Testing safety of house wiring

Installing new circuits and work in bathrooms is notifiable, anyone one testing would need to 3rd party test as far as I'm aware only napit and stroma Sparks do 3rd party testing

 

They would also have needed to have been involved before the work was carried out, so no-one can help the OP now.

 

If his electrics are ran through joists or under floor they could still inspect them

 

Mind you finding a spark to sign off someone else's work is going to be difficult

 

Not in the walls they couldn't. Inspection and testing for initial verification is required to be carried out during erection and upon completion as necessary, not simply at the end.

 

How do you know his cables are in walls, might have ran under ground floor to each socket and may not have plastered yet

 

We must await an answer from the OP, before we can surmise.

 

Regardless of how it was done the fact remains that he was obliged to engage someone to carry out inspection and testing before undertaking the work, and that the inspection and testing had to occur during erection as well as on completion as necessary.

 

So all cables/routes, etc are still visible/accessible?, that's a bonus on your side tbh, as pointed out, certain things require periodic checking as the work is done to ensure the work adheres to the guidelines set out in BS7671.

 

Notify BC and rewire the whole gaff - its that simple Chris.

 

How have you done this to regulations if your not a qualified electrician? We train for years to be able to do this works!

 

Hi Chris, and welcome to the madhouse, from what you are describing I really think you need the expertise of a qualified sparks tbh.
The wiring will require checking properly, and don't forget that any insurance you have at the moment can be voided at the drop of a hat from experience, we all know what insurance companies are like!.
I don't wish to come across as pessimistic, but heh, it needs a professional eye I reckon mate.

 

Get someone who is recommended and registered

 

It's not exactly rocket science. The training to pass the Regs quals takes no time at all.
In the domestic scene the bit that takes the time is learning all the pitfalls and pratfalls, which we'd all acknowledge takes quite some time.
But anyone with a modicum of nous can get over that. That bit is learning to do the work with the least amount of destruction to the building you are working in.
Their house just might take twice as long and cost four times as much to make good again if they don't know how to do it...

 

As to Part P it is different in England and Wales, and is so poorly written it is hard to work out what exactly can be done, one can renew a damaged cable without informing the LABC and re-wiring is in essence replacing damaged cables. However what is clear is under both Part P and HSE rules you need to comply with something like BS7671 to comply, and that means inspecting and testing which seems to be the real question.

I have found cables joined with connector blocks buried in plaster, so without removing the plaster one can't do a complete inspection, however to inspect enough to issue an Electrical Installation Condition Report does not required one to remove plaster, however it does need loft access. In theory an EICR can not replace the installation certificate, however in practice many LABC inspectors will issue a completion certificate on getting an EICR from an electrician of their selection.

In theory other than emergency work, you should inform the LABC before you start, in theory the inspector can request that cables are re-exposed for inspection, as with anything else which goes through the LABC inspection system. In practice often your allowed to get on with the work, and at the end an EICR is compiled by an independent electrician and a completion certificate is issued on the strength of the EICR.

However this means you don't have an installation certificate, it actually states with Part P on line instructions that you will NOT get an installation certificate when the council do the inspection and testing, all you get is a completion certificate.

However although we consider you need a C&G2391 to inspect and test, there is nothing to stop you doing all the inspecting and testing yourself, you can download the forms free from the IET website and follow the instructions doing all your own testing and inspecting, where the problem lies is getting the equipment required to do it with, with can cost £500, however although you can fill in the paperwork, it is down to LABC as to if they accept your signature on the paperwork. So you may still need an EICR to get the completion certificate, but you can make out the installation certificate.

Enquiry is a valid way to get the readings required, so in theory at least, you could get an EICR and a completion certificate, then copy the details from the EICR onto the installation certificate then you sign it. However this means you are saying that you have the skills required, should anything go wrong, your the guy in court trying to explain what happened. So we look at court cases like the one linked to, and try to work out likely outcome if you had the same.

In the case linked to, it would seem there was nothing wrong with the installation as such, maybe the wire was not pulled taught and had a loop in it, which allowed the plaster to damage it, but in essence it was installed correctly, there were many tradesmen involved, the plasterer damaged the cable, the plumber did not glue the pipes on the tundish, but the court seemed to concentrate on the inspecting and testing. What was of interest is they did not blame the electricians mate who signed the paperwork, but the foreman who it seems knew the skill of the tester so should not have had him do that work. Personally I think plugging in a tester, pressing a button, and writing down results, should have been within the capability of an electricians mate. However when the mate did not get the result he expected, instead of writing down what he actually got, he fudged up some figures in the tea hut.

So it would seem from that court case, if you as an unskilled person, in fact even as an instructed person, do the inspection and testing and sign all the forms, those forms are not worth the paper they are printed on. What would be interesting is to see what a court says if a solicitor accepted the paperwork signed by you when selling the house, we then look as reasonable and really it is not reasonable for the solicitor to request viewing of the certificates held by the electrician signing the paperwork. If you sign to say I being the person with the knowledge when you don't have the knowledge, but like most DIY people think they have the knowledge it is not really the fault of person signing, as shown in that court case.

However death was 2007 and report 2014 would you really want 7 years of being dragged through court? Other court cases seem different, I have lost link to the death when a lady touched a faulty heater in a rented house, again it seems everyone did what they should do, land lady employed an electrician to test but he had not at time of accident got around to doing the work, the tenant knew there was a fault, but still moved in, and it seems the heater belonged to tenant, but socket did not have good earth in this case the land lady had a huge fine. It did not matter that she had done all she could to correct things, she was still fined.

This is the problem, you should in English law be able to look at past cases and work out what is permitted, however it seems that is not the case, so it come down to, how sure are you that at the time when you energised the circuit, that both yourself, and anyone else has done the job correctly and has not damaged anything before it was energised. It seems with the Emma Shaw case the earth was blown clear when powered up, one would have expected a large bang, but it still was not detected.

 

That simply isn't correct. Only supply characteristics can be ascertained by enquiry (from the distributor). Otherwise initial verification would be rather pointless.