restricted electrical works

Carlow52

What os interesting about this is that the fines/jail etc will be meted out for doing the work and will have nothing to do with the quality or lack there of.

So Joe Consumer is not getting any quality g/tee here.. From todays irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224307526560

"...The stated primary purpose of the Building Regulations is to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons in and around buildings. The regulations, as promulgated by the department, are based on drafts prepared by the Building Regulations Advisory Board (BRAB), a quango dominated by the construction industry whose primary interest is protection of the industry, including all its professional certifiers.

The department, for many years, has not only consistently refused to address the failure of the regulations to protect the consumer, but has facilitated a situation which allows those in the chain of supply, construction and certification to avoid responsibility and liability for any consequences of defective materials or workmanship. It is virtually impossible, under current law, for the ordinary consumer to obtain redress, as evidenced by the victims of flooded estates, defective foundations, polluted water, etc. In these circumstances prospective consumers should seek assurances that professional certifications confirm “fitness for purpose”, and are not simply opinions of compliance (with caveats) with deficient regulations. They should also ensure that those in the design, supply and construction chain are covered by adequate professional indemnity, product liability and latent defects insurance...."

.G.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Ring fencing is all this is about.

As the rule stands according to this thread, a person can spur from a socket circuit now.

So is looping off an existing socket circuit safer for a qualified electrician to do (from the consumers perspective), than coming from a new circuit in the DB? Or is this just the first step in making it illegal for a quallified electrician to do any work, except on behalf of a registered fella, who often wont see the work being done, but is happy to certify?

Thats exactly what it seems its the start of to me.

Impossible to police and will do feck all to make things safer nor will it get registered lads more work cos they will always be dearer than a nixer.In any case if a registered lad is willing to cut corners to get a job done fast then he is every bit as likely to cut corners on the testing and verification of a job too,or indeed not do any testing at all but say he did and issue a cert.

paddymick

Am I the only REC in here that feels like they have been f@*ked into a barrel of tar!!

superg wrote: »

r.In any case if a registered lad is willing to cut corners to get a job done fast then he is every bit as likely to cut corners on the testing and verification of a job too,or indeed not do any testing at all but say he did and issue a cert.

Why the hell do most of you keep generalising that REC`s have to be out cutting corners in order to make money.I`d be more confidant that there are far more non registered cowboys(IE any cable puller/conduit bender from any of the boom time engineering companies) than registered ones...Its like you all have big chips on your shoulders for some reason.

cast_iron

robbie7730 wrote: »

Its the same thing, you asked where does it stop. I said a qualified person cant wire a circuit in for their parents, or in their own house. You asking where does the line get drawn doesnt change that.

I'm not looking to change that ridiculous fact. My question still remains valid. Where is the line? You think parents and neighbours etc. Where should the rule makers draw the line?

I think its likely that contractors during the boom were wiring houses as fast as they could. Quality was secondary. If the sockets work, that will do. Passing tests, which contractors do themselves, doesnt mean its a good job. And a badly installed circuit can pass any electrical tests.

You keep trotting this out, with no real point. You appear to be pointing in the direction that no contractor work is any good and the fact they are fully legit means nothing at all.

The new rules are not stating that, no, but its the first step in a progression toward only having contractors doing anything. So where do we draw the line so? Contractor to change a main fuse?

I'm not ideologically against such a setup. Obviously the practicalities would dictate that a reasonable fee would be charged by the contractor. You yourself would argue that a contractor should be called in this case. Why did the fuse blow? They don't go for nothing. Things like that may need investigation, etc.

I can guarantee i will do a better job in my own house, and others, than most contractors. Do you know why? Firstly, im not an apprentice getting sent in on behalf of the contractor. Secondly, i have a very high conscience for good quality work, even if that means it takes longer. A contractors preference is to get in and out as fast as possible. You might dispute that. But thats only my own standard, from my own point of view. Plenty of qualified non contractors people are rough as well.

I'm not sure how any of that can be translated into the rules.

The real facts are, the electrical trade is gone, and its a matter of shoring up whats left of it, for benefits which are not really about safety.

I somewhat agree. But what happens when a qualified electrician does a job and as a result, someone gets killed or seriously injured? He has no insurance as he's not a company. What comeback does the customer have? (Or his loved ones if he's no longer around as a result )

.G.

paddymick wrote: »

Am I the only REC in here that feels like they have been f@*ked into a barrel of tar!!




Why the hell do most of you keep generalising that REC`s have to be out cutting corners in order to make money.I`d be more confidant that there are far more non registered cowboys(IE any cable puller/conduit bender from any of the boom time engineering companies) than registered ones...Its like you all have big chips on your shoulders for some reason.

I'm pretty sure I said IF......etc

Not sure how that tars you all with the same brush.

In any case I base my opinion on work I've come across done by others and some of those I've had the misfortune to be employed by who I know for a fact never tested.

