LOSING MONEY WHEN WALKING AWAY FROM BAD JOBS

[Happychappy]

Hi everyone.

I'm an electrician in Leeds and i'd really appreciate your view on walking away from jobs when the existing install is not right.

For instance I had two days booked in for a CU change and rewiring of some spotlights. I always start a CU change by doing a condition report first on all circuit attached. Within 10 minutes of testing I knew I was going to have a bad day! The kitchen lights were wired to the 32A upstairs socket circuit and no fused spur protecting the smaller cable, I had a neutral to earth fault on the lighting circuit, there were multiple DIY alterations, there were multiple spurs taken off the ring without being fused down and the list went on!!

At this point I advised the customer there were multiple issues and I would be unable to fit the consumer or rewire the spotlights.

I advised the customer that the property needs rewiring, to which I got the standard response of 'well it works so I will just leave it as it is'.

This was yesterday and I am now sat at home today with losing a day and a half's pay with only being able to charge for the condition report.

This for me is happening way too often with not being able to carry out planned works due to the poor existing install.

I would really appreciate knowing how everyone else deals with these situations? Do you do the same as me and walk away meaning you are constantly loosing money or do you just do the work and leave the customer with a dangerous situation report or something to that affect?

Would love to hear you thoughts and opinions on this please.

 

[peterhyper]

It's all well and good believing that you are making it safer, but the reality is that Earthing and bonding are critical to the correct and safe operation of any ADS system.

I am definitely making it safer.

Just leaving it as is with no gas bond, no RCDs, not upgrading the tails and earth conductor isn't worth doing unless the water is bonded, so subsequently absolutely no part of it is made safer??

A consumer unit change will also often highlight potentially dangerous issues with an installation, so who knows what condition the installation is in because without a water bond being connected we won't find out (until the worst happens).

 

[Risteard]

I am definitely making it safer.

Just leaving it as is with no gas bond, no RCDs, not upgrading the tails and earth conductor isn't worth doing unless the water is bonded, so subsequently absolutely no part of it is made safer??

A consumer unit change will also often highlight potentially dangerous issues with an installation, so who knows what condition the installation is in because without a water bond being connected we won't find out (until the worst happens).

My point is that the fundamentals are wrong if Earthing and bonding aren't there - and I suspect this is what the NICEIC were relaying to you.

 

[Happychappy]

I have this on ALL my CU changes and big quotes:

"NB: If problems are detucted during the fuseboard change additional work may be required. Such issues and associated costs will be discussed with you, prior to being implanted"

Never had the clause challenged, nor had any issues when additional work is required.

Thanks for your reply. My question was more, if the customer wasn't prepared to pay for remedial works then would you just walk away losing money or would you fit it so you get paid but leave a dangerous situation report of the issues?

 

[Happychappy]

I have this on ALL my CU changes and big quotes:

"NB: If problems are detucted during the fuseboard change additional work may be required. Such issues and associated costs will be discussed with you, prior to being implanted"

Never had the clause challenged, nor had any issues when additional work is required.

Thanks for your reply. My question was more, if the customer wasn't prepared to pay for remedial works then would you just walk away losing money or would you fit it so you get paid but leave a dangerous situation report of the issues?

 

[Octopus]

Thanks for your reply. My question was more, if the customer wasn't prepared to pay for remedial works then would you just walk away losing money or would you fit it so you get paid but leave a dangerous situation report of the issues?

By inserting this into your quotes should then make people realise that a fixed price quote isn’t possible.

If the customer isn’t happy about the clause then don’t take on the work ....

So I either do these jobs with this clause and customer understanding, or I don’t start. It’s that simple

But if it’s 1/2 hours work and necessary, I would probably do it as part of the job and not pick a fight with the customer ......

 

[Happychappy]

By inserting this into your quotes should then make people realise that a fixed price quote isn’t possible.

If the customer isn’t happy about the clause then don’t take on the work ....

So I either do these jobs with this clause and customer understanding, or I don’t start. It’s that simple

But if it’s 1/2 hours work and necessary, I would probably do it as part of the job and not pick a fight with the customer ......

My terms state that rectification of any existing faults is not included. That's has always been suffice for quick to rectify faults. Surely you must have been in a position where you've done the pre inspections on a fuse board change and the circuits have that many issues that

By inserting this into your quotes should then make people realise that a fixed price quote isn’t possible.

If the customer isn’t happy about the clause then don’t take on the work ....

So I either do these jobs with this clause and customer understanding, or I don’t start. It’s that simple

But if it’s 1/2 hours work and necessary, I would probably do it as part of the job and not pick a fight with the customer ......

