Friendly Electrician Needed (HEEEEEELLLLLP!)

[Raistlin]

Not sure if this belongs in this section (or indeed any section here) but I'm sure that if I'm in the wrong place one of our lovely MODs will move it :D

I really need some advice from a friendly electrician if there are any here.

I am trying to help a mate who is having some problems with ceiling lights in his house. He is replacing two existing light fittings (which both worked) with two new light fittings. The first went without a hitch but unfortunately the labels that he had put on the wires of the second one fell off half way through and now we don't know which wires go in where.

I've had a little experience with lighting circuits and (as far as I can see) we have got both fittings wired correctly but for some reason only one of them is working.

We have swapped the fittings around (just in case one of them was dodgy) and they both work but only when wired into the one (working) location.

If I post a diagram of what we have (and what we know about the wirning) could somebody qualified take a look at it for me and make some suggestions about where we've gone wrong please?

I'm sure we've missed something obvious (and probably stupidly simple) but I'm totall stumped!

[paulyoung666]

wrong wire in wrong hole , bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt :erm: , i fear this could be a difficult one to sort without being there :( , have you blown any fuses yet ???????? , or do you have a board with individual trips that can be reset ???????? , please be careful ;)

[bigitup_j]

hi there.
would you mind if i take a look at the diagrams?
i'll try and see what's up.

thanks :)
(i'm an electricians apprentice - and i know stuff about lighting (i've got diagrams to compare))
:)

[Raistlin]

Ok Guys, thanks.

I'll put a couple of diagrams together of what we have (and know) so far and then I'll post them here.

We haven't blown any fuses yet and we're being careful (taking the fuse out while we work on the wires, that sort of things).

Give me a couple of minutes and I'll post the up.

[Raistlin]

Ok, I'm working from memory a little bit here (I had to come home to get to my computer).

The only thing I didn't manage to ascertain when I was there was exactly which red wires went where (but I can go back and do that tomorrow if needs be).

Hopefully though this will help you to see which wires we have got and suggest how they SHOULD go together and then I can check that when I go round next.

As I say, the first light on the picture (light 2) works fine. It is Light 1 that isn't working at the moment.

Thanks again for your help guys.

Here's The Diagram (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41937e13_58aa/bc/Forums/wiring.jpg?bfIUgqBB0l2aMygY)

[Flubflow]

I will never understand why there have to be a gazillion wires coming out into the ceiling light fitting. Can't you sparkys leave all that crap in a little junction box out of sight and just have the required two wires protruding for the satisfactory function of the electric light bulb? :D
It really makes life difficult trying to fit this Jodrell Bank of wiring inside my new small fashionable light fittting. :)

[homealone]

Ok, I'm working from memory a little bit here (I had to come home to get to my computer).

The only thing I didn't manage to ascertain when I was there was exactly which red wires went where (but I can go back and do that tomorrow if needs be).

Hopefully though this will help you to see which wires we have got and suggest how they SHOULD go together and then I can check that when I go round next.

As I say, the first light on the picture (light 2) works fine. It is Light 1 that isn't working at the moment.

Thanks again for your help guys.

Here's The Diagram (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41937e13_58aa/bc/Forums/wiring.jpg)

link doesn't work for me - I've tried an edit in this reply.

<edit> I get this now "You do not have permission to get the requested URL from this server."

[JohnHorb]

Could get it earlier - now getting 'page cannot be displayed'

[yesman]

This might help..........

[bob_a_builder]

can't you sparkys leave all that crap in a little junction box out of sight and just have the required two wires protruding

Well said, I'll second that !

Lookl like we'll all need a friendly electrician soon LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4048371.stm)

[bigitup_j]

Well said, I'll second that !

Lookl like we'll all need a friendly electrician soon LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4048371.stm)
excellent news! more business for me! :cool:


i'll have a look at the diagram, and see what's happening! :)

[gary_580]

in any ceiling rose there will be three groups of terminals

one containing 3 wires (ill call A), the next containing 3 wires (ill call B) and the next containing 2 (ill call C)

A contains the neutral
B contains the live
C contains the switch live

A (the neutral) should have one wire to the light pendant which will be blue and the other two are from the ring main and will be black

B (the live) should contain 3 red wires, two will be to the ring main and therefore should be in the same sheath as one of the blacks in A. The third wire goes to the light switch as the live.

