Not a level playing field for electrical contractors

fishdog

I dont want cause trouble so I wont mention any names.
Here is what I thought was an interesting story that I was told by a relation of an inspector for RECI or the ECSSA:

A large reputable irish electrical contractor wired a shopping centre. They only wired shell and core for the shop units. in each unit they left an empty distribution board, but powered up.

A shop that is part of a large foreign chain, similar to Tesco, but not Tesco took over one of the empty shop units. They got an electrical contractor from their own country to do the electrical fit out for the shop.

The electrical contractor, not being familiar with the ETCI regulations decides to call in RECI or the ECSSA to certify the job when the job is complete.

The inspector finds that there are some major issues with the wiring. For example the cable colours throughout the job are incorrect. There was no simple way to make the installation comply with current regulations. The inspector refused to certify the premises, which was the correct decision in my view. The electrical contractor refused to change anything, switched on the job, got paid and walked away! I am sure he did it at a good price too, seing as though he did not comply with irish regulations.

It turns out that this electrical contractor has now done this several times, using his own standards and not the ETCI’s. It turns out that there are several foreign electrical contractors doing this and the ECSSA and RECI are powerless to do anything about it.

Not very fair on the contractors that do comply, is it?

UrbanFox

Wait until the shop unit goes on fire thanks to the "colour blind" wiring !

Hopefully, the shop's commercial insurance policy excludes claims for damage arising from defective workmanship. Hopefuly, it will be a big fire with bells on it. We will then see how happy the shop is with this type of cost cutting .....:)

On a more serious note I hope that nobody gets injured or killed through dud wiring.

Incidentally, will the ESB allow such an installation to be connected to their network or do they care ? We had a full rewire of our house about 15 years ago and the ESB turned up to inspect the installation which was was aok according to the pink slip of paper that we got.

fishdog

Incidentally, will the ESB allow such an installation to be connected to their network or do they care ?

The ESB are responsible up to the ESB meter, the electrical contractor is responsible for the customer’s side.

We had a full rewire of our house about 15 years ago and the ESB turned up to inspect the installation which was was aok according to the pink slip of paper that we got.

That is the way it was done then.

The contractor needs a completion certificate to get the ESB to power up to a point that is suitable for the the customer's needs. This was already done in this case by the previous electrical contractor.

Hoagy

Presumably the foreign contractor complied with his own national wiring rules, so the installation was probably safe, if not technically compliant with our rules.
This has been happening for years with UK chain stores bringing their own fitout teams over to shopping centres, particularly in relation to cable colours.
There's not a lot can be done about it, it's part of the Single Market.
The solution is to have properly harmonised rules throughout the EU, but that's still some way off.

fishdog

Presumably the foreign contractor complied with his own national wiring rules, so the installation was probably safe, if not technically compliant with our rules.

I assume so, but I dont know.
But think about it, the regulations here are of a higher standard than many other countries, this generally means that:
1) The materials cost more.
2) It takes longer to do.

Anyway if they are going to ignore our rules and regulations, why would they bother complying with their own? What is to stop them doing anything that they can get away with once they can save money?

There's not a lot can be done about it, it's part of the Single Market.

I have no objection to the single market. The fact is that all electrical contractors doing work in this country should have to do it to the same standard. That makes things fair.
I agree though, it does seem nothing can be done about it.

The solution is to have properly harmonised rules throughout the EU, but that's still some way off.

No, I think the solution is to enforce the regulations that we have here. If your premesis is not certified for installation that you have it should be disconnected, end of story.

All certification should be done only by an independant body IMHO. Self certification is being abused.

Titainus

i hate to sound blunt and heartless
but we need a string of deaths from these type of installations

its the only way regulations and practises get changed in our industry when some poor soul dies

point in question: electrical showers

RoundyMooney

Um, while I take your point, you have perhaps expressed it in a more blunt manner than you mean to.

This is worrying, in that my understanding from what's here is that the ECSSA et. al. have no power in relation to preventing even a partial installation from being energised?

I have a contact who is one of the top people involved in the activities of these state bodies around the country, and will have no hesitation in taking this to him if it has foundation.

Feel free to PM me directly if necessary, and in confidence.

Sparky

Irish rules and regs are one of the highest in the world when it comes to electricial, but knowing this, it sure lets them down.

When it comes to myself and the company I work in, we get annual inspections of our work by RECI.
Infact now we have to send in certs to RECI to get a meter energised etc etc in an install. There is paperwork everywhere to do.
The shop unit needs some form of paperwork to certify that the installation is up to OUR current standards. Atleast I would have assumed the insurance company would ask for a copy.
Why should the rules be less enforced on big installations than small guys?
I think its time that inspectors made the ESB networks aware of non certified installed so that the ESB can remove juice.

