Advise please on a new re-wire

[pjmale45]

Hi all, I would appreciate some proffessional advise on a recent re-wire my friend has had. Im not 100% up on regs for domestic property and also sure about workmanship practices but I know this is a bad job. I want to go back to the contractor but Im gathering some 'truths' first before I start. This was a 3 bed house in Birmingham area and cost £4500. Ive added some pics to give you an idea but Im mostly concerned about 1. clipped wiring not covered in protection, 2. the wiring is not channeled its level with plaster so how do you cover it?, 3. isnt the wiring into the consumer unit supposed to be enclosed or glanded to keep the fire aspect safe?
Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

[buzzlightyear]

clipped cables are covered by RCD protection ? because the cables have not been glanded
does not make it safe ,but how ever the cables need some fire rated seal on the grommets, because their is no capped on the cables it will not stop a nail going through . I see some cables are clipped togeather should been separated in pic 6 putting stress on the outer sheeth .

 

[radiohead]

I cant see anything which does not meet regulations here, with the possible exception of the cables coming down the wall which may not be entirely within a safe zone, is there a socket at low level and are they in line with it ?.... that's the key. There is no requirement for flush cables to be capped, although it is considered good practice.
There is no requirement for fire seal around the holes in the DB, or for glands, the IP rating appears to have been maintained which is sufficient. Not the neatest job though to put it mildly, minimal compliance and no more.

 

[Ian1981]

I cant see anything which does not meet regulations here, with the possible exception of the cables coming down the wall which may not be entirely within a safe zone, is there a socket at low level and are they in line with it ?.... that's the key. There is no requirement for flush cables to be capped, although it is considered good practice.
There is no requirement for fire seal around the holes in the DB, or for glands, the IP rating appears to have been maintained which is sufficient. Not the neatest job though to put it mildly, minimal compliance and no more.

The IP rating is not maintained at the top of the CU where the cables enter ie the entry point on the middle cables ,is greater than IP4X

 

[Dustydazzler]

Looks pretty standard to me....

( I personally would cap all the cables ready to be plastered in )

 

[freddo]

Why is there so much damage to the coving/ walls?! That is really untidy.

 

[westward10]

Can we keep this professional please this is a new member, keep to facts and not jest.

 

[radiohead]

The IP rating is not maintained at the top of the CU where the cables enter ie the entry point on the middle cable entries at least, is greater than IP4X

Looking at it you are probably right, I think that would be classed as a 'minor' though.

 

[Ian1981]

Looking at it you are probably right, I think that would be classed as a 'minor' though.

It’s definitely Non compliant considering on the schedule of items inspected it should be ticked as being satisfactory

 

[westward10]

It looks a bit awkward but not that difficult to take the trunking up to and across the top of the board. The mini trunking at the door frame looks awful.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Bit of neat boxing painted in would do the trick

 

[davesparks]

Looking at it you are probably right, I think that would be classed as a 'minor' though.

What do you mean by a minor? As per the regulations any non compliances must be rectified before issuing the EIC, there are no grades of non-compliance.

 

[Dustydazzler]

i was always told you can’t issue an installation certificate with defects

 

[radiohead]

What do you mean by a minor? As per the regulations any non compliances must be rectified before issuing the EIC, there are no grades of non-compliance.

In practice there are probably very few major works, even high quality jobs, which do not have a 'minor' non-compliance somewhere. I've seen several recently carried out under the 18th with quarterly RCD test labels. I saw one last week where the main earth was brought into the steel DB through a separate gland. Another where a long run of SWA was cleated with entirely plastic cleats. EIC's had been issued. I'm not saying it's correct, but I very much doubt if that contractor took his assessor to that job the assessor would make him rectify that IP non compliance. It would be noted as a 'minor' on the assessors report. That was the point I was making.

 

[pjmale45]

The confusion of it all doesn't help. 1 person says one thing but others aren't so sure to agree. I thought the regs weren't meant to clear up issues not create them? Lol