UK SWA Cable termination

[mjjm986]

Hi All,

Looking some advice. Had someone install a SWA cable to exterior outhouse. In the outhouse everything.looks.great, new consumer board and three double sockets all installed and looking good. My.concern is with how the SWA cable has been terminated at the main board in the house. Surely the SWA should have been terminated into a junction box or something similar, then a feed to the new RCBO's? Should I be concerned or leave as is?

 

[mjjm986]

There may be someone on here who can visit you. Which area are you in?

Co Down Northern Ireland. Have found a chap who can hopefully take a look at it today.

 

[telectrix]

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

Co Down Northern Ireland. Have found a chap who can hopefully take a look at it today.

Great, let us know what he comes back with!

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

I see they're doing it wrong as well! You're supposed to not use glands and take the armouring directly into the MET. Silly GSH Electrical!

 

[Lister1987]

131.3.1 Protection from Thermal effects - With a layer of insulation missing the thermal insulating properties is compromised,

132.7 Type & Method of installation - Not using correct installation methods re; glands

133.3 Conditions of installation - Without the gland there will be stresses on the cable that it's not design for

134.1.1 Good workmanship - No explaination needed

134.1.4 Connections, without thr correct glanding you won't have an electrically and mechanically sound connection.

134.2.1 Initial Verification - I'd like to think this wouldn't pass a decent IV with the cable in that state.

And that's just Chapter 13, you could easily pull regs from Parts 4 & 5to bolster the argument

 

[Electrics]

Fully agree, but if you're going to challenge this work, you really need black/white violations of regulations, not something as subjective as poor workmanship.

Don't agree. There's no reg against putting in trunking on the ---- but i'd still challenge it.

 

[Electrics]

And who decides the standard of work which falls below good workmanship?

The person paying the bill.

 

[Petej999]

Hi All,

Looking some advice. Had someone install a SWA cable to exterior outhouse. In the outhouse everything.looks.great, new consumer board and three double sockets all installed and looking good. My.concern is with how the SWA cable has been terminated at the main board in the house. Surely the SWA should have been terminated into a junction box or something similar, then a feed to the new RCBO's? Should I be concerned or leave as is?
View attachment 91350

Cable/conductor support for final connections/IP ratings/ installation practice are three of the poor design and installation \s I would question.

 

[Lister1987]

You can't put every example of bad workmanship in as a reg. The regs would be 3 times the thickness they are now.

Reg 8264.34.344.33 'All compression glands must be tightened sufficiently'

Etc.

You can't but that is why 134.1.1 exists and where peer discussion comes into its own; I'd like to think there isn't a single electrician or even learner on here that would see no gland use as anything other than poor workmanship, I mean how do you defend it?

And who decides the standard of work which falls below good workmanship?

We all agree that this is poor workmanship, but there will be plenty of people who do the job correctly but their work looks rough... would that be classed as bad workmanship?

As above; peers, either other sparks or if they're part of a CPS then the area assessor for that CPS, I can't see any defending that lash up.

There is a line between rough as a badgers arse and dangerous. Any electrician that cares about Thier work won't have to be worried, the shysters and the seat-of-the-pants , the lash it on, flick a switch 'it works don't it?" Sparks on the other hand....

131.3.1 Protection from Thermal effects - With a layer of insulation missing the thermal insulating properties is compromised,

132.7 Type & Method of installation - Not using correct installation methods re; glands

133.3 Conditions of installation - Without the gland there will be stresses on the cable that it's not design for

134.1.1 Good workmanship - No explaination needed

134.1.4 Connections, without thr correct glanding you won't have an electrically and mechanically sound connection.

134.2.1 Initial Verification - I'd like to think this wouldn't pass a decent IV with the cable in that state.

And that's just Chapter 13, you could easily pull regs from Parts 4 & 5to bolster the argument

Chapter 13 is all you need, if you have an installation that breaches one of the fundamentals then it needs rethinking, redesigning and redoing.

Caught the arse-end of an E5 webinar last night that was genuinely interesting and it focused on Chapter 13 and transposition to EAWR regulations, how (with not much effort) you can turn a non-statutory 'regulation' into a statutory regulation in the correct sense of the work

Once you've got the chapter 13 violations and transposing to EAWR, you can then build on that foundation with other regulations from parts 4, 5 & 7. It's certainly something I'm going to be exploring more and bettering my understanding of .

 

[nicebutdim]

At the house end, the only regulation breaches (from an English point of view) that I can see, are the single sheathed blue and brown, lack of strain relief, non fire resistant enclosures, and possible IP rating issues.

Same regulations apply here, just no Part P of building regs.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

The person paying the bill.

What if that person hasn't got a clue what's a decent job and what isn't? Say this was that person's house and they said it was good - does that mean it's good?

 

[Vortigern]

I really don't think you can dismiss 134/good workmanship. I don't think it just means it should look neat although that is part of the craft. I think it means workmanship that will avoid danger to life or property. If the armour is not earthed I can see scenarios arising that someone could be electrocuted. In which case not taking into account manufacturers instructions that no doubt include using a gland to properly terminate the SWA would be poor and dangerous workmanship. Harm arising from that would mean there would be no defence in saying you followed regulations/statute i.e. being competent to avoid danger to person etc. as per EAWR due to poor workmanship.

 

[mjjm986]

Thanks for all your input everyone. Interesting to see everyone's take and I learned a little as well ?

Had another electrician take a look today, he agreed that it was not a professional job and is going to make it good for me. Said he would be redoing connections on both ends in line with what you all suggested.

 

[IAmSparkytus!]

What was the outcome with the original "electrician" if you don't mind me asking?

Have you spoke to him about it?

 

[mjjm986]

What was the outcome with the original "electrician" if you don't mind me asking?

Have you spoke to him about it?

Gonna speak with him in Saturday, gonna pay him for what he has done so far, but tell him I have gotten some one else to complete the rest of the work. Second part of the job was to do some garden lighting and another shed.