RoundyMooney

The insurance aspect is one that occurs to me, but I would imagine it all depends on the degree to which their people are prepared to investigate, and the procedures they have in place.

Bear in mind though, that ESB has no longer any regulatory power in the business of maintaining electrical standards.

What we will do is de energise where there is a risk to public safety (such as fire damage etc.)

This installation is connected to a sub board, which has already been energised. The onus in this case is on the contractor responsible for the sub-installation to provide certification (or facilitate inspection-as was done) to the regulatory body.

I am unsure as to whether there is precedent for ESB disconnecting on foot of solicitation by RECI or ECCSA, but that's simply because I haven't come across it personally in my day to day.

Once I fill in a few blanks here, I can talk to the people who can clarify these issues.

This is a very important safety issue, and is not something that can be allowed to continue if true, particularly when the Irish electrical community is (quite rightly) held to one of the highest safety and installation regimes in the world.

2 stroke

Couldn't this be taken up by health and safety.

fishdog

I have a contact who is one of the top people involved in the activities of these state bodies around the country, and will have no hesitation in taking this to him if it has foundation.
Feel free to PM me directly if necessary, and in confidence.

I will get as many details as possible and give them to you.

The insurance aspect is one that occurs to me

You may well find that the insurance company is the same one that this chain of stores uses regardless of which country the stores are located in. The insurance company may well be told that the wiring is up to the same standard in this store as all of the others.

Couldn't this be taken up by health and safety.

Perhaps.

RoundyMooney

Needless to say, keep the specific locations etc., off the thread

10-10-20

...but keep the thread updated with progress?

RoundyMooney

Of course, I just don't want any specifics mentioned on thread, you understand.

Stoner

From our point of view the ESB will not connect a supply unless they have at least these two things

A) A completation cert from reci --either hard copy or on line
b) The clients correctly filled out application form.

We can't get shops switched on with out these documents--it just does not happen ever, in fact it is a huge cause of project delay sometimes.

Also I can only assume in this case that the Electrical and Mechanical contracts were bought out by the main contractor, the consultant engineers used were employed by the the builder. They let the quality of the installation go where ever it wanted, or did not know what they were checking, or did not check it.
If there is a problem there will be a hammering on their PI insurance, so the consusltant engineers will come out of this very bad. If there was no consultant engineer involved then the builder will take a hammering if anything goes wrong.

that's if it happened exactly as described in the OP.

fishdog

From our point of view the ESB will not connect a supply unless they have at least these two things

A) A completation cert from reci --either hard copy or on line
b) The clients correctly filled out application form.

This was done by the reputable irish electrical contractor that wired the shell and core.

Before the foreign electrical contractor the power had been switched on.

If there is a problem there will be a hammering on their PI insurance,

Perhaps or as I suggested:

You may well find that the insurance company is the same one that this chain of stores uses regardless of which country the stores are located in. The insurance company may well be told that the wiring is up to the same standard in this store as all of the others.

There is a fair chance that the insurance company would not know an irish completion certificate if it bit them. For all we know they have been issued a completion certificate from their own country.


Anyway I did a bit more research and found out the following:

This is the 3rd shop belonging to this chain that this electrical contractor has done in Ireland.

The inspector is very annoyed and requested that the ESB disconnect this installation.

The ESB refused to disconnect.

The same electrical contractors also wire shops belonging to another large foreign chain of clothing shops.

I will PM RoundyMooney some specifics and see what he can find out.

RoundyMooney

PM received, the guy I'll be talking to is somewhat of a guru, with extensive knowledge of this area. I'll be linking him here as well, to get a wider handle on the problem.

fishdog

Please keep us up to date as to what is happening, if anything. You dont have to be too specific on this thread.

Stoner

fishdog wrote: »

:
in each unit they left an empty distribution board, but powered up.

Ok I got a PM too. I know the contractor involved and they are possibly the best in the biz IMO, however I'm not going to ring around as I have checked over the OP and compared it to a different approach. I can also see that this did happen and could happen again, but also that it was possibly avoidable IMO.

Here's my opinion of the situation, what bothers me about this is that the reputable Irish electrical contractor actually powered the boards in each unit.

IMO. All they had to certify was the sub mains cable feeding the shop unit and this would be a simple sub cert that is all they are required to provide.
So by pulling in a cable and organising a RECI cert, the ESB would power up as the installation was just a cable running to a board, this was then powered up as the installation at that time was fine.

As I explained about how things operate for us, I said that before the ESB will power up they need a couple of things, the RECI cert and the clients details, I don't know what happened with the clients details, but I have a theory, but it seems as if a RECI cert was done for an installation, even if the installation was just a cable and a board, so the ESB and RECI were acted as expected.