C (the switch live) should contain 2 wires, the black which is the switched live from the light switch (might have red tape on it) and the brown to the light pendant

[bigitup_j]

Ok, I'm working from memory a little bit here (I had to come home to get to my computer).

The only thing I didn't manage to ascertain when I was there was exactly which red wires went where (but I can go back and do that tomorrow if needs be).

Hopefully though this will help you to see which wires we have got and suggest how they SHOULD go together and then I can check that when I go round next.

As I say, the first light on the picture (light 2) works fine. It is Light 1 that isn't working at the moment.

Thanks again for your help guys.

Here's The Diagram (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41937e13_58aa/bc/Forums/wiring.jpg?bfIUgqBB0l2aMygY)
i see you have 3 light holders there. i thought you had only two. it's a little confusing. and you seem to have 2 phase (live) wires coming in, and only one neutral.

i need to know how the wiring is connected in the switch (what's in the Common, L1, L2?)
and the lamp holders, the three connector blocks - on your diagram which one is which? i think i know, but i just want to make sure. i'd guess it is: (as shown on the diagram)
top left - Switch Line (has two screws)
bottom left - Neutral (has three screws)
right - Loop (3 screws, in the middle between the two connector blocks)

thanks :)

[Raistlin]

Ok, let's see if I can clarify this a bit.

Here's the diagram (sorry about the size of the image if it slows down the downloading of the page):

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41937e13_58aa/bc/Forums/wiring.jpg?bfIUgqBB0l2aMygY


The box at the top is the light switch box on the wall and is made up of two dimmer switches. S1 and S2.
S1 controls Light 1
S2 controls Light 2
There are tow cables coming into this box, each cable has two wires, 1 red and 1 black (wired as shown).

There are only two light fittings (Light 2 is the first one on the diagram and is the one that is working).
The blue and brown wires indicated on the diagram are built into the light fitting.

Light 2 has only 2 cables coming into it (comprising of 2 red wires and 2 black wires). 1 of the black wires is coming from Switch 2 (labelled B2). I think that the second black wire goes to Light 1.

Light 1 has three cables (comprising 3 black and 3 red wires). I am assuming that 1 red and 1 black must go to the next light in the circuit (probably the kitchen light). The black wire labelled B1 definately goes back to Switch 1.

I'm not sure how the common and L1 / L2 terminals on the dimmer are connected. From memory the wires are as in the diagram, I can check the labelling of the terminals tomorrow if you need me to.

If you still can't see the diagram then please PM me with your email address and I will email it to you if that's ok? It's about 312k in size, I can try to reduce it if you need me to but I'm worried about losing the detail. It's not a great picture to start with.

Thanks again for your help.

[Raistlin]

I think you might be getting confused by the diagram that Yesman posted above. I think that was supposed to be a general representation of how lights should be arranged. It isn't a diagram of how these lights are wired.

[Raistlin]

I will never understand why there have to be a gazillion wires coming out into the ceiling light fitting. Can't you sparkys leave all that crap in a little junction box out of sight and just have the required two wires protruding for the satisfactory function of the electric light bulb? :D
It really makes life difficult trying to fit this Jodrell Bank of wiring inside my new small fashionable light fittting. :)
The could do that but that would mean that if you wanted to add an extra light somewhere in the circuit you would need to take up all of your floorboards upstairs to run the cabling. Doing things this way means that you have the bare ends of all of the cables that you need and you can just pull new cables through as required.....Probably :D

[Graham]

Just to point out that, due to changes in building regulations, from 1st Jan 2005, it will almost certainly be illegal for you to do this yourself!

http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/newsitem_sept0704.htm

[Stuartbe]

Just to point out that, due to changes in building regulations, from 1st Jan 2005, it will almost certainly be illegal for you to do this yourself!

http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/newsitem_sept0704.htm

And THAT is just about the most sensible rule that has ever been enforced !!!

About time to ! Its been a long time coming.

[carlingman]

And THAT is just about the most sensible rule that has ever been enforced !!!

About time to ! Its been a long time coming.

Agreed.

And to drag this slightly off topic a post from you has been a long time coming.

:tu: Welcome back.

