I've had a couple of ceilings replaced on insurance after escape of
water. The insurance company appointed general contractors who have
been project managing the repairs, and the general contractors sent
out a (further subcontracted) electrician to replace 5 light fittings
which had to be removed for the ceiling replacement and decoration.

The electrician took it upon himself to poke around the system, and
decided the house earth bonding is not up to current
specs. Specifically, the bonding to the mains water is 6mm sq rather
than 10mm sq. He then tried to get me to agree to pay him 350 pounds
to upgrade the cable (and split the lighting circuit since there are
two conductors going into one breaker on the consumer unit, on the
breaker of the circuit which he will replace lights on), and regards
this work as necesasry under Part P before any other work can be done.

The electricians verbal position is, as I understand it: "prevoious
contractors bodged it, house is really dangerous, can't put the lights
up, most other electricians wouldn't touch the job so I'm doing you a
favour, insurance company wont pay, better just agree to pay me my
reasonable fee now so we can get you sorted, I can fit you in next
Tuesday but then I'm really busy and it will take ages so you ought to
agree now". This was after I called his bluff on a number of attempts
to get even more work out of me, e.g. "ceiling roses should only have
one cable going into them" and "someone drilled into your main fuse;
the earth should be nowhere near there so obviously your earth is
shorted to the mains"(!).

I suspect the main fuse and earth bonding to the water pipes (which is
about a 5m run, currently through the ceilings and walls), was
probably to specification when the house was built in 1979, and hasn't
been touched since then. The bonding to the gas main has been worked
on more recently, and now has two separate cables, both of which look
about 6mm sq; I assume this was an attempt to get the total conductor
area to 10mm sq.

The only tricky part of the actual work I want done, i.e. simply
replacing the lights which had been removed, is that I'd like to fit
feature lights where there were previously pendants from ceiling
roses, and one of the ceiling roses has four cables (circuit in,
circuit out, two switches), and it looks a bit tricky (and against
regs?) to screw 2+ conductors into each terminal block point supplied
with the new light fixture.

People seem to like to give views in this group, so my questions:

1. Is it a legal requirement to ensure earth bonding is up to current
specifications before any electrical work can be done on the property?
(I've had other regulated electricians doing other work since 2005 who
have not commented, and also since 2005 the electricity supplier
replaced the meter).

2. Is it within current regs to leave the ceiling rose fitted and
mount a light fixture on top of it? There should be no problem
mechanically securing both the ceiling rose and the new fixture. The
ceiling rose would end up inside the light fixture, with a good few mm
of clearance from the metal body of the light fixture. Obviously the
new metal fixture has to be earthed.

3. The lights to be replaced are in the lounge, except for one
ceiling strip light in the kitchen. I'm somewhat confused by Part P as
to whether replacing a light fitting within the kitchen requires LABC
declaaration and certification. I'd have no particular concern fitting
these lights myself, but if this does require statutory paperwork I'd
probably hire a (qualified and registered) friend to, at the very
least, check my work.

Thanks,

Dickon

The electrician took it upon himself to poke around the system, and
decided the house earth bonding is not up to current specs.

Interesting question, which i'd love to know the answer to !

If the "new" work requires any rewiring of circuits, i'd guess part P
would come into play, and any and all remedial work would have to be
paid for by the insurance company to comply with current regulations.

Otherwise, it sounds like he's a chancer on the make.

"Colin Wilson" o.uk
wrote in message
g...
The electrician took it upon himself to poke around the system,
and
decided the house earth bonding is not up to current specs.

Interesting question, which i'd love to know the answer to !

If the "new" work requires any rewiring of circuits, i'd guess part
P
would come into play, and any and all remedial work would have to be
paid for by the insurance company to comply with current
regulations.

Otherwise, it sounds like he's a chancer on the make.

Why not put the facts to the insurance co., and get them to sort out
their contractor?

AWEM

On 19 Oct 2008 20:47:24 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Dickon Reed
wrote this:-

Specifically, the bonding to the mains water is 6mm sq rather
than 10mm sq.

Possibly desirable to do, depending on the type of earthing system
provided to the building. A proper price for this will be somewhat
less than you have been quoted, but does depend on the building.

(and split the lighting circuit since there are
two conductors going into one breaker on the consumer unit, on the
breaker of the circuit which he will replace lights on),

He is talking round objects. As many conductors as can be safely
fitted may be connected to a protective device. Indeed the usual
drawings show three conductors being connected to the protective
device of a ring final circuit.

The electricians verbal position is, as I understand it: "prevoious
contractors bodged it, house is really dangerous, can't put the lights
up, most other electricians wouldn't touch the job so I'm doing you a
favour, insurance company wont pay, better just agree to pay me my
reasonable fee now so we can get you sorted, I can fit you in next
Tuesday but then I'm really busy and it will take ages so you ought to
agree now".

High pressure sales technique. Just say no.

This was after I called his bluff on a number of attempts
to get even more work out of me, e.g. "ceiling roses should only have
one cable going into them"

That's the best lie I have heard for a while.

and "someone drilled into your main fuse;
the earth should be nowhere near there so obviously your earth is
shorted to the mains"(!).

Your main fuse, or the company's main fuse?

If your house is fitted with a TNC-S earthing system then the earth
cable will indeed be "shorted to the mains", it is connected to the
neutral conductor in a fitting on the incoming cable and then
continues as a protective earth and neutral conductor to the sub-
station.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
Colin Wilson o.uk wrote:
If the "new" work requires any rewiring of circuits, i'd guess part P
would come into play, and any and all remedial work would have to be
paid for by the insurance company to comply with current regulations.

At least one ceiling rose will need replacing, since it was broken
when a contractor took down the old ceiling. This rose has a single
cable from the lighting circuit as well as a switch cable. Since the
contractors admitted responsibiltiy for breaking the rose it does
muddy the waters further.

Whether that counts as rewiring or simply replacement of the light
fitting is unclear to me, so I'd expect tradesmen involved to try and
get as much work as possible out of the job. I don't expect any need
to replace existing wiring.

Dickon

Hi,

You pack quite a bit in here and we can't see exactly what your house looks
like, so the following is offered in good faith but might miss some subtle
point, so please don't act solely on this!

Dickon Reed coughed up some electrons that declared:

I've had a couple of ceilings replaced on insurance after escape of
water. The insurance company appointed general contractors who have
been project managing the repairs, and the general contractors sent
out a (further subcontracted) electrician to replace 5 light fittings
which had to be removed for the ceiling replacement and decoration.

The electrician took it upon himself to poke around the system, and
decided the house earth bonding is not up to current
specs. Specifically, the bonding to the mains water is 6mm sq rather
than 10mm sq.

Addressed below...

He then tried to get me to agree to pay him 350 pounds
to upgrade the cable (and split the lighting circuit since there are
two conductors going into one breaker on the consumer unit,
on the
breaker of the circuit which he will replace lights on), and regards
this work as necesasry under Part P before any other work can be done.

Re. lights: If the two conductors are different branches of the same
lighting circuit, there's nothing wrong with this. Unless he feels your
circuit is overloaded or there is something less obvious going on?... Am I
understanding this correctly? Remember, we can't see your system, so any
comment given is at some risk of misunderstanding.


The electricians verbal position is, as I understand it: "prevoious
contractors bodged it, house is really dangerous, can't put the lights
up, most other electricians wouldn't touch the job so I'm doing you a
favour, insurance company wont pay, better just agree to pay me my
reasonable fee now so we can get you sorted, I can fit you in next
Tuesday but then I'm really busy and it will take ages so you ought to
agree now". This was after I called his bluff on a number of attempts
to get even more work out of me, e.g. "ceiling roses should only have
one cable going into them" and "someone drilled into your main fuse;
the earth should be nowhere near there so obviously your earth is
shorted to the mains"(!).

I would advise: get a second opinion, preferably from someone who comes with
a recommendation.

I suspect the main fuse and earth bonding to the water pipes (which is
about a 5m run, currently through the ceilings and walls), was
probably to specification when the house was built in 1979, and hasn't
been touched since then. The bonding to the gas main has been worked
on more recently, and now has two separate cables, both of which look
about 6mm sq; I assume this was an attempt to get the total conductor
area to 10mm sq.

I assume by this that your leccy meter, water stopcock and gas meter are 5m
apart?

Might help if you could explain the run and distances between the leccy
meter and gas meter, and leccy meter and water stop cock. Does your gas
pipe run externally after the meter, getting closer to the electricty
meter?

How hard is it really to thread a new bit of 10mm2 though? Are the clamps
accessible?

Personally, the two bits of 6mm2 aren't exactly by the book (well On Site
Guide) but if they are similar in length and both terminated correctly, you
do have an effective 12mm2 of conductor to the gas. Judgement call by
anyone working on your system, but it doesn't sound dangerous to me.

The only tricky part of the actual work I want done, i.e. simply
replacing the lights which had been removed, is that I'd like to fit
feature lights where there were previously pendants from ceiling
roses, and one of the ceiling roses has four cables (circuit in,
circuit out, two switches), and it looks a bit tricky (and against
regs?) to screw 2+ conductors into each terminal block point supplied
with the new light fixture.