In my terms I do have ' rectification of any existing faults are not included'. This has been fine for quick and easy to fix faults but anything more than that I find allot of customers don't want to go ahead.

 

[Octopus]

My terms state that rectification of any existing faults is not included. That's has always been suffice for quick to rectify faults. Surely you must have been in a position where you've done the pre inspections on a fuse board change and the circuits have that many issues that

If a decent visual suggests issues lurking I normally insist on an EICR - full or part to be done and paid for before the CU change

Again, if the client won't accept this, I won't get involved ...

 

[TJ Anderson]

I am definitely making it safer.

Just leaving it as is with no gas bond, no RCDs, not upgrading the tails and earth conductor isn't worth doing unless the water is bonded, so subsequently absolutely no part of it is made safer??

A consumer unit change will also often highlight potentially dangerous issues with an installation, so who knows what condition the installation is in because without a water bond being connected we won't find out (until the worst happens).

I totally get where you are coming from and you just want it right. For someone like yourself, I would say a better middle ground solution would be to do more investigation and even some testing at survey stage. It will take more time but you will know what you are in for if you then get the job and, on aggregate, should be better off in the long run with not having "no work days" with short notice.

 

[FatAlan]

I have this on ALL my CU changes and big quotes:

"NB: If problems are detucted during the fuseboard change additional work may be required. Such issues and associated costs will be discussed with you, prior to being implanted"

Never had the clause challenged, nor had any issues when additional work is required.

You obviously work in the rich suburbs around Woking and not on Goldsworth Park PS Please don’t take offence if you live there

 

[peterhyper]

I totally get where you are coming from and you just want it right. For someone like yourself, I would say a better middle ground solution would be to do more investigation and even some testing at survey stage. It will take more time but you will know what you are in for if you then get the job and, on aggregate, should be better off in the long run with not having "no work days" with short notice.

If I can instantly see that there is no water bond and the customer refuses to have one (for the reasons previously stated) then no more investigation or any testing is necessary (I think you may have quoted the wrong person).

 

[Happychappy]

If I can instantly see that there is no water bond and the customer refuses to have one (for the reasons previously stated) then no more investigation or any testing is necessary (I think you may have quoted the wrong person).

If it was just remedial work then i think the customer would have been fine with that but there were too many issues that came up when inspecting the property. I was only happy to recommend a rewire which the customer wasn't in a position to do.

 

[cloverman]

Like some others have stated, I always do a few checks prior to giving a quote to established at that least the basics are covered and also have it written on all quotes that it is subject to the existing installation being fit for purpose, that testing/investigation may find major electrical installation faults that will be quoted for separately.
I will normally put right small issues free of charge, however will inform the customer of these beforehand so that they are aware of work that I am completing.
I think in most cases if you explain the situation and gain the competence of the customer then it won't be a problem, there is without doubt always going to the odd one, but in all fairness when I first go and look at the work required I can pick up on if they are reliable to have the extra done or not.
I have walked away from work when they say that they aren't prepared to pay for putting right the issues I find on first visit for quote and make a point to them that any decent electrician will tell them exactly the same as me

 

[richy3333]

My point is that the fundamentals are wrong if Earthing and bonding aren't there - and I suspect this is what the NICEIC were relaying to you.

Totally agree. Still is quoted at 132.16 in BBB

 

[johnduffell]

The other issue about no bonding would be that the owner might feel that everything is ok now, and everything looks new, whereas with the old installation in place it keep the pressure on to have it done properly as everything still looks rough. You also never know if the person is just tarting it up to sell therefore leaving the new owner with a much less obvious danger.
Although in my opinion adding an up front rcd would probably be the happy medium if the regs were to allow it

 

[peterhyper]

The other issue about no bonding would be that the owner might feel that everything is ok now, and everything looks new, whereas with the old installation in place it keep the pressure on to have it done properly as everything still looks rough. You also never know if the person is just tarting it up to sell therefore leaving the new owner with a much less obvious danger.
Although in my opinion adding an up front rcd would probably be the happy medium if the regs were to allow it

The lady in question had spent a small fortune doing her house up and having lovely ceramic floor tiles fitted throughout the ground floor and I very much doubt she was selling it, and I'm sure she will have still have the same unsafe set up.

I am not specifically criticising the NICEIC because that's how it is, but regardless of what regs people point to, carrying out a full inspection of all circuits, fitting RCDs, upgrading the tails, main earth conductor, bonding the gas etc has to better than doing absolutely nothing because the water can't be bonded.

Let's hope doctors don't adopt the same criteria if I have a serious road accident (they could have revived me, but they wouldn't have been able to save my little finger so they let me die because they couldn't fix everything).