Neutral earth fault
- Thread starter middle age spark
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
It'll depend on how it plays out.
Presumably there is two factions in the workplace now.
middle age spark
Junior Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 2
No mate a hero for bringing him to task,thought he was untouchable,really quite at the moment cause everyone is taking the mick calling him Teflon. so hopefully it's done the trick
I would pont out to your employer that apart from risking a srious law suite against them, this prats laziness is costing them money having to send a second team out to fix the fault he can't be arsed to - nothing like money los to motivate an employer...
middle age spark
Junior Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 2
All the other sparks want a no confidence in manager but I said that's it now let's see if he does it again
No mate that amazed me..sparkies saying how can he disapline anyone now
Well that's good.
Usually whistle-blowers are thrown under the bus.
It sounds like its degenerating into a farce. His authority is now non-existent. Management can't touch him. But I would still be waiting for some blowback, he will be out to get you somehow.
If management go after him he may go off on the sick with "stress" and may even claim constructive dismissal, after all he has been vindicated by the NICEIC.
Usually whistle-blowers are thrown under the bus.
It sounds like its degenerating into a farce. His authority is now non-existent. Management can't touch him. But I would still be waiting for some blowback, he will be out to get you somehow.
If management go after him he may go off on the sick with "stress" and may even claim constructive dismissal, after all he has been vindicated by the NICEIC.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 14,503
- Reaction score
- 1,075
Well,personally speaking. I Think it is most reassuring that the NICEIC are promoting themselves as a Consumer Protection Scheme ( or however they word it) and they are looking out for malpractice by policing their members and looking after the consumers
some cynical people may think that it is a purely a profit driven organisation run for the benefit of the shareholders that has somehow inveigled itself as a consumer watchdog, when in fact it is researching the mass consumption of gravy produced by others along with better ways to kit out the bondage dungeon deep in the bowels of Vantage House .......obviously only my opinion and not those of the forum etc
some cynical people may think that it is a purely a profit driven organisation run for the benefit of the shareholders that has somehow inveigled itself as a consumer watchdog, when in fact it is researching the mass consumption of gravy produced by others along with better ways to kit out the bondage dungeon deep in the bowels of Vantage House .......obviously only my opinion and not those of the forum etc
You are not wrong.. It is the **** world [make that country] we live in.
HSE, trading standards, the care standards inspectorate, the lot of them could not give a ****. They will not do a thing unless they think it will come back on them if they do not.
They are simply not interested.. They will be if someone does get hurt and you stand in court and say "told you so"
Nothing would happen though, they would just say "lessons have been learnt"
john..
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
I would still be inclined to call the IET for if they do give you something then they supersede the niceic interpretation.
And your company bosses are more likely to listen for the sake of their company??
And your company bosses are more likely to listen for the sake of their company??
I bet this so called NICEIC advice was given out verbally ..... so no come back to them
teflon coated BS ...
teflon coated BS ...
Doc Hudson
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,620
- Reaction score
- 230
Thank you for coming back to update us Middle Age Spark.
Unfortunately the problem with this, as I see it is; "The wrong people, using the wrong communication method, to seek advice from the wrong people". You need someone who is qualified and competent putting a written report to an independent advisor who is more qualified and experienced in assessing the real risks and dangers of electrical negligence. I would bet HR dept haven't got a clue about exactly what question they should be asking and it probably just went to a customer service clerk, who has a pre-set list of answers with a checklist of all possible questions they expect to get. Without a written copy of the actual question asked and a copy of the answer given and the names of the persons involved in the Q&A, you have proved nothing and have absolutely no idea about what has or hasn't been discussed.
I think this is just as much a problem of your companies making, in how they have approached their investigations not just the NIC trying to avoid committing to anything. Bottom line comes back down to who has the biggest legal balls to put their neck on line without any fear of counter claim. Your company have bottled out in my opinion.
Doc H.
Any circuit modification must comply with EAWR.
Your employers defence is Reg 29.
Your employers justification for a defence under Reg 29 is full compliance with BS7671 & the use of trained, qualified & competent staff.
Do his modifications comply with the current version of BS7671, in full?
Does he complete the relevant certification, correctly as required be BS7671?
NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.
Your employers defence is Reg 29.
Your employers justification for a defence under Reg 29 is full compliance with BS7671 & the use of trained, qualified & competent staff.
Do his modifications comply with the current version of BS7671, in full?
Does he complete the relevant certification, correctly as required be BS7671?
NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.
Last edited by a moderator:
I beg to differ with that wording, though I would however agree with "marking LIM is not an acceptable get out for providing the result of a required test on a certificate"
An example, say an office is being re-arranged, some filling space is being removed (they file everything electronically now) to make space for some extra desks, this requires a lot of rows of lighting (each on their own cirucit) to be extended by one fitting each. So you'd do X amount of minor works to cover each circuit worked on, but you'd have to mark the L-N insulation resistance box as lim, as to disconnect all the fittings on X rows to carry this test out is clearly non sensical and risks introducing extra faults, as well as probably taking a god day to do.
Now say you have also installed a new socket ring off the same board, under the same contract, for the dado trunking where the desks are going, you need to fill out an EIC for this, it would be a waste of certificates and time to fill out the X minor minors when you are all ready issueing an EIC, so you include the results for the lighting circuit alterations on the EIC, and you are careful to word the extent of works covered box to reflect accuratly the works carried out. Result is that you now have, quite legitimatly, LIM marked on the EIC for the lighting circuits L-N Insulation resistance, however if the cert also came back with that filled in for L-N IR of the new sockets ring, it would get chucked back because the test is required for a new cirucit and you cannot get out of that fact with LIM
The chap who we are debating, isn't doing certificates ................