I don't get the chance too often to be asked to rectify another sparks sh1t nixer work.I come across poor "official" work almost everyday,most of it done during the boom by large companies it has to be said.

I'd say your average sole trader/small contractor has far more pride in his work than alot of the bigger fellas employees ever did.

2011

superg wrote: »

In any case I base my opinion on work I've come across done by others and some of those I've had the misfortune to be employed by who I know for a fact never tested.

+1

It is not a case of taring everyone with the same brush.
The simple fact is that in general during the boom standards went down, greed went up and few if any electrical contractors were penalized for driving a freight train through the regulations.
There were of course (and still are) some diligent conscientious electrical contractors that produce quality work. I am working with 3 excellent RECI contractors at present.

Bruthal

cast_iron wrote: »

I'm not looking to change that ridiculous fact. My question still remains valid. Where is the line? You think parents and neighbours etc. Where should the rule makers draw the line?

You keep trotting this out, with no real point. You appear to be pointing in the direction that no contractor work is any good and the fact they are fully legit means nothing at all.

I'm not ideologically against such a setup. Obviously the practicalities would dictate that a reasonable fee would be charged by the contractor. You yourself would argue that a contractor should be called in this case. Why did the fuse blow? They don't go for nothing. Things like that may need investigation, etc.

I'm not sure how any of that can be translated into the rules.

I somewhat agree. But what happens when a qualified electrician does a job and as a result, someone gets killed or seriously injured? He has no insurance as he's not a company. What comeback does the customer have? (Or his loved ones if he's no longer around as a result )

Im not going to go over it all again and again (i think:)). This is not really about safety. And id say you know it yourself.

You mention i keep trotting on about many contractors being less than great. Ok, il put it this way, some i seen were horrendous, as were plenty of qualified unregistered electricians. Now because i seen some bad ones, does that mean i think they are all bad? I could be useless myself, but some a so bad, they make average look great.

I never said none were any good. Neither did i say fully legit means nothing at all. But in the present system, fully legit means you can wire a house, not bother testing it, but still produce a cert. Yes, fully legit indeed. So, id say a qualified person doing an installation, and getting reci to independently inspect, is better than the "legit" fella, certifying himself.

Bruthal

paddymick wrote: »

Its like you all have big chips on your shoulders for some reason.

The tar and brush must be back out:pac:

Max_Charger

My cousin is currently roofing his new house and the plan was for me to wire it for him for mates rates etc. I was hoping to just get RECI in at the end to cert it, even though i could do it blindfolded as i'm a qualified electrician with a city and guilds cert in testing and will be studying electrical engineering in sept. I'm not a member of RECI so basically i'm screwed now?

evosteo

seems to be the jist of it, dosnt matter if your an electrician with a phd in electrical engineering if your not a reci or ecssa member well then you cant do squat

its absolute nonsence,

ITS A CARTEL and it better not come through

2011

Posted by Robbie: So, id say a qualified person doing an installation, and getting reci to independently inspect, is better than the "legit" fella, certifying himself.

Agree 100%
Back to my point that independent testing is the best way to ensure regulations are enforced.

paddymick

2011 wrote: »

Back to my point that independent testing is the best way to ensure regulations are enforced.

Being a Registered guy I would still go along with that 100%.Not only would it show up the cowboys but its also one less tedious job I wouldnt have to do.

2011

paddymick wrote: »

Being a Registered guy I would still go along with that 100%.Not only would it show up the cowboys but its also one less tedious job I wouldnt have to do.

As would all good registered contractors like you. This would make pricing fairer as everyone would have to quote for doing a job without cutting corners.

Remember I was a registered electrical contractor, so I know exactly what it is like.

marknjb

i think this whole farce shows up reci for what they are
its fair bul**** to say they want to bring in a law that will jail someone that is qualified to do the job for doing his job
the sad thing is that this will go through soon and then it will be law
i am wondering is there any way we could make our views known to these clowns

Hoagy

Reci are not blame for this, it's the CER.
You can read all the details here.
They've already done it with gas installers.

cast_iron

marknjb wrote: »

i am wondering is there any way we could make our views known to these clowns

So your argument would be that regular electricians, without any business, insurance or overheads should be allowed do work that really should be done by contractors?

Bruthal

If an REC wires a house, and the owner changes a light switch, is the installation still insured through the contractor?

What if the owner changes a socket. Changes a light fitting. What if they change an MCB. Insurance void?

What if an electrician changes an MCB?
What if another contractor changes an MCB?
Next we will be having metering seals on the DB

Because its electricity, they can claim this is a safety thing, many people are afraid of their life of it. Yet a home owner has more chance of winning the lotto a few times a year, than being killed by electrical problems, even in a bad installation. But vested interested parties, will just go on about the safety aspect.

cast_iron

The transfer of insurance liability in these cases would be a tricky area. Though at least if work is done by an insured company, the customer should have some recourse. Not to mind if an accident happened while the job was going on.

marknjb

cast_iron wrote: »

So your argument would be that regular electricians, without any business, insurance or overheads should be allowed do work that really should be done by contractors?

should i have to get in a contractor to do work on my own house

cast_iron

marknjb wrote: »

should i have to get in a contractor to do work on my own house

Well you shouldn't have had someone in doing a nixer, technically. What did you have done?

