18th Edition Bonding requirements

[camerabloke]

I’m surprised this hasn’t been deleted cuz it’s not relevant as well

 

[GMES]

I deleted one post only, if there are other missing then I presume Another member of staff have deleted them.
They are pretty easy to see on the page, whenever a post is deleted it is visible that it's been deleted and there is always a reason left for that deletion.

 

[Toneyz]

d

Dissagree with you on this one Ian, yes the inspector should have picked it up, but the Bloke that did the install, was /is at fault, no excuses for this cock up Sparky doing it needs educating with his P45. And I use the words Sparky with trepidation, more than likely been working with someone for a few weeks, knows it all, bond the water pipe jobs a good un, seen it many times. No offence meant in my disagreement.

When I started out as an apprentice wiring new houses all the gas and water services were plastic incomers with copper pipes thereafter now these copper pipes you could say were not extraneous (isolated piece of metal)and did not need bonding but we all did and still do today even though the water is all plastic just habit. This was under the 15th,16th and 17th, and the regulations have not really clarified this and as said we have carries on with the same old. Now I agree with the bonding of just the short piece of copper and stop tap being bonded very robotic attitude
Pete for someone that has not worked for a company or had any involvement with any of the schemes you seem very anti (and I do say that with the utmost respect). I do not see how a company belonging to any of the schemes or not has relevance to the publication of the regs and its failure of plain English and clarification. But I do agree with you that they should not be a cash cow against the electrician but a way of enforcing good workmanship and compliance in lieu of a building inspector that has no electrical training taking into account that these schemes have only come about so us electricians can comply and notify under a new building regulation a few years ago (Part P).

 

[camerabloke]

Can’t see any reason for either on my feed

 

[camerabloke]

Just to clarify ant. Does it say in 18 that you have to bond incoming services if it comes in on a plastic sleeve?

 

[GMES]

Can’t see any reason for either on my feed

Then it may be time to invest in some Glasses because they will be there.

 

[camerabloke]

Then it may be time to invest in some Glasses because they will be there.

Yeah ok

 

[GMES]

Pretty clear for me to see, it looks like you've had 2 deleted one by me and one by westy.

 

[camerabloke]

You just did

So why hasn’t west’s post been been deleted? Irrelevant post really?

 

[Toneyz]

Just to clarify ant. Does it say in 18 that you have to bond incoming services if it comes in on a plastic sleeve?

Are we talking about a metal service coming in in the plastic sleeve? I guess that you would need to test if it was extraneous or not. No wonder I say you don't post on the forum a lot I don't get to read your posts as they all get deleted.

 

[GMES]

Ps that is a screen shot magnified from the main page so every other member including you must be able to see it.
Anyway I'm done for the night, I have been more than accommodating with my replies in explaining things, which too be fair I don't have to do. There is a sticky somewhere that explains staff do not have to explain their actions to members, I also know staff past and present that have banned members for that very thing.

 

[camerabloke]

Crack on and ban me then. Plenty of irrelevant posts in that thread that weren’t deleted

 

[Sintra]

Crack on and ban me then. Plenty of irrelevant posts in that thread that weren’t deleted

Any more and you will be banned. So just knock it on the head.

 

[AJshep]

Getting back to the thread.
I recently did my 18th and the lecturer was a rather arrogant and argumentative chap, thats me being polite.
Anyway we spoke about this, he said this regulation is floored and gave us a this fault scenario..
Someone has been contracted to put in a towel rail in a bathroom they have installed it correctly ( RCD protected etc), they checked main bonding, when testing and saw that the incomming services were plastic, and left site.

A few days later..
The boiler in the basement develops
A L-E fault, (lets say it has no cpc either) this is not RCD protected the pipework is copper apart from the incomming pipework..
The pipework in the bathroom is now live and the customer would get a shock if they touched the new towel rail and taps at the same time. The RCD on the towel rail is not relevant as the fault is on the boiler circuit, so no protection is offered. the the electrician didnt test the boiler in the basement as he wasnt contracted to.

This was his take, he told us we should go back to installing supplementary bonding to bathrooms as standard, when question and alternative earth paths were mentioned he expanded and got upset and stated that, relying on RCDs in the event of a fault is still painful expericence for the person receiving 30mA.
EEBADS worked.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So the tutor is saying bonding should be provided, in case someone may have installed a boiler supply without a CPC?