7/.036 Cable

[uksparks]

Hi,

Just a question, I know what I would do but wondering what others do.

7/.036 is the old imperial version of 4mm supposedly, do you put it on a 20A MCB or a 32A MCB ??

We are referring to a radial, not a ring.

Personally I put it on a 20A MCB, as looking at the old regs book, not that I have one, but one I found, it can only take 27A if I am correct.

I did a consumer unit change today, had an 8.5kW shower connect on a 7/.036 with 30A Fuse, never been a problem, but I have just disconnected it and put a warning on it etc, we had the conversation of rewiring it which could be done in about 2 hours with minimal effort and the customer didn't want it.

The customer has called me and said he has reconnected it, can't help some people, I did connect it and see how much it was pulling and it was 35.9A.

 

[7029 dave]

Smallest I have seen is 6mm, biggest 10mm.

 

[davesparks]

Just out of interest, have any of you come across shower cables so small of late?

Yes, occasionally feeding old 7/7.5kW showers

 

[uksparks]

So it's possible my that common these days then, I think I've just been a bit unlucky on this occasion.

 

[Andy78]

Just out of interest, have any of you come across shower cables so small of late?

Yes. I have come across a handful of them in the last few years. Mostly old cables that have had new, more powerful showers put on them.

 

[Sparky Pat]

The current rating shown in old regs book is for coarse current protection [rewirable fuse] for an mcb close current protection would apply which has a rating factor which increases the rating of the cable [1.33 i think, but could be wrong].
First popular showers that I saw were 6.0 KW, vaguely remember coming across a 5KW version.
Hope this helps
Patrick.

 

[Marvo]

We don't do domestic so it might be slightly different but if we're guilty of an oversight that requires extra expense we usually offer to foot the labour as a gesture of good faith if the client will give us a variation order for the materials amount.

The way we approach it is if we'd not made the oversight during the initial survey the entire extra amount including labour would have been reflected in the original quotation so the client is actually scoring considerably by just paying for materials.

 

[Andy78]

The current rating shown in old regs book is for coarse current protection [rewirable fuse] for an mcb close current protection would apply which has a rating factor which increases the rating of the cable [1.33 i think, but could be wrong].
First popular showers that I saw were 6.0 KW, vaguely remember coming across a 5KW version.
Hope this helps
Patrick.

This is what I was alluding to in post #16. It would make sense that the reciprocal of the factor of Cf be applied to imperial cables that had this factor built into their CCC.

 

[Midwest]

It's a bit academic now as Uksparks has agreed to do the work free of charge, but I can't quite see the argument on how he can be responsible for the existing installation. Whilst I agree you should carry some preliminary tests & inspections before a CU change, this doesn't amount to EICR, and nor should it. When I last took my car in for a service, it also needed two new tyres. I didn't get them for free. The OP didn't install the original cable, and had he noted it before, he could of pointed this out to the customer. But the fact remains, that the existing cable is not suitable, and is the responcibity of the customer. This should be covered under 'terms & conditions' included with any quotation.

 

[Hellmooth]

Oversight

Lol I'm normally a stickler for spelling, noticed it as I was
posting thought it would go unnoticed, good one though!

 

[davesparks]

It's a bit academic now as Uksparks has agreed to do the work free of charge, but I can't quite see the argument on how he can be responsible for the existing installation. Whilst I agree you should carry some preliminary tests & inspections before a CU change, this doesn't amount to EICR, and nor should it. When I last took my car in for a service, it also needed two new tyres. I didn't get them for free. The OP didn't install the original cable, and had he noted it before, he could of pointed this out to the customer. But the fact remains, that the existing cable is not suitable, and is the responcibity of the customer. This should be covered under 'terms & conditions' included with any quotation.

If it is in his terms and conditions then he will win if the customer takes him to court.

But he'll not fair too well on the fact that he has apparently provided a 32A mcb for the customer to connect the cable to, and presumably left the cable in such a way that it can be easily reconnected.

 

[Hellmooth]

2 ways of looking at it, UK has done the right thing by offering to do it for free as it will bode well in the future, and is a learning experience! But Midwest has a great point with regards to an MOT, you can't always tell how the install is especially when trying to keep a customer happy by cracking on with the works!

 

[Midwest]

If it is in his terms and conditions then he will win if the customer takes him to court.

But he'll not fair too well on the fact that he has apparently provided a 32A mcb for the customer to connect the cable to, and presumably left the cable in such a way that it can be easily reconnected.

If it's in his 'T&C', then the customer isn't going to take him to court. If he's bought the issue to the customers attention, disconnected the cable, and the customer has reconnected the cable, that is the responsibility of the customer. What other reasonable steps could the OP of taken, after discovering the problem? I can see why Uksparks has decided to do the work 'FOC', as the least line of resistance (excuse pun) and get paid. If he had noted the issue beforehand, installed a new 6mm, and then realised shower required 10mm, I could agree, but not with the former.