As as for there can be no LIM .................... sometimes, in the real world this is the ONLY option ..........
(It wont let me re-edit the previous post)
Getting back to the subject at hand,
Its always going to be thorney one..... what is acceptable as temporary repair, now its alright to sit there and claim that it is no less than what would be acceptable as a permanent one, but its perhaps a different story when you are out miles away at 2 am on a sunday morning, now I am not saying that removing RCD protection should be the first port of call, but at some point, sometimes a quick mental risk assessment has to be be made.... and balance the risk of what you are doing with the risk of leaving the area without power untill a better hour (which might be significant if it were a stairwell lighting in a multi occupancy residential building, once the emergecny fittings have run down).
The other issue is having done this, one needs to ensure that they go back, but it can be a problem with housing associations and managment companies; their help desk is authorised to place orders for call out repairs out of hours, but daytime works run can run through a differnt chain of command, and this seems to rely on prompting from the property in question ringing up and asking for whatever to be fixed, now if everything has been left appearing to be as normal, perhaps the order to return will not come, unless you activly chase it with the managment company and detail the situation to them. So it can be advantagous to leave something not working that will prove an anoyance. I.e. Lightly loaded sockets ring, had to break the ring to isolate a damaged cable, didnt have a 20A rcbo for board so had to leave it on 32A, if one of the sockets was behind TV, purposely don't connect the socket back to the one enegrised leg behind the socket, leave both in (separate) connectors. So that they are bound to insist that someone comes back to finsih the repair
Getting back to the subject at hand,
Its always going to be thorney one..... what is acceptable as temporary repair, now its alright to sit there and claim that it is no less than what would be acceptable as a permanent one, but its perhaps a different story when you are out miles away at 2 am on a sunday morning, now I am not saying that removing RCD protection should be the first port of call, but at some point, sometimes a quick mental risk assessment has to be be made.... and balance the risk of what you are doing with the risk of leaving the area without power untill a better hour (which might be significant if it were a stairwell lighting in a multi occupancy residential building, once the emergecny fittings have run down).
The other issue is having done this, one needs to ensure that they go back, but it can be a problem with housing associations and managment companies; their help desk is authorised to place orders for call out repairs out of hours, but daytime works run can run through a differnt chain of command, and this seems to rely on prompting from the property in question ringing up and asking for whatever to be fixed, now if everything has been left appearing to be as normal, perhaps the order to return will not come, unless you activly chase it with the managment company and detail the situation to them. So it can be advantagous to leave something not working that will prove an anoyance. I.e. Lightly loaded sockets ring, had to break the ring to isolate a damaged cable, didnt have a 20A rcbo for board so had to leave it on 32A, if one of the sockets was behind TV, purposely don't connect the socket back to the one enegrised leg behind the socket, leave both in (separate) connectors. So that they are bound to insist that someone comes back to finsih the repair
Well, I totally disagree with both yourself @Phoenix, & @Murdoch on the use of LIM on certification.
It is not acceptable in the wording of BS7671, nor the IET guidance.
If there is a test that you cannot do, on a new circuit, then you cannot use LIM.
If there is a test that you cannot do on an existing circuit following modification, then you cannot use LIM, you must, use an alternative way of wording it.
I can see what you are saying @Phoenix in your earlier post, but, LIM is not acceptable, put N/A, N/V or refer to a note by all means, but not LIM, even though it is a limitation.
I get that in the real world there are limitations, but, it is how you document these that needs care.
It is not acceptable in the wording of BS7671, nor the IET guidance.
If there is a test that you cannot do, on a new circuit, then you cannot use LIM.
If there is a test that you cannot do on an existing circuit following modification, then you cannot use LIM, you must, use an alternative way of wording it.
I can see what you are saying @Phoenix in your earlier post, but, LIM is not acceptable, put N/A, N/V or refer to a note by all means, but not LIM, even though it is a limitation.
I get that in the real world there are limitations, but, it is how you document these that needs care.
I would be hesitant in using N/A for the L-N insulation resistance, as clearly the parameter of LN insulation is applicable to the circuit , what isn't applicable is the requirement to test it in those situations.
In my head I consider N/V more to do with a quanity which is inspected, rather than tested, e.g. the supplier's fuse size, carrier says 80A on it, so it goes down as "80 (N/V)", I suppose I could use N/T (not tested) for items where the test is not required or even "---" as per the R2 box which is not needed when R1+R2 is provided.
It just goes against the grain marking it as N/A when clearly it is applicable but I see what you are saying, LIM suggests its a required test but it was excluded for some reason, when what we are trying to say is "Test not relevant/required for the works carried out"
Might make myself a note to discuss this one with the NICEIC chap in a few months when he does his annual visit in a few months time
In my head I consider N/V more to do with a quanity which is inspected, rather than tested, e.g. the supplier's fuse size, carrier says 80A on it, so it goes down as "80 (N/V)", I suppose I could use N/T (not tested) for items where the test is not required or even "---" as per the R2 box which is not needed when R1+R2 is provided.
It just goes against the grain marking it as N/A when clearly it is applicable but I see what you are saying, LIM suggests its a required test but it was excluded for some reason, when what we are trying to say is "Test not relevant/required for the works carried out"
Might make myself a note to discuss this one with the NICEIC chap in a few months when he does his annual visit in a few months time
So .... you can’t have a lim but you can put n/v or n/a
it all means the same .... the test couldn’t be done ..........
using lim could be backed up with a comment .....
Last edited by a moderator:
