Dear all

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days) meant that
I had to have two of my properties which are let as student houses
(HMO's) have their fixed wiring tested (so that I can now pay the
council a further £ 600 per property to register as a
landlord!!......something I have been doing since 1998 (with very
satisfied tenants who never leave).............it's all bureaucratic
nonsence really!!!)

I had NICEIC electricians inspect the wiring and issue PIR certificates

My perfectly safe and very new wiring (which I did myself 3 years ago)
failed on one small point (in both houses). It failed as you
......."need a protective device for each ring main circuit".

What I did is to put 2 small ring mains (two adjacent ground floor
rooms) into one 32amp MCB. This meant there was 4 tails in one 32 Amp
MCB. Each ring main is small and has 4 sockets and covers a very small
area. (It was done as rooms were renovated one after another and was
easier to wire like that. I combined some rooms on the ground floor as
the house has about 15 rooms (so I didn't want 15 ring mains with
15MCB's!!!!!!!!).

The NICEIC electricians informed me that if (they) put a joint box
behind the consumer unit (there is an access hatch) and make one larger
ring main (with 8 sockets) it will then comply!!

What nonsence I say!! These wiring regulations would mean an increased
the length of the total ring main, increase the impedance and would
make it (slightly) less safe (not more!!). I really can't see that it
makes any difference! If you use the MCB as a "joint" it is not
allowed but "out of sight joint box " behind the consumer unit which
doubles the length of the ring main makes it comply!!

Secondly they noted this as a "dangerous fail". I can't see how it
could be any worse than "not up to current wiring regulations". I can
possibly see that it is unsafe in any way as the MCB is 32 Amps which
is fine for each individual ring

Interestingly enough, this seems to be allowed with the lighting
circuits!!! It seems that one can shove in as many 1mm tails in those 6
Amp breakers as you like!!

Any comments from anybody?? I'm jolly interested to see what the group
think!! ......and I especially want to hear from NICEIC electricians!!

Best regards - Lightman
(now a qualified PAT tester with 96.666% in that stupid City & Guilds
test which is also a bureacratic waste of time but saves on PAT testing
fees!!!!)

On 6 Apr 2006 13:53:01 -0700, "Lightman" wrote:

Dear all

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days) meant that
I had to have two of my properties which are let as student houses
(HMO's) have their fixed wiring tested (so that I can now pay the
council a further £ 600 per property to register as a
landlord!!......something I have been doing since 1998 (with very
satisfied tenants who never leave).............it's all bureaucratic
nonsence really!!!)

I had NICEIC electricians inspect the wiring and issue PIR certificates

My perfectly safe and very new wiring (which I did myself 3 years ago)
failed on one small point (in both houses). It failed as you
......"need a protective device for each ring main circuit".

What I did is to put 2 small ring mains (two adjacent ground floor
rooms) into one 32amp MCB. This meant there was 4 tails in one 32 Amp
MCB. Each ring main is small and has 4 sockets and covers a very small
area. (It was done as rooms were renovated one after another and was
easier to wire like that. I combined some rooms on the ground floor as
the house has about 15 rooms (so I didn't want 15 ring mains with
15MCB's!!!!!!!!).

The NICEIC electricians informed me that if (they) put a joint box
behind the consumer unit (there is an access hatch) and make one larger
ring main (with 8 sockets) it will then comply!!

Isn't there space in the CU for an additional MCB, so that you can
actually have two separate rings? Even if you do combine a lighting
circuit with, say, a bell transformer (or something like that!)...

--
Frank Erskine

"Lightman" wrote:

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days) meant that
I had to have two of my properties which are let as student houses
(HMO's) have their fixed wiring tested (so that I can now pay the
council a further £ 600 per property to register as a
landlord!!......something I have been doing since 1998 (with very
satisfied tenants who never leave).............it's all bureaucratic
nonsence really!!!)

I had NICEIC electricians inspect the wiring and issue PIR certificates

My perfectly safe and very new wiring (which I did myself 3 years ago)
failed on one small point (in both houses). It failed as you
......"need a protective device for each ring main circuit".

Well you cannot really "fail" a PIR you can however get a report that
advises that work needs to be done, or even describes the installation
as "unsatisfactory". Ultimately it is up to you whether or not you
carry out the suggested work. On the other hand if something dangerous
was discovered during an inspection then a responsible electrician
should either make it safe or disconnect the circuit concerned.

Of course if anything goes wrong and you were aware there were
problems, then there could be serious consequences. Your Local
Authority or insurance company will probably insist on a "clean"
report where rented property is concerned anyway.

What I did is to put 2 small ring mains (two adjacent ground floor
rooms) into one 32amp MCB. This meant there was 4 tails in one 32 Amp
MCB. Each ring main is small and has 4 sockets and covers a very small
area. (It was done as rooms were renovated one after another and was
easier to wire like that. I combined some rooms on the ground floor as
the house has about 15 rooms (so I didn't want 15 ring mains with
15MCB's!!!!!!!!).

Well if you had fifteen ring circuits then you would normally put in
fifteen MCBs to protect them. I agree however that it would a very
large or unusual installation if it required so many ring circuits.

That said assuming your design calculations and circuit diagrams
showed fifteen ring mains then there is no problem.

(You did show this documentation to the inspector, didn't you)

Speaking personally for a moment. If I encountered an installation
designed as you describe then it would raise a few doubts in my mind
as to the manner in which it had been designed and installed. I do not
mean that I would automatically assume it to be faulty or unsafe, I
would just expect to find a few unexpected "features" along the way. I
would definitely ask to see the design documents and circuit diagrams,
if any.

The NICEIC electricians informed me that if (they) put a joint box
behind the consumer unit (there is an access hatch) and make one larger
ring main (with 8 sockets) it will then comply!!

This sounds like they suggested turning the two small rings into one
large one and avoiding any potential hazard. This sounds like a
sensible solution.

What nonsence I say!!

Ah you disagree.

These wiring regulations would mean an increased
the length of the total ring main, increase the impedance and would
make it (slightly) less safe (not more!!). I really can't see that it
makes any difference! If you use the MCB as a "joint" it is not
allowed but "out of sight joint box " behind the consumer unit which
doubles the length of the ring main makes it comply!!

OK. Firstly the increased length and impedance would have to be within
the parameters specified by the regulations. Given your description of
the ring circuits to be combined, I doubt that this would have any
noticeable effect on the safety of the circuit.

"Hiding" a junction box behind the consumer unit does not sound like a
good idea. There would however probably be sufficient space inside the
consumer unit to link the two rings with appropriately sized
connectors.

Secondly they noted this as a "dangerous fail". I can't see how it
could be any worse than "not up to current wiring regulations". I can
possibly see that it is unsafe in any way as the MCB is 32 Amps which
is fine for each individual ring

Well there is a potential safety risk here, but it's a slight one. The
four cables associated with this MCB might be seen as a ring and two
spurs and tested accordingly. This would not pick up an open circuit
on one of the rings. A slight risk as I said.

Had I tested this installation I would have noted the unusual design
in the inspector's report. I don't think I would have flagged it as a
safety issue, but without seeing the installation it's hard to make a
judgment.

Certainly this would be something that an inspector would expect to
see and then query on the circuit diagram.

Interestingly enough, this seems to be allowed with the lighting
circuits!!! It seems that one can shove in as many 1mm tails in those 6
Amp breakers as you like!!

Within reason. Again if you had an excessive number I would have put a
comment in the inspector's report.

Any comments from anybody?? I'm jolly interested to see what the group
think!! ......and I especially want to hear from NICEIC electricians!!

Well I'm an electrician who specialises in inspection and testing, and
the above are my comments. I'm not however NICEIC registered.

Best regards - Lightman
(now a qualified PAT tester with 96.666% in that stupid City & Guilds
test which is also a bureacratic waste of time but saves on PAT testing
fees!!!!)

Good man - You now just need to buy a PAT tester and all the other
bits and pieces that go with it.

A tip: The HSE seem to be red-hot on asset registers and retest
periods at the moment.

John
--
John White,
Electrical Contractor

"Lightman" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear all

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days) meant that
I had to have two of my properties which are let as student houses
(HMO's) have their fixed wiring tested (so that I can now pay the
council a further £ 600 per property to register as a
landlord!!......something I have been doing since 1998 (with very
satisfied tenants who never leave).............it's all bureaucratic
nonsence really!!!)

This thread illustrates the problems that are likely to occur for Landlords
and Sellers in the future; when there is clamp down on conformance to the
regs and safe electrical installations. I suppose that there must be
justification for this new act, there are a lot of shady landlords out
there, from what I read.
Part P is another case in point, I can't argue with the principle from the
horrors that I've seen, the method: - Yes, (Licensed electricians would have
been preferable IMO).

I had NICEIC electricians inspect the wiring and issue PIR certificates

This does not guarantee competence.

My perfectly safe and very new wiring (which I did myself 3 years ago)
failed on one small point (in both houses). It failed as you
......."need a protective device for each ring main circuit".

These are now known as ring final circuits!, your NICEIC "inspector" should
have known this.

What I did is to put 2 small ring mains (two adjacent ground floor
rooms) into one 32amp MCB. This meant there was 4 tails in one 32 Amp
MCB. Each ring main is small and has 4 sockets and covers a very small
area. (It was done as rooms were renovated one after another and was
easier to wire like that. I combined some rooms on the ground floor as
the house has about 15 rooms (so I didn't want 15 ring mains with
15MCB's!!!!!!!!).

This is an example of the type of work that would be done by a DIY'r. It is
a departure from the regs; but in this case not unsafe for the user.

The NICEIC electricians informed me that if (they) put a joint box
behind the consumer unit (there is an access hatch) and make one larger
ring main (with 8 sockets) it will then comply!!

There are other ways in skinning the cat, see below. "Rules are made for
fools; and the interpretation of wise men".

What nonsence I say!! These wiring regulations would mean an increased
the length of the total ring main, increase the impedance and would
make it (slightly) less safe (not more!!). I really can't see that it
makes any difference! If you use the MCB as a "joint" it is not
allowed but "out of sight joint box " behind the consumer unit which
doubles the length of the ring main makes it comply!!

Providing that the disconnection time of the 32 Amp MCB; and the other
regulations regarding limit on the floor area etc. are met, I don't see a
problem.

Secondly they noted this as a "dangerous fail". I can't see how it
could be any worse than "not up to current wiring regulations". I can
possibly see that it is unsafe in any way as the MCB is 32 Amps which
is fine for each individual ring

I wouldn't consider it a dangerous fail, it is not strictly to the
regulations; but there should be at least a comment on the circuit
identification chart, at the distribution board, this "chart" is required to
the regulations. Further, as the duty holder, I would then comment on this
as a code 4 on the PIR: - "Does not comply with BS 7671: 2001 as amended.
The users of the installation are not in any danger as a result of the
discrepancy. Careful consideration should be given to the benefits of
improving these aspects of the installation."

Interestingly enough, this seems to be allowed with the lighting
circuits!!! It seems that one can shove in as many 1mm tails in those 6
Amp breakers as you like!!

Radial circuits as already mentioned elsewhere.

Any comments from anybody?? I'm jolly interested to see what the group
think!! ......and I especially want to hear from NICEIC electricians!!

Why NICEIC electricians as opposed to ECA or NAPIT, or simply competent
electricians?; the NICEIC don't write the regulations; they think they do.
As an organisation they are not very user friendly; even though they are a
charity organisation; I understand that anyone can phone their helpline,
although there may be a long wait for an answer, I would bounce this off
them. There are two categories of NICEIC electricians here, one is a
Domestic Installer, who can't be registered by them to carry out PIR's, the
other is the Approved Contractor who is registered. Which category applies
here?, if the former; does he have at least C & G 2391 which applies to this
category of work?
What does this new housing act, stipulate for inspector
competence/qualifications, in this regard? Note that PIR's don't fall under
Part P of the building regulations, anyone can do them.

Best regards - Lightman
(now a qualified PAT tester with 96.666% in that stupid City & Guilds
test which is also a bureacratic waste of time but saves on PAT testing
fees!!!!)

This is certainly not work for Von Braun, (try City & Guilds 2391, a bit
more difficult; but again.......). Doesn't this PAT fee come under
maintenance; which is allowed as a tax deduction?

BTW, there is no mention of an RCD; I assume this is installed.

Jaymack

John McLean wrote:

"Lightman" wrote

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days)

You need to configure your neewsreader (Outlook Express by the look of
it) better, so that people can differentiate the original text you're
replying to and your reply itself. When confronted with a solid block of
text like your message without " quoted" text, most people will simply
ignore your message entirely :-(

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
John McLean wrote:

"Lightman" wrote

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days)

You need to configure your neewsreader (Outlook Express by the look of
it) better, so that people can differentiate the original text you're
replying to and your reply itself. When confronted with a solid block of
text like your message without " quoted" text, most people will simply
ignore your message entirely :-(

Apologies,
Don't know what happened with my previous post. Blame it on that b*****r
Gates.
Jaymack.

In article ,
John McLean wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
John McLean wrote:

"Lightman" wrote

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days)

You need to configure your neewsreader (Outlook Express by the look of
it) better, so that people can differentiate the original text you're
replying to and your reply itself. When confronted with a solid block of
text like your message without " quoted" text, most people will simply
ignore your message entirely :-(

Apologies,
Don't know what happened with my previous post. Blame it on that b*****r
Gates.

There are alternatives! ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Dear All

Thanks for the comprehensive replies and also glad that you cleared up
that radial circuits are OK with more than one connection to an MCB. I
have very large MK boards but like to spilit up lighting circuits etc
so blowing bulbs don't take out whole floors.

I'm gald there was agreement that this MCB arrangement wasn't a code 1
risk "requires urgent attention, the safety of those using the
installation may be at risk"

In one property we have spare ways and the NICEIC electricians will add
an MCB and in the other property 2 joint boxes (which are accessable)
will be added.

BTW, yes John, I do have a £ 430 Seaward PAT testing machine and a
Megger so now PAT test my own properties - after all this is UK DIY!!

Thanks - Lightman

In article ,
John White writes:

A tip: The HSE seem to be red-hot on asset registers and retest
periods at the moment.

Another tip: many companies which are stuffed full of IT equipment
PAT test their IT equipment far too often, which is a waste of money
(not just the PAT test fees, but even more so the disruption it can
cause to the company operations). Such companies really should get
one or two of their own staff trained in PAT testing even if they
subcontract the activity, so they become aware of how to work out
the necessary PAT testing intervals. For example, if you write off
and dispose of desktop PC systems in less than 4 years, in many
cases they won't ever need any testing (depending how they're used),
but probably just one visual inspection check halfway through their
lives.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John White writes:

A tip: The HSE seem to be red-hot on asset registers and retest
periods at the moment.

Another tip: many companies which are stuffed full of IT equipment
PAT test their IT equipment far too often, which is a waste of money
(not just the PAT test fees, but even more so the disruption it can
cause to the company operations). Such companies really should get
one or two of their own staff trained in PAT testing even if they
subcontract the activity, so they become aware of how to work out
the necessary PAT testing intervals. For example, if you write off
and dispose of desktop PC systems in less than 4 years, in many
cases they won't ever need any testing (depending how they're used),
but probably just one visual inspection check halfway through their
lives.

Isn't it usually the insurance costs that make yearly PAT testing
worthwhile?

In article ,
Owain wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Another tip: many companies which are stuffed full of IT equipment
PAT test their IT equipment far too often, which is a waste of money
(not just the PAT test fees, but even more so the disruption it can
cause to the company operations). ...For example, if you write off
and dispose of desktop PC systems less than 4 years, in many
cases they won't ever need any testing (depending how they're used),
but probably just one visual inspection check halfway through their
lives.