The other contractor then came in and could do what ever they wanted after that as they had power in the building, holding a cert is the only real power an Irish contractor has, if you are not paid fully, hold the cert etc.

These things happen, but the Irish contractor should not have provided a RECI cert for the cable IMO, unless there is another condition that I don’t know about (very likely), this would have prevented the other contractor from working within a powered up building,
When power up was required they would had required a cert and would have been turned down for the reasons described in the OP.

From the OP it sounds as if the only way RECI knew about it was because the second contractor called them, if they had not know one would know.

By providing the other second contractor with a powered up board the Irish contractor gave the second contractor a free hand.

I agree that this is not fair, but you could look at it and say that it was avoidable, i.e. provide a sub cert to say the cable is fine and leave it at that.

Maybe this could be looked at by the ESB, I don’t know but any shell and core shopping centers we have done, we never power up the cables in the units, unless we had the fitout.

The only thing would be if the Irish contractor was stung, i.e. told that he had the fitout and to get the show on the road, then they did not get the job and to some degree ended up certifying someone else’s work.

The bottom line is that yes this is not completely fair, but by following a procedure it is an avoidable experience, as Irish contractors control the flow of RECI certs, who knows what went on in the background to alter these events, but I suspect that the Irish contractor was at one stage in a strong position to get the fit out and wanted to avoid time delays with the ESB so they got the unit powered up.

It is not good enough that someone can come in and alter an electrical installation and be uncertified, but that happens all the time as we all know, like wiring a shed for a friend, this is very similar to that but on a huge scale, def something that needs regualtion

fishdog, I know the guys you are talking about, all good guys as you said, just please note that this is just my opinion and I would prefer if I was not mentioned to the Irish contractor, thanks

fishdog

First off it is good to see that a moderator has found that there is substance to my story!

what bothers me about this is that the reputable Irish electrical contractor actually powered the boards in each unit

In my experience this is standard practice. The landloard or client generally wants certs for everything ASAP. Having the board powered up means that you have a temporary supply straight away to fit out the unit. It makes sense from that point of view.

All they had to certify was the sub mains cable feeding the shop unit and this would be a simple sub cert that is all they are required to provide.

That can cause delays. When a client is found for the shop unit there is no power there. You need to go to the ESB, get the meter powered up, get a cert in for tempoary supply etc. Lots of delays, and time is money.

So by pulling in a cable and organising a RECI cert, the ESB would power up as the installation was just a cable running to a board, this was then powered up as the installation at that time was fine.

I will bet you this was in their (main electrical contractors) contract to do this. You know what they are like, they would have read all the fine print.

I don't know what happened with the clients details

I bet the "client" was the landloard.

the Irish contractor should not have provided a RECI cert for the cable

Like I said, I bet it was in their contract or they would not have done it.

provide a sub cert to say the cable is fine and leave it at that.

I dont think the sub cert would get you a seperate meter for a shop unit.

I don’t know but any shell and core shopping centers we have done, we never power up the cables in the units, unless we had the fitout.

I have seen them powered up, then switched off, locked off and tagged. The switch fuse would be left in the off position with a padlock through it and the fuses removed. A tag would be applied with various details on it.

but I suspect that the Irish contractor was at one stage in a strong position to get the fit out and wanted to avoid time delays with the ESB so they got the unit powered up.

Perhaps, but generally it is not their style to do that sort of fit out.
I suspect they would have checked and found out who did the other fit outs for that company.

It is not good enough that someone can come in and alter an electrical installation and be uncertified, but that happens all the time as we all know, like wiring a shed for a friend, this is very similar to that but on a huge scale, def something that needs regualtion

I know, you are correct about that.

What surprises me is the attitude of the ESB ingnoring strong a request from RECI!!

Perhaps these guys are fine and do a great job, but where does this end?

RoundyMooney

Some good points from Stoner there, and it's nice to see the view from both sides of the fence as it were.

First off it is good to see that a moderator has found that there is substance to my story!

I never suggested that the incident related didn't have substance in the first place, but I had no intention of taking this to the next level offline, without having further information to pass up the food chain. This information has since been provided to me, of course.

I shall set the wheels in motion tomorrow morning, and will revert to you via PM as soon as I have something concrete.

It's unwise to start blanket condemnation of bodies such as the ESB or others, until the facts or the precedence of this matter is established.

If a contractor was named and criticised in such a manner, this thread would immediately be locked and binned. Let's not aim at the big yellow target here.

fishdog

First off it is good to see that a moderator has found that there is substance to my story!

This was not directed at any individual. Sorry if it looked like it was.

RoundyMooney:

I never suggested that the incident related didn't have substance in the first place

I know that.
The people that told me the story may have been making it up for all I knew!
I ment that it now appears to be an accurate description of events.