Bruthal

Well, back to the neighbours thing next door where i replaced the nailed live conductor in socket circuit cable that the contractor 100% knowingly left as was.

Is that insurance now null and void because i properly removed and replaced their nailed cable?

paddymick

robbie7730 wrote: »

Is that insurance now null and void because i properly removed and replaced their nailed cable?

Put simply yes on that particular work done Because the whole point is that your neighbour should have got an insured electrician in to do the jod and in turn his insurance would cover any damage caused as a direct result of his work.
If I leave a job then my insurance will cover for any damage or injury caused in the failure of any of my work.If I leave a job 100% and someone comes in and does some work after me and then theres a problem and some damage caused then once proven(which can be the hard part)the home owner doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Bruthal

paddymick wrote: »

Put simply yes on that particular work done Because the whole point is that your neighbour should have got an insured electrician in to do the jod and in turn his insurance would cover any damage caused as a direct result of his work.
If I leave a job then my insurance will cover for any damage or injury caused in the failure of any of my work.If I leave a job 100% and someone comes in and does some work after me and then theres a problem and some damage caused then once proven(which can be the hard part)the home owner doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Would you say the original contractor leaving a live nail in the wall, and live disconnected earths (nail shorted L to E in t&e) in the socket box was as highlighted above?

I think the neighbours installation is safer now than then. And i have not actually breached these new rules, apart from testing at the DB.

2011

marknjb wrote: »

i am wondering is there any way we could make our views known to these clowns

What exactly are your views?

paddymick

robbie7730 wrote: »

I think the neighbours installation is safer now than then. And i have not actually breached these new rules, apart from testing at the DB.

I agree with you 100% in what your saying in that case but that doesnt change how the whole insurance thing works,which is what im trying to point out.

Thats why I personaly would be behind getting rid of self certing just so the likes of that original contractor will come up on the radar and be held accountable for what he did.

cast_iron

robbie7730 wrote: »

Would you say the original contractor leaving a live nail in the wall, and live disconnected earths (nail shorted L to E in t&e) in the socket box was as highlighted above?

Well I'm not sure what you are asking, but if it was discovered and proved the original contractor did that and injury occurred as a result, then your neighbour would have a good shout at getting a payout.

paddymick

cast_iron wrote: »

Well I'm not sure what you are asking, but if it was discovered and proved the original contractor did that and injury occurred as a result, then your neighbour would have a good shout at getting a payout.

Exactly but now that someone else has worked on that fault the homeowner has no comeback and the original fella gets away with..

Bruthal

cast_iron wrote: »

Well I'm not sure what you are asking, but if it was discovered and proved the original contractor did that and injury occurred as a result, then your neighbour would have a good shout at getting a payout.

Well i asked earlier if another contractor came and changed a socket, what happpens with the insurance then. There was no clear answer given.

The chance of injury, or fire, from the nailed cable is now irrelevent. And im confident the sockets are also safer, as now there is no live copper earth wire left loose behind both sockets in question.

paddymick wrote: »

Exactly but now that someone else has worked on that fault the homeowner has no comeback and the original fella gets away with..

Well the homeowner is in a safer house. If they got a registered contractor in to fix the problem, the original one got away with it anyway, and once i found there was a problem, it was going to be fixed one way or another.

The only way they wouldnt of got away with it according to your post, would be if there was an injury or worse.

How would anyone prove the original contractor left the cable nailed anyway? I know they did, because im next door, earth in the twin and earth left disconnected but live in socket box, and a seperate earth run between the affected sockets wired behind the door frame between the sockets.

But they could claim anyone did that after them. Im sure their cert says infinity on the meggar test, which it wouldnt with a nail in fresh plaster into a live conductor.

cast_iron

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well i asked earlier if another contractor came and changed a socket, what happpens with the insurance then. There was no clear answer given.

Whose insurance? The original contractor would not be interested as a new contractor came in so he can no longer stand over new work done. The new contractor's insurance should cover the new work. Or, the householders insurance would pay out if the work was done by a proper contractor. If joe down the road did the job, the the home owner has no come back.
Of course, that's how it should work, the reality of liabilties in situations would make it all a bit of a nightmare.

The only way they wouldnt of got away with it according to your post, would be if there was an injury or worse.

Yes. Sad but true.

How would anyone prove the original contractor left the cable nailed anyway?

If it wasn't spotted fairly soon after the job was done, then that would be that really. That's just one of those things that after time, proving it becomes impossible.

exaisle

robbie7730 wrote: »

I think this is a shower of tools that have nothing better to do than think of more rubbish to make rules about.

Tools could be useful....I suspect what you meant was g065h1t3S... :-)