People seem to like to give views in this group, so my questions:

1. Is it a legal requirement to ensure earth bonding is up to current
specifications before any electrical work can be done on the property?
(I've had other regulated electricians doing other work since 2005 who
have not commented, and also since 2005 the electricity supplier
replaced the meter).

It is considered good practise (more or less essential) to ensure the
integrity of the main equipotential bonding before fiddling with anything
else and I think pretty much any professional will want to do that first.
But I question the amounts quoted unless the cable run really is dire.

2. Is it within current regs to leave the ceiling rose fitted and
mount a light fixture on top of it? There should be no problem
mechanically securing both the ceiling rose and the new fixture. The
ceiling rose would end up inside the light fixture, with a good few mm
of clearance from the metal body of the light fixture. Obviously the
new metal fixture has to be earthed.

It's hard to envisage. The question to ask you is "would it constitute good
workmanship?". Are you intending to keep the rose cover on or mount the
metal lamp base over the rose base (with terminals) only? Will the wires be
squidged? Any chance of the metal lamp fitting coming into contact with
live parts? Photos could help.

3. The lights to be replaced are in the lounge, except for one
ceiling strip light in the kitchen. I'm somewhat confused by Part P as
to whether replacing a light fitting within the kitchen requires LABC
declaaration and certification. I'd have no particular concern fitting
these lights myself, but if this does require statutory paperwork I'd
probably hire a (qualified and registered) friend to, at the very
least, check my work.

I've rather lost track of the wording of Part P - I've been diverting all my
brain juice to cable calcs and the IEE Regs (the bit that matters IMO) of
late. Sure someone will be able to answer this soon.

Cheers

Tim

David Hansen coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 19 Oct 2008 20:47:24 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Dickon Reed
wrote this:-



This was after I called his bluff on a number of attempts
to get even more work out of me, e.g. "ceiling roses should only have
one cable going into them"

That's the best lie I have heard for a while.

How did I miss that one. Anyway, agreed, the original claim is total and
utter rubbish.

and "someone drilled into your main fuse;
the earth should be nowhere near there so obviously your earth is
shorted to the mains"(!).

Your main fuse, or the company's main fuse?

Would have thought something would have gone bang (quite a big bang).

Most[1] people don't have a main fuse as such, though they might have a main
RCD or a main isolator.

[1] People who stick their consumer units too far from the meter ( 3m in my
case ) might have an extra 63 or 80 or 100A submain fuse though, because
I'm one of them.

Cheers

Tim

Dickon Reed wrote:

I've had a couple of ceilings replaced on insurance after escape of
water. The insurance company appointed general contractors who have
been project managing the repairs, and the general contractors sent
out a (further subcontracted) electrician to replace 5 light fittings
which had to be removed for the ceiling replacement and decoration.

The electrician took it upon himself to poke around the system, and
decided the house earth bonding is not up to current
specs. Specifically, the bonding to the mains water is 6mm sq rather
than 10mm sq. He then tried to get me to agree to pay him 350 pounds
to upgrade the cable (and split the lighting circuit since there are
two conductors going into one breaker on the consumer unit, on the
breaker of the circuit which he will replace lights on), and regards
this work as necesasry under Part P before any other work can be done.

The electricians verbal position is, as I understand it: "prevoious
contractors bodged it, house is really dangerous, can't put the lights
up, most other electricians wouldn't touch the job so I'm doing you a
favour, insurance company wont pay, better just agree to pay me my
reasonable fee now so we can get you sorted, I can fit you in next
Tuesday but then I'm really busy and it will take ages so you ought to
agree now". This was after I called his bluff on a number of attempts
to get even more work out of me, e.g. "ceiling roses should only have
one cable going into them" and "someone drilled into your main fuse;
the earth should be nowhere near there so obviously your earth is
shorted to the mains"(!).

I suspect the main fuse and earth bonding to the water pipes (which is
about a 5m run, currently through the ceilings and walls), was
probably to specification when the house was built in 1979, and hasn't
been touched since then. The bonding to the gas main has been worked
on more recently, and now has two separate cables, both of which look
about 6mm sq; I assume this was an attempt to get the total conductor
area to 10mm sq.

The only tricky part of the actual work I want done, i.e. simply
replacing the lights which had been removed, is that I'd like to fit
feature lights where there were previously pendants from ceiling
roses, and one of the ceiling roses has four cables (circuit in,
circuit out, two switches), and it looks a bit tricky (and against
regs?) to screw 2+ conductors into each terminal block point supplied
with the new light fixture.