RoundyMooney:

It's unwise to start blanket condemnation of bodies such as the ESB or others, until the facts or the precedence of this matter is established.

Fair point. If the facts turn out to be as described I would be disappointed though:(

RoundyMooney:

If a contractor was named and criticised in such a manner, this thread would immediately be locked and binned

I know that is why I have been careful about this.

RoundyMooney

No bother, FD.

RoundyMooney

A brief update.

I spoke today with a colleague of mine, who deals with electrical standards, both at the ESB/Customer interface, and generally, and is also a prominent member of the ETCI.

Based on the facts at hand, it seems that it was not in order for the shell and core contractor to issue completion certs for the sections of the installation from the metering points to each individual unit distribution board (with the exception of landlord/common areas-which presumably were completed by that contractor), because, while the subsystems involved may have been electrically safe, the installations in each case were not complete.

As far as ESB Networks was concerned, each unit was completed to standard, and no impediment to connection was apparent.

The correct course of action would have been to complete a Sub System Certificate for each unit, at which point energising of each individual metering point, ergo unit, would not have occurred, and this situation would not have arisen.

It is much easier to force an installation contractor to conform, when supply will be withheld if they do not.

As regards ESB Networks, neither RECI nor ECCSA can authorise disconnection of any customer on the Network.

As soon as I have more info, I will let you know.

Stoner

RoundyMooney wrote: »

A brief update.

Based on the facts at hand, it seems that it was not in order for the shell and core contractor to issue completion certs for the sections of the installation from the metering points to each individual unit distribution board (with the exception of landlord/common areas-which presumably were completed by that contractor), because, while the subsystems involved may have been electrically safe, the installations in each case were not complete.

That's more or less how I see it too.

fishdog

Based on the facts at hand, it seems that it was not in order for the shell and core contractor to issue completion certs for the sections of the installation from the metering points to each individual unit distribution board (with the exception of landlord/common areas-which presumably were completed by that contractor), because, while the subsystems involved may have been electrically safe, the installations in each case were not complete.

Fair enough, I am sure you are correct. However this practice does seem to be quite common.

As far as ESB Networks was concerned, each unit was completed to standard, and no impediment to connection was apparent.

Well that seems logical enough, all was in order when the ESB received their paperwork.

The correct course of action would have been to complete a Sub System Certificate for each unit, at which point energising of each individual metering point, ergo unit, would not have occurred, and this situation would not have arisen.

Ok both you and Stoner have said this so I am sure this is correct.

It is much easier to force an installation contractor to conform, when supply will be withheld if they do not.

Yes, but I bet they were just fulfilling a contractual obligation. Lets be honest these guys know their stuff and do not do things like this by accident.

As regards ESB Networks, neither RECI nor ECCSA can authorise disconnection of any customer on the Network.

I know that, but I am surprised that when an experienced inspector makes an approach to the ESB in this fashion I am surprised that no action appears to have been taken to date. I am not involved in electrical contracting myself so it does not affect me directly, however if I was I would not be happy about this. I would have thought that RECI or the ECSSA could reccomend a disconnection rather than authorise it and this reccomendation would be at least looked into. Perhaps it has been looked into and I am just not aware of it.

Hypothetically speaking, say you rewire a premises, there is already power there so you do not have to involve the ESB. Can you then decide the following?

1) I can now ignore all regulations that do not suit me thereby saving money on materials and labor.

2) No one can force me to comply with any wiring regulations.

3) Regardless of the standard of the installation it will not be disconnected.

Some must see it as a golden opportunity to undercut the prices of registered electrical contractors with no repercussions.

I know that this will always happen on a small jobs (2 bed semi detached house rewire etc.) but large 3 phase shops like this one are lucrative contracts that are being lost in an unfair manner. I don’t think this is acceptable.

I am not suggesting that ESB Networks, RECI, ECSSA or anyone is in the wrong as I do not have all the facts. I would suggest that something is very wrong with the system though.

Stoner

fishdog wrote: »

I am not suggesting that ESB Networks, RECI, ECSSA or anyone is in the wrong as I do not have all the facts.

very good point, I think we can leave this as it is .

Victor

I've only ever done individual shop fit out in shopping centre and I've never been involved in the electrical nitty gritty.

I did get financially stung once when I priced the job myself, as I thought it was straight forward, not realising that SWA, etc was required to the extent it is. I gained a healthy respect for shopping centre's specifications from that.

So mentioning the installation to the shopping centre might rectify the situation. However, as shopping centres sometimes do complicated deals with tenants, like "no rent for the first three months" or "low rent until footfall reaches X", the centre management might be slow to react. The centre's insurers and the other tenants might react much more quickly.