:D

[bopdude]

Morning still ??????? :rolleyes:

Ok if I've read your postings properly Raistlin it shouldn't be to hard, I cant see your pics but from what you've written sounds ok, I think you should end up with something like the attached image, shouldn't be to hard to figure out which black ( switch wire ) is which as you say they are / were marked, the rest is straight forward, as you can see, if this doesn't work ( and i cant see why not ) let us know. I've p.m'ed you about your pic so if you could send me a copy, I'll look when I wake up, been on nights.

Hope this helps / works :tu:

[Raistlin]

Bopdude,

Yep, that's almost exactly what I have got.

Except the red wire from the left switch goes to the right-hand light and vice versa.

Thanks.

Oh and the new legislation from January covers "significant" electrical undertakings. This wouldn't be considered significant because it is simply exchanging one fitting for another of similar specification and purpose.

[SMHarman]

Bopdude,

Yep, that's almost exactly what I have got.

Except the red wire from the left switch goes to the right-hand light and vice versa.

Thanks.

Oh and the new legislation from January covers "significant" electrical undertakings. This wouldn't be considered significant because it is simply exchanging one fitting for another of similar specification and purpose.
And if the undertakings are significant enough to require building control, then you can DIY and building control will effectivly certify safety. Just like they do with self build houses.

[ian@huth]

Not much use to the OP but something to think about when putting up a new light fitting. When we had our house built we specified Meastro ceiling roses, something we have used for years and consider essential. These are ceiling roses comprising of two parts, one fixed to the ceiling and the other to the light fitting. The two parts just slide together making it very easy to bring the fitting down for cleaning or replacing. They are available in white, brass and chrome from most DIY superstores or mail order from http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LDMC11A.html

[bopdude]

Bopdude,

Yep, that's almost exactly what I have got.

Except the red wire from the left switch goes to the right-hand light and vice versa.

Thanks.
.
Looking at your drawing it should work as it is looped as should be, this being said, it doesn't, so, Question time ...

1 Are there any more lights in the house that have stopped working ????

2 Try the dimmer, wire the 2 fittings up as you've done and then at the
switch short out the corrisponding live and switch wires, this will take
the switch out of the equation.
3 Have you got a tester and if so what type ??

4 Make sure your safe, isolate before work, :D but you allready know this

[gary_580]

shouldn't be to hard to figure out which black ( switch wire )


i dont understand the problem here. There will be three cables each containing a Red, Black and earth. if they are all disconnected from the ceiling rose and the power is on then all you have to do is put a volt meter between each pair red and black pair. One pair will be dead and this is the cable to your switch.

[gary_580]

Just to point out that, due to changes in building regulations, from 1st Jan 2005, it will almost certainly be illegal for you to do this yourself!

http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/newsitem_sept0704.htm


how stupid is that!! I did an apprenticeship as an electrical engineer but because i dont do house installations (or any electrical work in my job) i cant get acredited and therefore would have to pay someone to do something that i can do safely myself :mad: Red tape gone mad again

[bopdude]

i dont understand the problem here. There will be three cables each containing a Red, Black and earth. if they are all disconnected from the ceiling rose and the power is on then all you have to do is put a volt meter between each pair red and black pair. One pair will be dead and this is the cable to your switch.
Not so, you will have one cable that will show 240 volts and the other two will read 0 volts, these will be your switch and the set of mains going out to the next fitting.
This is why i've asked what type of meter he has, so as to assertain what testing he can do with the power off..... safty first ;)

[Raistlin]

Looking at your drawing it should work as it is looped as should be, this being said, it doesn't, so, Question time ...

1 Are there any more lights in the house that have stopped working ????

2 Try the dimmer, wire the 2 fittings up as you've done and then at the
switch short out the corrisponding live and switch wires, this will take
the switch out of the equation.
3 Have you got a tester and if so what type ??

4 Make sure your safe, isolate before work, :D but you allready know this I'd literally JUST come to the same conclusions about the dimmer.

Thinking about this a bit more I remembered that he said that during one of his "experiments" he had caused the fuse to blow when he switched the light on, is it possible that this may also have damaged the dimmer for that light?

None of the other lights have stopped working so I figured that it must be the switch (or at least the switched live to that fitting) that was giving the problems.

Don't have a voltage tester, I've been using a continuity tester and a wire extension to work out which wires go to where.