Any company that writes off desktop PC systems after 4 years is already
wasting huge amounts of money and probably contributing to landfill, and
has obviously never heard of thin client computing.

I'm seriously thinking of relegating my 10-year old RiscPC to be my number 2
computer - but I'll probably keep it as my main news/mail machine. Less than 5
years is quite silly - unless you need to run the latest games ...


... or is that why cmpanies are persuaded to 'upgrade'?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Owain writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Another tip: many companies which are stuffed full of IT equipment
PAT test their IT equipment far too often, which is a waste of money
(not just the PAT test fees, but even more so the disruption it can
cause to the company operations). ...For example, if you write off
and dispose of desktop PC systems less than 4 years, in many
cases they won't ever need any testing (depending how they're used),
but probably just one visual inspection check halfway through their
lives.

Any company that writes off desktop PC systems after 4 years is already
wasting huge amounts of money and probably contributing to landfill, and
has obviously never heard of thin client computing.

Oh, I agree (having worked for a thin client manufacturer,
where we made very heavy use of them internally, obviously).
However, most companies have no idea what a thin client is,
very sadly. When you get someone visiting who's never seen
beyond Windows desktop deployments, and they see how you can
work with thin clients (SunRays in my case), they are always
completely gobsmacked.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Lightman" wrote:

BTW, yes John, I do have a £ 430 Seaward PAT testing machine and a
Megger so now PAT test my own properties - after all this is UK DIY!!

Very good. I think you will find that it will be a lot more convenient
to do this in-house anyway. Mind you I'm always pleasantly surprised
when firms pay the minimum charge for me to come and just test a
single appliance.

John
--
John White,
Electrical Contractor

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
John White writes:

A tip: The HSE seem to be red-hot on asset registers and retest
periods at the moment.

Another tip: many companies which are stuffed full of IT equipment
PAT test their IT equipment far too often, which is a waste of money
(not just the PAT test fees, but even more so the disruption it can
cause to the company operations). Such companies really should get
one or two of their own staff trained in PAT testing even if they
subcontract the activity, so they become aware of how to work out
the necessary PAT testing intervals. For example, if you write off
and dispose of desktop PC systems in less than 4 years, in many
cases they won't ever need any testing (depending how they're used),
but probably just one visual inspection check halfway through their
lives.

Yes. A lot of equipment requires only one formal test, supplemented by
regular user checks, for the life of the equipment.

Isn't it usually the insurance costs that make yearly PAT testing
worthwhile?

Yes. Some insurance companies or local authorities insist on annual
inspection. I even know of one company who insists on a PIR and PAT
test on change of tenant, even if the let was just for a few weeks.
Surely this is going too far.

On the other hand I need the money :-)

John
--
John White,
Electrical Contractor

In article ,
"Christian McArdle" writes:
Any company that writes off desktop PC systems after 4 years is already
wasting huge amounts of money and probably contributing to landfill, and
has obviously never heard of thin client computing.

I'm not sure that C++ programming will be too fun on a thin client. Besides

I think you misunderstand a thin client.
C++ programming will completely impossible on a thin client,
just like it's impossible on an LCD monitor. Of course, in
either case it's possible on the associated computer (and in
the case of a thin client, the computer can easily be a 64
processor system, giving you vastly more power than you can
get in any desktop).

I'd rather eat turd than use most thin client applications.

What's a thin client application?

Latency of less than 0.1s is really needed or I fall asleep
waiting. OK for the plebs, I suppose, like public transport...

Thin clients achieve latencies much less that that.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Hi John

You sound the most sensible Electrical Contractor I've ever come
across!! Where are you based? I have some jobs in London and Plymouth
coming up in the next few weeks/months.

Are you close by or could you travel if the money was right?

Best regards - Lightman

"Lightman" wrote:

You sound the most sensible Electrical Contractor I've ever come
across!! Where are you based? I have some jobs in London and Plymouth
coming up in the next few weeks/months.

Thank you for that, but I'm based a long way away in Derbyshire.

Are you close by or could you travel if the money was right?

Sorry - I've got to mind the shop up here.

John
--
John White,
Electrical Contractor