People seem to like to give views in this group, so my questions:

1. Is it a legal requirement to ensure earth bonding is up to current
specifications before any electrical work can be done on the property?
(I've had other regulated electricians doing other work since 2005 who
have not commented, and also since 2005 the electricity supplier
replaced the meter).

2. Is it within current regs to leave the ceiling rose fitted and
mount a light fixture on top of it? There should be no problem
mechanically securing both the ceiling rose and the new fixture. The
ceiling rose would end up inside the light fixture, with a good few mm
of clearance from the metal body of the light fixture. Obviously the
new metal fixture has to be earthed.

3. The lights to be replaced are in the lounge, except for one
ceiling strip light in the kitchen. I'm somewhat confused by Part P as
to whether replacing a light fitting within the kitchen requires LABC
declaaration and certification. I'd have no particular concern fitting
these lights myself, but if this does require statutory paperwork I'd
probably hire a (qualified and registered) friend to, at the very
least, check my work.

Thanks,

Dickon

It sounds like you've been (rightly) alerted to this guy by his high
pressure sales technique. He's playing on your (percieved) fears of
electricity and of the rules. He's talking bull****.

A general principle of the regs is that progressive improvements in
the standards are not retrospective. There is never a requirement to
bring existing installations up to the new spec. That said you would
naturally expect to repair an obviously defective installation anyway
wouldn't you? But it's not a requirement.

The one wire in a ceiling rose thing is simply ********. Ceiling
roses are designed to act as a loop-in point in a lighting circuit -
that's why they are designed the way they are! Having two conductors
into one "hole" as you have two switches is a bit of a pain by it's
not illegal and it's not going to electrocute you or burn your ouse
down.
I can see no problem with having the ceiling rose enclosed in a
fitting. Maybe your electrician would care to cite the reg which he
thinks that contravenes, in fact that's a good idea generally - call
his bluff and ask him to quote the applicable reg for each of the
claimed contraventions.

My advice would be to suggest that do what he's being employed to or
refuse to do it and leave the site.

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
Re. lights: If the two conductors are different branches of the same
lighting circuit, there's nothing wrong with this. Unless he feels your
circuit is overloaded or there is something less obvious going on?... Am I
understanding this correctly? Remember, we can't see your system, so any
comment given is at some risk of misunderstanding.

No, I don't think there's anything subtle. The circuit is the
downstairs lighting circuit; it branches at the consumer unit. No one
is suggesting it is overloaded. The electrician is suggesting that the
branch must not be done at the consumer unit and they need to be going
to separate breakers (there would be space in the consumer unit for a
few more breakers). Also one cable has conductor which are a little
larger than one might expect on a lighting circit. I suspect the
larger conductor was an addition made by a previous owner to extend
the lighting circuit to an old conservatory, but it isn't
straightforward to trace the cable.

I assume by this that your leccy meter, water stopcock and gas meter are 5m
apart?

The gas and electricity meters are both in the garage, about one meter
apart.

The water stopcock is in another part of the house. The existing earth
cable run is plastered into the wall, presumably in conduit. The
obvious alternative route would involve running out through the garage
and then in through a wall, which looks like a pretty easy run.

2. Is it within current regs to leave the ceiling rose fitted and
mount a light fixture on top of it? There should be no problem
mechanically securing both the ceiling rose and the new fixture. The
ceiling rose would end up inside the light fixture, with a good few mm
of clearance from the metal body of the light fixture. Obviously the
new metal fixture has to be earthed.

It's hard to envisage. The question to ask you is "would it constitute good
workmanship?". Are you intending to keep the rose cover on or mount the
metal lamp base over the rose base (with terminals) only? Will the wires be
squidged? Any chance of the metal lamp fitting coming into contact with
live parts? Photos could help.

The ceiling rose cover would remain in place, and I think there's plenty of
space so that nothing would get squished.

Dickon

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:57:57 +0100 someone who may be Tim S
wrote this:-

This was after I called his bluff on a number of attempts
to get even more work out of me, e.g. "ceiling roses should only have
one cable going into them"

That's the best lie I have heard for a while.

How did I miss that one.

It is a good one, isn't it. Presumably a one-person attempt to
prevent neat and easy to modify loop-in wiring and substitute
junction boxes scattered at random locations around the building.

Obviously ceiling roses should only have one flexible cable coming
out of them and going to the luminaire, unless made specially for
more than one flexible cable (I have never seen one, but they are
mentioned), but that is a separate issue.

