Is this a Part P failure?

[glennuk]

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

 

[Midwest]

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]

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.

 

[brianmoooore]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[littlespark]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

 

[Dustydazzler]

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

 

[ipf]

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]

nyyj would have single phase colours in 3 core.