I'm removing the fuse block before I touch ANYTHING so I'm fairly sure that the supply is nicely isolated. I've also taped over the offending dimmer so there's no way it can be accidently switched on in the meantime.

If I understand you correctly then I can just connect the red and black wires (live and switched live) from the back of the offending dimmer directly together and when I put the fuse back in the light should come on if everything is wired correctly, is this right? Also, is this a safe thing to do (I will ensure that the wires are firmly connected together and insulated from everything else before putting the fuse back in).

Thanks to everybody that has helped so far, I really appreciate this.

[bopdude]

Thinking about this a bit more I remembered that he said that during one of his "experiments" he had caused the fuse to blow when he switched the light on, is it possible that this may also have damaged the dimmer for that light?
Yes it is highly possible that the dimmer has been damaged


None of the other lights have stopped working so I figured that it must be the switch (or at least the switched live to that fitting) that was giving the problems.
This would suggest that that all the wiring is connected properly



If I understand you correctly then I can just connect the red and black wires (live and switched live) from the back of the offending dimmer directly together and when I put the fuse back in the light should come on if everything is wired correctly, is this right? Also, is this a safe thing to do (I will ensure that the wires are firmly connected together and insulated from everything else before putting the fuse back in).

.
Thats it, connect them with a terminal block and yes you will be safe enough, just make sure the wires can't / wont short out anywhere

[gary_580]

Not so, you will have one cable that will show 240 volts and the other two will read 0 volts, these will be your switch and the set of mains going out to the next fitting.



eerrrmm not true. The idea of having a ring main is that the will be two cables that show 240 volts assuming that the ring has not been broken. The idea is that if the ring does break then there will be no failure.

[SMHarman]

The new electronic driven dimmers are pretty easy to mess up with poor wiring, or difficult loads for that matter. I've killed off a 400W rated dimmer on 400W of 204V halogen, they dont like it upem they dont.

Off topic, but can you get 25W 240V halogen bulbs?

[gary_580]

The new electronic driven dimmers are pretty easy to mess up with poor wiring, or difficult loads for that matter. I've killed off a 400W rated dimmer on 400W of 204V halogen, they dont like it upem they dont.

Off topic, but can you get 25W 240V halogen bulbs?

a lot of dimmers are only rated at 250W. Yes i know you can get 400, 650 and 800VA rated dimmers but these are more expensive so wouldnt be fitted by default

[SMHarman]

a lot of dimmers are only rated at 250W. Yes i know you can get 400, 650 and 800VA rated dimmers but these are more expensive so wouldnt be fitted by default
I bought it, I know it was 400W. It's the http://www.mkelectric.co.uk/products/item.asp?itemid=3172&rangeid=1026

and...

They are suitable for use with tungsten GLS lamps, mains halogen lamps and for dimming low voltage lighting when used with electronic or wire wound LV transformers.

Though when I opened the box it says it was not so suitable for mains halogen. It lasted 15 months.

[Raistlin]

Ok, so my plan of attack then:

1. Isolate the supply.
2. Disconnect the wiring from the back of the offending dimmer.
3. Turn the suspect dimmer fully to the on position.
4. Apply a continuity tester to the two connection points on the supect dimmer. In theory, if the dimmer is working correctly I should have continuity across it with the switch fully on.
5. Check that the light fitting works when connected seperately from the switch: connnect the incoming red and outgoing black wires together using a connector block and insulate thoroughly.
6.Reinstate the supply to the circuit, if the light fitting is wired correctly then it should come on at this point.
7. Replace dimmer unit if neccessary, or recheck wiring, if the above checks fail.

If anybody can think of anything else then please let me know.

Thanks.

