Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 18 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1632 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

To report or not to report.....

jbrameld
In a theatre that I look after, we recently had some work done to demolish existing 'lean to' toilets and replace them with a new larger toilet block incorporating a new disabled WC.  The electical work was done by a subbie to the builder.  I think the original sparky disappeared for some reason, and someone else finished it of and certified it (under a NAPIT registration).  I have seen the cert, and I have seen the work.  I don't believe it should have been certified in the way ot was, given the quality of the work.  The work involved installing new lighting and fans from an existing feed cable that fed the old toilets, installing new hand driers (also from an existing feed), emergency lighting modifications and fitting a disabled WC alarm (fed from the lighting circuit).  Issues observed are:


No RCD protection to any circuits, even though cables are clipped to the brick/block behind a dot and dab wall (no capping or otherwise). The existing dist board pre-dated the RCD requirement but RCBOs for it are readily available.

Cables outside permitted zones - and 'stuck in' with expanding foam - no capping or conduit.

Conductors not correctly identified (blue, or black for switched live; black for neutral - no oversleeving or coloured tape even) 

Earth sleeving missing

Rats nest of terminal blocks stuffed into the ceiling above downlights

No fan isolators fitted

No emergency lighting test switches fitted

Cable that was feeding a redundant external emergency light joined in junction box and T&E run partially exposed externally and then under lead flashing and fed through a hole in our lovely new roof membrane (causing a leak....).

Emergency lights missing over re-located exit door

Emergency lighting terminal block just stuffed up into corner of wall/ceiling and plastered in.


Some pictures in the attached zip file for your amusement.


I appreciate the certificator didn't do the first fix work, but de did state on the certiificate '100% visual inpection'  and ticked all the boxes that should not have been ticked based on the above.


We haven't yet raised this with the contractor, however we are wondering if we should report him to NAPIT (if they would even care.....).  It doesn't seem right that a supposedly competent scheme member should certificate work in this condition.


We have held money back from the main contractor for this (and numerous other items that they have been unable to rectify).  I can fix it all myself, and I'm not sure I would trust the sparky to fix it all properly anyway..... 


What would you do?


Jason.

ph-pics.zip
  • 0
    Yes, report it to NAPIT.

    Hopefully, they will take an interest.
  • 0
    Rough.

    No RCDs to a place with water and so on is particularity poor, & clearly not to current regs.

    The choc blocs in the void are not good, but not so uncommon I'm afraid . If it is really dangerous or not depends how accessible the space behind is, but it is one of those things that when you see it makes you go ugh, rather  like seeing wood-screws holding switch patresses on, leaves you to wonder what the rest of it you have not looked at yet might be like.   (e.g. has anyone checked the earthing is OK ) IF the building void behind forms a fireproof and insulated enclosure it might just be interpreted as being to regs, depending how you read it. I think we would prefer to see the choc block in some sort of box really.

    Non-brown lives are not really dangerous, just annoying to fault find and an indicator of a Friday afternoon job.

    If the white taped joint was plastered in, then it is neither accessible with tools, (unless you count a hammer and masonry chisel) nor maintenance free. If it wasn't it then should have been in a box, even just to put it  inside an otherwise empty  back box and blanking plate. Same trick with a dummy back box can be used to reveal the odd cable routes. Right now, not really compliant to current regs.


    By all means contact NAPIT, but to reduce risk of an undignified fracas, you really should let both the builder and his sub contractor who is the NAPIT member, know that you are not happy,and why,  and that intend to do so,  beforehand.


    He may prefer to re-visit for a bit of snag  fixing,  perhaps arriving with some choc boxes and perhaps some sleeving and the odd blanking plate.


    Also perhaps enquire on exactly what terms was the new chap engaged by the builder, and with how much badgering  to do it on the cheap - "get a pass cert at minimum cost; no one is looking ", or "do whatever you think is needed to finish it off properly and bill accordingly" . 

    I wonder also was the 'first fix' sparks the builder's labourer on his afternoon off  perchance ?

    I know which of those it looks like.

  • 0
    It is not a bathroom, as the room does not contain a bath or a shower and it is commercial premises under the supervision of a skilled and instructed person. 


    So where do we go from there?


    First off, what is the requirement for all or any of the circuits to be RCD protected?


    Andy Betteridge.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Exactly what I was thinking. 


    Regards Ts
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:


    First off, what is the requirement for all or any of the circuits to be RCD protected?


     




    522.6.202 - as the installation is non-compliant with 522.6.204


    I can add unsheathed cable (stripped out core from T&E) installed in roof void to the list of misdemeanors as well.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I wouldn't pay a penny until it is put right, that is disgraceful workmanship. Send the photos to the Company and shame them. Check the voltage of the emergency call button, some of them are at 12/24 DC volts and not 230 so the installation method and route may not require RCD protection. Also, who signed the cert to say they designed the installation ?
  • 0
    There is an either or option in your last post, either fit a RCD or do something else, so what did they agree to do prior to starting work?


    I am not suggesting it is a good job, but I would assume there was some of written specification which says if there should be RCD protection or something else providing protection to cables concealed in walls.


     Andy Betteridge 


  • 0

    Sparkingchip:

    There is an either or option in your last post, either fit a RCD or do something else, so what did they agree to do prior to starting work?


    I am not suggesting it is a good job, but I would assume there was some of written specification which says if there should be RCD protection or something else providing protection to cables concealed in walls.


     Andy Betteridge 


     






    The either-or option is a valid point.  There was not a specification for the work.


    My point really is that if a contractor has issued a certificate decaring that the work is in compliace with BS7671, then that should be the case - and it isn't.


    The inspector signed off the certificate in full capacity as designer, installer and certifier.



     

  • 0
    This goes to the heart of the trade v profession discussion in another thread right now.


    Trade => do as contracted. Profession => act in the client's best interests and answerable to your professional body.


    Legally, a contract is an agreement which may be subject to enforcement by a court. A professional may be sued in negligence, which requires: (1) a duty of care (effectively, did you agree to provide the service at the relevant time); (2) breach of the standard of care (on the face of it, working to BS 7671); causation - did the breach give rise to the loss for which the claim is made.


    I really do not think that negligence is in any way applicable, which leaves the contract.


    In theory, the CPS will put things right, but I imagine that they will not do so without a strong argument against their member's competence.
  • 0
    You can’t polish a t*rd.


    I just needs ripping out and replacing, which presumably means opening up the fabric of the building and the making good afterwards.


    So it will cost more to replace it than the cost of installing it in the first place. But without a specification how can you say there should been specific items like an emergency light over a door or a RCBO?


    I suspect that the theatre will end up paying for the replacement work without ever recovering the full cost, unless there has already been sufficient retention of payments to the builder to cover it.


    Andy Betteridge

Community Rules & Guidelines