Hi everyone,
I've recently done some testing on some welfare trailers used on building sites on behalf of the rental company at their base. Mixture of fixed wire/PAT/FAT to make sure they're going out to the customer OK.
I've done 8 so far and they were brought brand new 12 months ago and I've picked up stuff that I believe has been done in the factory. The rental company have gone back to the manufacturer as they've bought over ÂŁ1m worth of these in the last 12 months and they've got defensive. It seems a sub-contract electrician has been doing them and he's trying his best to wriggle out of it.
One of the worst was a double socket, 2.5mm radial, no more than 6metres in circuit length with an r1+r2 of more than an ohm. Turns out it was terminated on the pvc not the copper. Found this on 2/8 units so far.
Others have got exposed tri-rated cable behind a wall mounted heater fed from the fcu not in trunking or conduit (fine apparently, even though the odd one is done in 2-core flex).
The main one he's getting funny about is on every single one I've done so far, CPC for circuit 3 is in position 4 in the CU, and CPC for 4 is in position 3. I didn't think anything about it until I did the 2nd trailer and got an open loop testing the same fcu in different trailers. Swapped them round, bingo.
There's no way they're being tested correctly and I'm happy to wallop him with that, but I was always taught that it comes under the 'correct identification of conductors' reg.
CPC 3 should be in slot 3. We've all worked on some minging boards and had to make hay while the sun shines but on a new install... That you've supposedly performed initial verification on... Surely you'd spot it, swap them round for the next fella & change the wiring diagram if it's on every one.
We're doing the remedials as we go as they need to be safe to send out so it's not really a case of coding it on an EICR but I'd still like to pull a reg number out if I can. Left GN3 in office too so if there's anything that springs to mind there regarding him clearly not doing r1+r2 that'd be appreciated.
Cheers, Charlie
I've recently done some testing on some welfare trailers used on building sites on behalf of the rental company at their base. Mixture of fixed wire/PAT/FAT to make sure they're going out to the customer OK.
I've done 8 so far and they were brought brand new 12 months ago and I've picked up stuff that I believe has been done in the factory. The rental company have gone back to the manufacturer as they've bought over ÂŁ1m worth of these in the last 12 months and they've got defensive. It seems a sub-contract electrician has been doing them and he's trying his best to wriggle out of it.
One of the worst was a double socket, 2.5mm radial, no more than 6metres in circuit length with an r1+r2 of more than an ohm. Turns out it was terminated on the pvc not the copper. Found this on 2/8 units so far.
Others have got exposed tri-rated cable behind a wall mounted heater fed from the fcu not in trunking or conduit (fine apparently, even though the odd one is done in 2-core flex).
The main one he's getting funny about is on every single one I've done so far, CPC for circuit 3 is in position 4 in the CU, and CPC for 4 is in position 3. I didn't think anything about it until I did the 2nd trailer and got an open loop testing the same fcu in different trailers. Swapped them round, bingo.
There's no way they're being tested correctly and I'm happy to wallop him with that, but I was always taught that it comes under the 'correct identification of conductors' reg.
CPC 3 should be in slot 3. We've all worked on some minging boards and had to make hay while the sun shines but on a new install... That you've supposedly performed initial verification on... Surely you'd spot it, swap them round for the next fella & change the wiring diagram if it's on every one.
We're doing the remedials as we go as they need to be safe to send out so it's not really a case of coding it on an EICR but I'd still like to pull a reg number out if I can. Left GN3 in office too so if there's anything that springs to mind there regarding him clearly not doing r1+r2 that'd be appreciated.
Cheers, Charlie