[bopdude]

eerrrmm not true. The idea of having a ring main is that the will be two cables that show 240 volts assuming that the ring has not been broken. The idea is that if the ring does break then there will be no failure.:wtf: are you talking about mate :shrug: a " ring main " is the term used for a household socket powerpoint cicuit not a lighting circuit, difference being a " ringmain " has 2 feeds coming from the board, then it is looped around the circuit making a " ring " , a lighting circuit has only 1 feed, set of mains in, set of mains out and a live & switch wire T & E to the :erm: switch, unless they've changed that overnight as well, 'kin Brussels :mad: :p:

[gary_580]

:wtf: are you talking about mate :shrug: a " ring main " is the term used for a household socket powerpoint cicuit not a lighting circuit, difference being a " ringmain " has 2 feeds coming from the board, then it is looped around the circuit making a " ring " , a lighting circuit has only 1 feed, set of mains in, set of mains out and a live & switch wire T & E to the :erm: switch, unless they've changed that overnight as well, 'kin Brussels :mad: :p:

In my house there are definately two lighting rings. One for upstairs and one for downstairs. How do i know? Because all of the ceiling roses have been changed and every single one had two power cables and one switch cable which tells me its not a radial circuit. I know its not a legal requirement to have the lights on a ring as it is for sockets but it is best practice.

[Paul K]

:wtf: are you talking about mate :shrug: a " ring main " is the term used for a household socket powerpoint cicuit not a lighting circuit, difference being a " ringmain " has 2 feeds coming from the board, then it is looped around the circuit making a " ring " , a lighting circuit has only 1 feed, set of mains in, set of mains out and a live & switch wire T & E to the :erm: switch, unless they've changed that overnight as well, 'kin Brussels :mad: :p:

In my house there are definately two lighting rings. One for upstairs and one for downstairs. How do i know? Because all of the ceiling roses have been changed and every single one had two power cables and one switch cable which tells me its not a radial circuit. I know its not a legal requirement to have the lights on a ring as it is for sockets but it is best practice.
Aaah the wonders of Peterborough houses who do indeed have a downstairs circuit and seperate upstairs circuit for lighting. Ours had split lighting circuits and a back half/ front half mains circuit, handy for socket or lighting changes.

[iadom]

Speaking of dimmer switches, I had to replace a dual dimmer at home only last week. The light fitting has five 60 watt candle bulbs in it, I switched it on last week and one of the bulbs exploded showering glass everywhere. I replaced the bulb and the lights would not work. I eventually traced the fault to a blown dimmer switch.

[gary_580]

Aaah the wonders of Peterborough houses who do indeed have a downstairs circuit and seperate upstairs circuit for lighting. Ours had split lighting circuits and a back half/ front half mains circuit, handy for socket or lighting changes.

Bopdude isnt disputing that there are two lightinig circuits. He's saying they are radial which they can be, but often they are in fact a ring

[SMHarman]

In my house there are definately two lighting rings. One for upstairs and one for downstairs. How do i know? Because all of the ceiling roses have been changed and every single one had two power cables and one switch cable which tells me its not a radial circuit. I know its not a legal requirement to have the lights on a ring as it is for sockets but it is best practice.
Every (bar the last one) of the ceiling roses will have two power cables, the one from the last and the one to the next. In a normal install, the last rose will not loop back to the fuse box (why are they still fuse boxes when they are full of MCBs?)

[gary_580]

why are they still fuse boxes when they are full of MCBs?

They're not, they're distribution boards

[yesman]

Bopdude isnt disputing that there are two lightinig circuits. He's saying they are radial which they can be, but often they are in fact a ring
Lighting circuits in a domestic property are radial and not a ring circuit.

[yesman]

Every (bar the last one) of the ceiling roses will have two power cables, the one from the last and the one to the next. In a normal install, the last rose will not loop back to the fuse box (why are they still fuse boxes when they are full of MCBs?)
They are now commonly known as a Consumer Unit.

[paulyoung666]

i wonder if i should pre-book an ambulance :shocking: , please be careful ;)

[SMHarman]

They are now commonly known as a Consumer Unit.
Aaah yes, CU Consumer unit (whoops was this a pointless post, better watch out the PPP (Pointless Post Police) are about).

[bopdude]

In my house there are definately two lighting rings. One for upstairs and one for downstairs. How do i know? Because all of the ceiling roses have been changed and every single one had two power cables and one switch cable which tells me its not a radial circuit. I know its not a legal requirement to have the lights on a ring as it is for sockets but it is best practice.No, you have 2 cicuits 1 up and 1 down or back and front, or whatever :shrug: Your ceiling roses have 2 'power' cable's coz 1 is power in and 1 is power out ( not a ring ) and as for being " best practice " i've never seen or heard of it, and i've been in the trade for 20 odd years.