I too am somewhat at a loss about the new luminaires mounted
over/under the ceiling roses. Depending on the particular fittings
the cowboy may have a point about this.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
Dickon Reed wrote:
He then tried to get me to agree to pay him 350 pounds
to upgrade the cable (and split the lighting circuit since there are
two conductors going into one breaker on the consumer unit, on the
breaker of the circuit which he will replace lights on), and regards
this work as necesasry under Part P before any other work can be done.

Absolute nonsense. Assuming the breaker is of a size to protect the
smallest cable you can have as many as you want.

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dickon Reed wrote:

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
Re. lights: If the two conductors are different branches of the same
lighting circuit, there's nothing wrong with this. Unless he feels your
circuit is overloaded or there is something less obvious going on?... Am I
understanding this correctly? Remember, we can't see your system, so any
comment given is at some risk of misunderstanding.

No, I don't think there's anything subtle. The circuit is the
downstairs lighting circuit; it branches at the consumer unit. No one
is suggesting it is overloaded. The electrician is suggesting that the
branch must not be done at the consumer unit and they need to be going
to separate breakers (there would be space in the consumer unit for a

No, it is perfectly acceptable to branch a circuit at origin in the CU.
You can even take a spur from a ring circuit at the CU if you want.

Ask him to give the section number in BS7671 to support his claim if in
doubt!

few more breakers). Also one cable has conductor which are a little
larger than one might expect on a lighting circit. I suspect the
larger conductor was an addition made by a previous owner to extend
the lighting circuit to an old conservatory, but it isn't
straightforward to trace the cable.

Its not uncommon to have circuits wired in 1.0mm^2 or 1.5mm^2. YOu may
have a combination of both.

I assume by this that your leccy meter, water stopcock and gas meter are 5m
apart?

The gas and electricity meters are both in the garage, about one meter
apart.

The water stopcock is in another part of the house. The existing earth
cable run is plastered into the wall, presumably in conduit. The
obvious alternative route would involve running out through the garage
and then in through a wall, which looks like a pretty easy run.

Note that upgrading the main bonding is not a notifiable event, so you
could DIY this if you wanted.

2. Is it within current regs to leave the ceiling rose fitted and
mount a light fixture on top of it? There should be no problem

Yup.

It's hard to envisage. The question to ask you is "would it constitute good
workmanship?". Are you intending to keep the rose cover on or mount the
metal lamp base over the rose base (with terminals) only? Will the wires be
squidged? Any chance of the metal lamp fitting coming into contact with
live parts? Photos could help.

The ceiling rose cover would remain in place, and I think there's plenty of
space so that nothing would get squished.

In effect it is no different from using the rose as a convenient
junction box or set of terminal blocks.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Whether that counts as rewiring or simply replacement of the light
fitting is unclear to me, so I'd expect tradesmen involved to try and
get as much work as possible out of the job. I don't expect any need
to replace existing wiring.

It sounds to me like he's re-using the existing cable, and simply
changing the ceiling rose to me - while I haven't actually read part P
as far as I am aware, like-for-like in-situ replacement of equipment
(sockets / switches etc) are permissable.

If he needs to start lifting floorboards and replacing entire cable
runs it becomes another matter, and would (AIUI) need to be part P
compliant.

Colin Wilson wrote:
Whether that counts as rewiring or simply replacement of the light
fitting is unclear to me, so I'd expect tradesmen involved to try and
get as much work as possible out of the job. I don't expect any need
to replace existing wiring.

It sounds to me like he's re-using the existing cable, and simply
changing the ceiling rose to me - while I haven't actually read part P
as far as I am aware, like-for-like in-situ replacement of equipment
(sockets / switches etc) are permissable.

If he needs to start lifting floorboards and replacing entire cable
runs it becomes another matter, and would (AIUI) need to be part P
compliant.

Even extensions to existing circuits are minor works from a part P
perspective (unless in a special location). Like for like replacements
are ok everywhere - even in a special location.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19 Oct, 20:47, Dickon Reed wrote:
I've had a couple of ceilings replaced on insurance after escape of
water. The insurance company appointed general contractors who have
been project managing the repairs, and the general contractors sent
out a (further subcontracted) electrician to replace 5 light fittings
which had to be removed for the ceiling replacement and decoration.

The electrician took it upon himself to poke around the system, and
decided the house earth bonding is not up to current
specs.

Having just done battle with various kitchen fitters, electricians and
gasmen, my take would be to point out that you aren't employing him
and if he's got any issues about not being able to do the work he
should take it up with the contractor and not you.