 

[davesparks]

If it's in his 'T&C', then the customer isn't going to take him to court. If he's bought the issue to the customers attention, disconnected the cable, and the customer has reconnected the cable, that is the responsibility of the customer. What other reasonable steps could the OP of taken, after discovering the problem? I can see why Uksparks has decided to do the work 'FOC', as the least line of resistance (excuse pun) and get paid. If he had noted the issue beforehand, installed a new 6mm, and then realised shower required 10mm, I could agree, but not with the former.

Merely being in the t&c won't prevent the customer taking him to court, being correctly and legally worded will give him a chance of winning the case though.

That depends on whether the customer has agreed to have the shower disconnected or not. We have no legal power or right to disconnect or otherwise deprive a domestic customer of any part of their installation.
The problem should have been apparent upon taking the lid off of the old fuseboard, at that point he should have discussed it with the customer, and walked away from the job if they declined to have it put right.

What he certainly shouldn't have done is provided the 32A mcb and left the cable in such a way that the customer could reconnect it. That reeks of a 'I didn't know they would do that' nudge nudge wink wink kind of scenario.

 

[davesparks]

2 ways of looking at it, UK has done the right thing by offering to do it for free as it will bode well in the future, and is a learning experience! But Midwest has a great point with regards to an MOT, you can't always tell how the install is especially when trying to keep a customer happy by cracking on with the works!

The purpose of an MOT is to inspect a vehicle against a strict and specific legal standard with a fixed maximum price. It is in no way equivalent to having electrical work carried out in a house

 

[Hellmooth]

It's a comparison, although not the same it still makes a point.

 

[Midwest]

Merely being in the t&c won't prevent the customer taking him to court, being correctly and legally worded will give him a chance of winning the case though.

That depends on whether the customer has agreed to have the shower disconnected or not. We have no legal power or right to disconnect or otherwise deprive a domestic customer of any part of their installation.
The problem should have been apparent upon taking the lid off of the old fuseboard, at that point he should have discussed it with the customer, and walked away from the job if they declined to have it put right.

What he certainly shouldn't have done is provided the 32A mcb and left the cable in such a way that the customer could reconnect it. That reeks of a 'I didn't know they would do that' nudge nudge wink wink kind of scenario.

If the customer decides to take it to court, even though it's stated so in the 'T&C', then it's unlikely to succeed, is it. The reason to have 'T&C', is to qualify exactly what is included in a quotation and what is not.

I agree we have no powers to deprive a person of use of their property, and OP should of noted issue before he started work. But we are all human, and when OP realised the cable was too small, he made it safe and informed the customer. What else could he have reasonably been expected to do in the circumstances. He did't remove the offending cable, he didn't unscrew said shower from wall. Thereby not depriving customer of his installation. Just leaving it in a safer manner than he found it.

Perhaps the manufactures are complicit in this conspiracy, by selling fully populated CU's. I think it was reasonable in the circumstances, for the OP to leave the circuit disconnected and bring this to the attention of the customer. I think the OP is not responsible for the actions of the customer who removed the lid of the CU, and connected an unsafe circuit, when he had been informed of the danger

I think the customer is taking advantage of the OP's good nature & professionalism, knowing he would not leave it the condition the customer returned it to, and was gambling that the OP would put it right free of charge.

How far do we go with this. Having installed the CU, whilst testing & before energising we note and incorrectly installed pond pump, replaced 'FOC'. Also note damaged socket outlet, replaced 'FOC'. Light fitting in garage with damage casing, replaced 'FOC' etc.

If the customer had paid for an EICR before he paid to have his CU replaced, then I could see he would have some course of redress.

Whilst I admire members approach to good business practices, I feel we do need to sometimes stand our ground. I've never been a similar situation myself, perhaps just good luck.

 

[Midwest]

The purpose of an MOT is to inspect a vehicle against a strict and specific legal standard with a fixed maximum price. It is in no way equivalent to having electrical work carried out in a house

Didn't take it in for an MOT. :cool3:

 

[Dave OCD]

If it is in his terms and conditions then he will win if the customer takes him to court.

But he'll not fair too well on the fact that he has apparently provided a 32A mcb for the customer to connect the cable to, and presumably left the cable in such a way that it can be easily reconnected.

Fare. :yesnod:

 

[Midwest]

Fare. :yesnod:

Dave shame on you, your not joining the grammar police as well. :vanish:

 

[davesparks]

Fare. :yesnod:

Muphry's law

 

[Dave OCD]

Dave shame on you, your not joining the grammar police as well. :vanish:

[You're] :laugh3:

No it was just a bit of fun - a kind of "people in glass houses" sort of thing..... :laugh3:

 

[Midwest]

[You're] :laugh3:

:laugh3:

Damn it.

 

[PEG]

.....and not to be left out of the pedantic rhetoric...one has to be careful,drawing analogies,to an MOT,as that type of an inspection,bar a few sections,is "at the time inspected..." and for most of the inspected areas,is not applicable the day after.

This is why an MOT is NO indication,of the present condition of a motor vehicle,whereas an EICR viewed slightly differently. irate:

 

[Midwest]

Who was it that mentioned an MOT? Cos it wasn't me

 

[PEG]

Three of us...and i'm one...:smilewinkgrin: