Temporary Safety Fix - Would you do it?

[Piratepete]

Domestic - Hob isolator beside Oven isolator, both 32Amp supplies. SWMBO got a shock off the hob isolator when cleaning it with a damp cloth. Investigated - there's a break in the earth circuit between the switch and CU. The reason it's live is probably that the hob is electronic and has suppressors connected to earth.

The client is horrified at the idea of pulling up a new carpet, floor boards etc to sort this out at this time so I suggested a temporary fix of an earth link to the adjacent oven isolator. Would you do it? If so should a covering letter be sent?

Pete

 

[rocker]

Ask your customer if they are horrified at the idea of being killed by their cooker.

Personally if the break is in the T+E that runs from the cooker to it's isolator, I don't see any issue with just disconnecting that CPC and running a properly sized single as a CPC. Stick a label on the isolator or something.

EDIT: Just re-read and can see they are seperate isolators. Are you certain the break is between the board and the iso? If it is, ok maybe you could get away with it as a TEMPORARY measure, but in the event of a double-fault, you're going to have problems. If you do it, make sure SHE signs a letter saying it is a temporary fix and requires sorting within, say, 14 days. Either she needs to have her carpet up, or you need to find another route through the house for a single to run as a CPC.

 

[telectrix]

as a temporary fix, i see no problem. i would put something in writing though saying it's temp. and requires further investigation and get cust. to signa copy. btw, what's swmbo?

 

[BlueToBits]

A temporary installation must be just as compliant as a permanent one, perhaps not as pretty. There was an article in the NICEIC news letter some years ago titled "There's No Third Option" along the lines of "All work must be compliant. If it can't be compliant it must not be undertaken". I recall it specifically mentions that a client's diclaimer cannot release the electrician of his obligation to meet this requirement. This may, of course be an NICEIC rule and not be a BS7671 requirement, although I don't recall any regulation that says "This regulation may be ignored if the client requests it"

 

[telectrix]

have you checked at the CU, made sure cpc not snapped off at terminal? sometimes it's the simplest of faults take longest to fix.

 

[bugsy]

If there is a break in the cpc between cooker control unit and CU then in all proberbility the cables damaged, I would tell your client it's a proper job or a no job , if something does go wrong you would be for the high jump.

If theres a void under the floor can you not fish a new cable from CU location to Kitchen?

 

[Piratepete]

Thanks for all your replies. To answer the various queries.

1. SWMBO - She who must be obeyed - most married blokes have one!

2. I've located and checked the earth connection at the CU -Ok

3. Seperate earth would probably take the same route as the existing cable - fishing isn't an option.

4. I'm thinking that my link to the other isolator is bad news - it doesn't comply with regs, so I will put pressure on the customer to allow a proper job or an external seperate earth wire all the way from the CU. He's very particular - so I don't expect too much resistance!

 

[LukeD]

Muddy water

I would prefer not to touch and sleep easy. Thew way the rules are been made up these days is a nightmare.

 

[rocker]

A temporary installation must be just as compliant as a permanent one, perhaps not as pretty. There was an article in the NICEIC news letter some years ago titled "There's No Third Option" along the lines of "All work must be compliant. If it can't be compliant it must not be undertaken". I recall it specifically mentions that a client's diclaimer cannot release the electrician of his obligation to meet this requirement. This may, of course be an NICEIC rule and not be a BS7671 requirement, although I don't recall any regulation that says "This regulation may be ignored if the client requests it"

I see where you're coming from, but I would say NICs opinion that everything must be absolutely to regs, while admirable, is not the be all and end all - the regs are still technically just recommendations. The golden rule we have to obey is we must not leave an installation in a less safe condition than we found it. I would prefer to share a cpc for a week or so than have no cpc at all - but I DO agree with you, this needs to be sorted properly and pronto.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

This is what i do when called out to a fault.

I tell them
1, I charge by the hour or part hour.
2, I will find the problem.
3, I will repair the problem if it can be done without causing any damage to the property.
4, If i need to damage the property to repair the fault, i will ask your permission first.
5, If you refuse 4, then i will leave the fault as it is, give you a written report and give you my bill, get paid and leave.

Cheers...........Howard

 

[i=p/u]

they will want to know how got damaged , have you investigated

 

[BlueToBits]

...- the regs are still technically just recommendations. The golden rule we have to obey is we must not leave an installation in a less safe condition than we found it. .....

NICEIC do insist on full compliance. That's the reputation they have. No grey areas, just black and white.

I agree that any improvement is better than none, and rumour has it that there may be something in the spirit of this in this year's ammendment - we will have to wait and see. But as it stands at the moment, AFAIK, BS7671 is mandatory not optional. We cannot pick and choose the regulations we like and ignore the rest. Where do we draw the line? can all installation work be undertaken on the basis of "It's better than it was, but it's still not 'safe'. " ?

SirKit - absolutely!.

 

[saveloy]

May be a long shot, but depending on circuit loading, cable CSA etc etc, would it be a possibility to use the supply to the oven to supply hob as well and dissconnect the faulty circuit? ie both appliances from a single isolator?