Taking action against a cowboy install...

[DNS1]

A couple of months ago my parents had a new kitchen installed. Part of the install involved a new induction hob which meant a new circuit to be added to the board.

Now unfortunately they didn't tell me about anything that was going on, and ended up being talked into having their perfectly good 16th edition board replaced, instead of just sourcing an appropriate MCB or RCBO and connecting the hob circuit to the spare way.

I popped round today and whilst there I thought I'd fix a lightswitch that had been wired backwards for years. Simple enough job (despite half the screws being missing and a couple of wires simply resting against the terminals)

Few things I noticed about their new DB that cause me concern so I'd like another opinion:

- Notices missing from board (no sticker about the non-standard colours, no inspection due sticker, no sticker about testing RCD)
- MCBs labelled incorrectly (house is a little odd in that the 2 RFCs cover each side of the house, rather than upstairs and down, but not labelled as such)
- Both lighting circuits on same RCD
- Hob wired in buried T+E but not protected by RCD at all

Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the above are acceptable for a newly installed board are they? It all got me thinking about the whole installation and I'm now a little suspicious about how the initial testing could have been passed, given the fact that at least one lighting circuit clearly had poor connections in a switch.

Unfortunately I've not yet seen the certificates for any of the above work.

What does everyone think about the above? Should I be looking at take some action against this installer?

 

[DNS1]

Not all domestic installers are as silly as this one but if everyone was made to do the full 4 years there would be far less silly things like this happening.

I disagree I'm afraid mate.

I'm not an apprenticeship sparks, but I can safely say that no work I do will EVER be as bad as this guys...

He could of course say that I'd tampered with the circuit and disconnected the RCD for the hob etc, but his own certificates back me up!

Add to that the fact that he's quoted a 5 second disconnection time for a lighting circuit, said that the outbuilding distribution is a final, and not done any of the IR tests (got a witness to say that he didn't disconnect any loads during his visit), I think the NIC would be on pretty dodgy ground to side with him! If they do, then it's time to talk to BBC Rogue Traders... (about NIC, not just the installer!)

 

[onfire25]

Might of just tested at 250V dc between p-cpc, n-cpc, p/n-cpc to save hassle of disconnecting lamps etc.....as long as still above 1Mohm is still a pass

 

[Skyba]

I disagree I'm afraid mate.

I'm not an apprenticeship sparks, but I can safely say that no work I do will EVER be as bad as this guys...

He could of course say that I'd tampered with the circuit and disconnected the RCD for the hob etc, but his own certificates back me up!

Add to that the fact that he's quoted a 5 second disconnection time for a lighting circuit, said that the outbuilding distribution is a final, and not done any of the IR tests (got a witness to say that he didn't disconnect any loads during his visit), I think the NIC would be on pretty dodgy ground to side with him! If they do, then it's time to talk to BBC Rogue Traders... (about NIC, not just the installer!)

Like I said not ALL domestic installers are bad but If everyone was made to do it the long way there would be far less people out there doing work like this.

I'm not an apprentice spark but I've still done it the long way, I worked at college alongside the apprentices and found work for myself when I could and have worked as a mate and an improver to gain the experience.

I agree that the bloke is looking pretty poor but it's getting someone to listen that's hard.

I bought a car from Evans halshaw which I later discovered they'd done a massive cover up job and sold me a dangerous car had plenty of evidence including recorded phone calls with them and the guy they bought the car from talking about the damage, due to a loop hole they couldn't be used in court and I was left high and dry and they still had my money.

 

[DNS1]

Might of just tested at 250V dc between p-cpc, n-cpc, p/n-cpc to save hassle of disconnecting lamps etc

Yeah, I wondered that, but he's not mentioned it on the form. Thought it was mandatory if not doing the full 500V test. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DNS1]

I agree that the bloke is looking pretty poor but it's getting someone to listen that's hard.

Yeah, agree there.

At least in this case the guy was sub-contracted, so we can complain to Wickes as well as the NICEIC.

 

[onfire25]

Yeah, I wondered that, but he's not mentioned it on the form. Thought it was mandatory if not doing the full 500V test. Correct me if I'm wrong.

i personally would of made a note on the cert but hey......just look at the quality of the cert already......would you really expect anything more?!

 

[SYKRAPS]

Went over to my parents place today to do the minor work I mentioned in another thread (fusing and extending a spur to fit a light)

I disconnected the downstairs RFC, connected up the new light and then went to do the initial testing for the circuit.

Bearing in mind that the CU was new a few months ago... I did NOT expect to find no continuity between ends of the ring! I certainly did not expect to find that the installer, in addition to the other issues, has FABRICATED his continuity figures on the certificate!

Also found various other mistakes, would love to see how many you lot find...

View attachment 15542
View attachment 15543

My assessor would pull this test cert to pieces

 

[Amp David]

You've forgot to post a picture of page 1 of his cert,

 

[Phil]

if you upload the cert can you make sure the clients personal details along with the contractors personal information is completely removed please

 

[DNS1]

if you upload the cert can you make sure the clients personal details along with the contractors personal information is completely removed please

Yeah, deliberately didn't upload page 1 for this reason... I'd have liked to name and shame, but thought better of it!

 

[ackbarthestar]

Few things I noticed about their new DB that cause me concern so I'd like another opinion:

- Notices missing from board (no sticker about the non-standard colours, no inspection due sticker, no sticker about testing RCD)
- MCBs labelled incorrectly (house is a little odd in that the 2 RFCs cover each side of the house, rather than upstairs and down, but not labelled as such)
- Both lighting circuits on same RCD
- Hob wired in buried T+E but not protected by RCD at all

No mention of the borrowed neutral between the upstairs and downstairs lighting then ?
Not sure why there is the lack of RCD protection for the hob? must have been in a rush to finish
2 spare ways available so they should have been filled.

Just thought I'd throw in my pennyworth

 

[DNS1]

Just spent a while looking at the numbers on that certificate and I'm getting more and more suspicious of this guys competence...

Pretty much identical R1+R2 values for both lighting circuits, despite one being much longer than the others (3 level house, all upstairs lights on the same "upstairs" mcb, so I'd estimate the circuit is twice as long.

The same can be said for the R1+R2 of the socket circuits (although as I've said, there's no continuity anyway due to a break somewhere, so he has to have fabricated those results)

 

[not clever]

Zs 32.2 ohms for garage submain?

 

[SYKRAPS]

Zs 32.2 ohms for garage submain?

Lol it must be on a spike that is not recorded, protected by an RCD that is not recorded or supplying a submain thats not recorded

 

[DNS1]

Zs 32.2 ohms for garage submain?

Dear oh dear... I didn't notice that one... He's correctly quoted the maximum though!