Bopdude isnt disputing that there are two lightinig circuits. He's saying they are radial which they can be, but often they are in fact a ringAs above :shrug:

Lighting circuits in a domestic property are radial and not a ring circuit.
EDIT : thank you

[iadom]

Memory not what it was, what was the name of the large fuse used in old type domestic installations ? I think it had a girls name a Molly or Betty something :confused:

[Raistlin]

Right then, wish me luck guys.

Just got the "ok" from my mate to go round to his place tonight finish detroying, sorry I mean fixing his lighting circuit :D

I'll let you know how I get on, assuming I live through it that is :LOL:

[bopdude]

Right then, wish me luck guys.

Just got the "ok" from my mate to go round to his place tonight finish detroying, sorry I mean fixing his lighting circuit :D

I'll let you know how I get on, assuming I live through it that is :LOL:Good luck mate, let us know if you get sorted, or even if you don't :tu:

[Raistlin]

Well, I am back.

The deed has been done.

I managed not to end up looking like this :Yikes:

Turning into this :angel:

Or having this happen to me :afire:

I connected the two wires from the suspect switch directly to each other and, when the fuse was put back in, the light fitting came on and the other one was still working. Just to be doubly sure, I connected the non-working light fitting to the side of the dimmer that seemed ok and it worked straight away.

We went out and bought a new dimmer, within 5 minutes it was wired in and working perfectly. Nothing wrong with my wiring after all (I knew that I was perfect :D ).

Sincerest thanks to everybody that has contributed to this thread.

[bopdude]

Well, I am back.

The deed has been done.

I managed not to end up looking like this :Yikes:

Turning into this :angel:

Or having this happen to me :afire:

I connected the two wires from the suspect switch directly to each other and, when the fuse was put back in, the light fitting came on and the other one was still working. Just to be doubly sure, I connected the non-working light fitting to the side of the dimmer that seemed ok and it worked straight away.

We went out and bought a new dimmer, within 5 minutes it was wired in and working perfectly. Nothing wrong with my wiring after all (I knew that I was perfect :D ).

Sincerest thanks to everybody that has contributed to this thread.
Pleased you got sorted out mate :tu:

[bigitup_j]

Well, I am back.

The deed has been done.

I managed not to end up looking like this :Yikes:

Turning into this :angel:

Or having this happen to me :afire:

I connected the two wires from the suspect switch directly to each other and, when the fuse was put back in, the light fitting came on and the other one was still working. Just to be doubly sure, I connected the non-working light fitting to the side of the dimmer that seemed ok and it worked straight away.

We went out and bought a new dimmer, within 5 minutes it was wired in and working perfectly. Nothing wrong with my wiring after all (I knew that I was perfect :D ).

Sincerest thanks to everybody that has contributed to this thread.
well done for getting it all sorted!

why can't people just stick to regular switches :rolleyes: :D :disturbd:
less things to go wrong with them! :)

[iadom]

Memory not what it was, what was the name of the large fuse used in old type domestic installations ? I think it had a girls name a Molly or Betty something :confused:
Anybody... This is starting to bug me because I should know the name of this large, sealed fuse but for the life of me........

[bopdude]

Anybody... This is starting to bug me because I should know the name of this large, sealed fuse but for the life of me........
Sorry mate, missed your first post about this, yeah I know the fuse your on about, the same style as the boards incoming supply fuse, etc etc, can't think of the knick for it..................... might come to me :shrug:

[yesman]

Was it Lucy (http://www.wlucy.co.uk/stlightng.htm) ?

[bopdude]

Was it Lucy (http://www.wlucy.co.uk/stlightng.htm) ?
Don't think so, Dolly keeps coming to mind :shrug:

[iadom]

Was it Lucy (http://www.wlucy.co.uk/stlightng.htm) ?that sounds familiar, I think it was a double barrelled name though, a Lucy ????


and its not Locket.;) and I don't think it was a nickname, it had this name on some of them.

Edit, or was it a ........ Lucy.?

[SMHarman]

Don't think so, Dolly keeps coming to mind :shrug:
Dollys the wheeled thing you move heavy items on.

[bopdude]

Dollys the wheeled thing you move heavy items on.
And there was me thinking of Barbie :rolleyes: :p:

[SMHarman]

And there was me thinking of Barbie :rolleyes: :p:
The thing you cook sausages on? ;)

[andrew_wallasey]

Well said, I'll second that !

