Single insulated cores and should probably have a switch fuse fitted too.

littlespark · Dec 28, 2022

Just to be pedantic about it, the basic insulation is technically inside an enclosure that can "only be opened by a tool or a key"

But it is a mess.

How did he cut the armour off that close to the side of the box?
There was plenty of room in there to do it properly.

OnlQQker · Dec 28, 2022

MJPD29 said:
Just a point, back boxes do not need to be earthed if they have a fixed lug. This is not bad practice in any way.

I was always told they should be.
Just in case somebody in the future pulls them away from the wall when wallpapering or something. And the live conductor which isn't through a grommet can touch the metal back box?

DefyG · Dec 28, 2022

Is this a Part P failure?

I'd say its a bit more than that.
There is no way the distribution circuit (armoured cable install) is compliant with the regs (BS7671) in many ways and its more than a deviation as (my understanding) deviations are permitted if no less safe than set out in the regs. This clearly is not and an installation certificate nor a building reg (Part P) certificate should ever have been issued.

MJPD29 · Dec 28, 2022

@OnlQQker if the regulations were followed in the first place this situation would not arise. No untrained person should ever opening a live socket, and if an electrician is opening one a risk assessment is required. The regs are there to prevent the situation arising, not sort out problems after someone has done something dangerous in the future.

Dustydazzler · Dec 28, 2022

DefyG said:
Is this a Part P failure?
I'd say its a bit more than that.
There is no way the distribution circuit (armoured cable install) is compliant with the regs (BS7671) in many ways and its more than a deviation as (my understanding) deviations are permitted if no less safe than set out in the regs. This clearly is not and an installation certificate nor a building reg (Part P) certificate should ever have been issued.

I was told as a first year apprentice that you can't issue an EIC if there are any no compliances

The best the builder could issue is a EICR with a C2 for the Sub-main

freddo · Dec 28, 2022

The SWA cable also has no overload/fault protection and is relying entirely on the suppliers fuse. All that wiring needs attention.

Dustydazzler · Dec 28, 2022

That sub-main could be one of those 'temporary' builders hook-ups

ipf · Dec 28, 2022

littlespark said:
How did he cut the armour off that close to the side of the box?
There was plenty of room in there to do it properly.

Is it definitely SWA or could it be Hi-Tuff (NYY-J)?

freddo · Dec 28, 2022

nyyj would have single phase colours in 3 core.

timhoward · Dec 28, 2022

brianmoooore said:
Like you say, there are many issues present, but: the 3m rule isn't a reg

Just to clarify, I wasn't meaning DNO rules about tail lengths.
I was talking about the stuff in section 433 regarding position of an overcurrent device, which does mention 3m. (The same bit that allows you to run small conductors from a bus bar chamber to a switched fuse in certain circumstances). Not a regularly cited reg for sure but it's there.

But we unsurprisingly agree that whatever the finer points are it's not up to scratch!

ipf · Dec 28, 2022

freddo said:
nyyj would have single phase colours in 3 core.

Yes, the cable's been prepared before installation, it seems.

brianmoooore · Dec 28, 2022

Dustydazzler said:
The best the builder could issue is a EICR with a C2 for the Sub-main

Which is my whole point in #35. The single insulated cables are a C2 with no possible argument.
One C2, and the whole EIC is invalid.

brianmoooore · Dec 28, 2022

Earlier in the thread, the OP refers to the 100A incomer. That ancient electricity meter is clearly marked "40A Max", so that should be the size of the DNO fuse, and the maximum capacity of the supply.

mainline · Dec 28, 2022

timhoward said:
There are several issues there but head and shoulders above the others is:
-Supplier fuse is OCPD device for a sub-main (which presumably exceeds 3m) (questionable CCC)
-lack of earthing/correct installation of SWA
-single insulated conductors accessible

Also, the DNO won't like the actual meter seal being cut, he probably was able to wriggle the head fuse carrier out as the top seal has a lot of play that's if he bothered pulling it.

Yeah, don't worry mate I'll sort it jobs a good un.
Happy days.

Attachments

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Is this a Part P failure?​

-

-

Is this a Part P failure?​

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Similar Threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Is this a Part P failure?

Is this a Part P failure?