Lookl like we'll all need a friendly electrician soon LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4048371.stm)
It is very old practice to wire lights with a JB. It make it much more difficult for fault finding. At least when all the wires are in the ceiling rose you dont have to hunt round for a JB. There should never be more than 3/4 cables at a ceiling rose. You have the two perm. lives (one from previous light on the circuit and one going to the next light on the circuit) and your switch wire (Wire from the light switch to the ceiling rose).

[andrew_wallasey]

In my house there are definately two lighting rings. One for upstairs and one for downstairs. How do i know? Because all of the ceiling roses have been changed and every single one had two power cables and one switch cable which tells me its not a radial circuit. I know its not a legal requirement to have the lights on a ring as it is for sockets but it is best practice.
It's not a legal requirement to have sockets on a ring. You can put sockets on a radial they just require smaller fuses/bigger cables.

I have never in my life wired a lighting circuit as a ring, there is no point. It does not require the amount of power needed by for example "kitchen sockets".

[andrew_wallasey]

Just to point out that, due to changes in building regulations, from 1st Jan 2005, it will almost certainly be illegal for you to do this yourself!

http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/newsitem_sept0704.htm
Well I can certainly say I am not going to follow that rule. I know what im doing with electrics and im not paying someone who doesnt have a clue to come and change a light switch.

[SMHarman]

Just to point out that, due to changes in building regulations, from 1st Jan 2005, it will almost certainly be illegal for you to do this yourself!

http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/newsitem_sept0704.htm
Does that mean it will also be illegal for the DIY sheds to sell this stuff to "(in)competent persons"?

[ian@huth]

It is very old practice to wire lights with a JB. It make it much more difficult for fault finding. At least when all the wires are in the ceiling rose you dont have to hunt round for a JB. There should never be more than 3/4 cables at a ceiling rose. You have the two perm. lives (one from previous light on the circuit and one going to the next light on the circuit) and your switch wire (Wire from the light switch to the ceiling rose).

The problem with taking the cables directly into the ceiling rose is that most installations that I have seen leave virtually no slack in the cables. You are left with very little to work with if you need to alter anything and working above your head is not comfortable. What extra cost would be involved in leaving a decent amount of slack which can be pulled through to make future work easier. There seems to be too much penny pinching involved with putting electrics in to a house with power points being another area where you often see single sockets being used when it would cost not a deal more to have put doubles in.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for electricians to leave a bit of slack in the cables and label each end with details of what was at the other end of the cable.

[Raistlin]

There seems to be too much penny pinching involved with putting electrics in to a house.....
There's a reason for that.

Householder's traditionally want the work done at the cheapest possible price. What's the good of putting 20m of extra cabling into a house only to be told by the customer that they didn't want it, that you must remove it, and that they aren't paying for it.

That said, when we required our kitchen we put in double sockets, more than we needed. We left extra cable for future alterations and we used good quality fixtures and fittings. Basically, it cost a bit more but the job was done right (anyway, we saved a fortune by doing it ourselves so we could afford the luxuries).

[ian@huth]

There's a reason for that.

Householder's traditionally want the work done at the cheapest possible price. What's the good of putting 20m of extra cabling into a house only to be told by the customer that they didn't want it, that you must remove it, and that they aren't paying for it.

That said, when we required our kitchen we put in double sockets, more than we needed. We left extra cable for future alterations and we used good quality fixtures and fittings. Basically, it cost a bit more but the job was done right (anyway, we saved a fortune by doing it ourselves so we could afford the luxuries).

I was thinking more of new house builds where a couple of pounds worth of extra materials shouldn't make sod all difference when buying a new house for several hundred thousand pounds.

[andrew_wallasey]

The problem with taking the cables directly into the ceiling rose is that most installations that I have seen leave virtually no slack in the cables. You are left with very little to work with if you need to alter anything and working above your head is not comfortable. What extra cost would be involved in leaving a decent amount of slack which can be pulled through to make future work easier. There seems to be too much penny pinching involved with putting electrics in to a house with power points being another area where you often see single sockets being used when it would cost not a deal more to have put doubles in.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for electricians to leave a bit of slack in the cables and label each end with details of what was at the other end of the cable.
I always used to leave a meter or so of slack because I know what a pain it is when you are trying to put a fitting up with 2cm left of wire. It is mainly new builds which do that because they can take waste out of your salery in certain circumstances.

[andrew_wallasey]

There's a reason for that.

Householder's traditionally want the work done at the cheapest possible price. What's the good of putting 20m of extra cabling into a house only to be told by the customer that they didn't want it, that you must remove it, and that they aren't paying for it.

That said, when we required our kitchen we put in double sockets, more than we needed. We left extra cable for future alterations and we used good quality fixtures and fittings. Basically, it cost a bit more but the job was done right (anyway, we saved a fortune by doing it ourselves so we could afford the luxuries).
How much is lighting cable though?? I used to get it for about £10 /100m. It is more difficult leaving slack on socket cables because if they are too long, the ring can get pressure faults.

[yesman]

Does that mean it will also be illegal for the DIY sheds to sell this stuff to "(in)competent persons"?
You would have thought so wouldn't you.
But I haven't heard officially of any DIY outlet being prevented selling electrical goods as yet, but, there is a rumour that places like B & Q will be phased out from selling electrical goods in 5 years time, why 5 years I have no idea, I would thought that if this government want to prevent death by electrocution, then bring that in, in January as well.

All electricians who are self employed who wish to continue their trade will have to register to be able to self certify their work, then be overseen that they are capable of doing so, here is a dedicated site about part P for us sparks Link (http://www.partp.co.uk/)

Here is the Part P document issued by the ODPM (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_029960.pdf) it's a PDF file

I have heard that plumbers will be next come the middle of next year, then no doubt it will be the Builders turn, all probably raising a few million quid for the governments coffers, less any outlay they will have by employing more people in all the local building control offices to cope with all the new paperwork.

From my point of view, why should I pay to carry on doing what I have been doing satisfactorily for the past 35 years ? :mad:

Call it another tax if you like, we will all be affected in one way or another at some point.

[yesman]

I found this on another forum, which portrays how most sparkies (including me) feel about this new legislation come January 05.

Apologies if you find it boring.........

Why Was Part P Introduced?

Government ministers have been pressed on this issue time and again, and they hide behind the excuse that it is necessary to combat the loss of life and serious industry that is incurred through cowboy electrical work being carried out. On the face of it that is an excellent justification which we would all wish to support.

However, if you investigate this subject in more depth you discover (using official figures issued on the web site of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) that there are in the region of 40 electrical fatalities per year in the UK. And of those electrical fatalities and major incidents, a significant portion are appliance related - for example consumers who run over the electrical cable when cutting the grass with their mower, or badly fitted plugs on old equipment. Those fatalities will still occur regardless of Part P, it isn't a panacea to stop people acting dangerously when using electrical equipment.

Part P specifically excludes apparatus and appliances which are connected to the electrical supply. The legislation applies only to the electrical infrastructure of the premises - anything plugged into a wall socket doesn't count.

So in actual fact, using the governments own official figures, this legislation is specifically designed to save 4-6 lives per year. And that's all. Furthermore, if the fatalities were properly recorded (for example a fatality involving someone running over their electric lawnmower cable could be recorded as an electrical death and be one of the 4-6 lives) then it is quite possible that the number of actual fatalities each year which Part P is supposed to affect would approach zero.

Like everyone, I welcome the saving of even one life. But just consider for a moment how much money government have invested in getting Part P onto the statute book. The figure runs into many millions of pounds, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that even one life will be saved - in fact after the introduction of Part P it is more than likely that more lives will be lost when homeowners discover that they can no longer afford to have the job done properly by employing a qualified tradesperson. That work will still need to be done, so the hapless have-a-go hero will be forced to try and fix the installation themselves - and keep quiet about it.

And won't that be nice if you move into a property where someone who doesn't know what they are doing has been carving up the electrical installation under the floorboards? That "cowboy" operator might well be the previous homeowner, who might not even have realised that he was breaking the law - he might have sought quotes for the work, found them too high (where they might not have been prior to Part P) and got on and done the job themselves oblivious to the fact that he was working outside the law, and even more importantly lashing together a solution designed to bring lives to a premature end.

My considered response to this legislation is that this money would have been much better spent on improving medical facilities, improving pensions provisions for all, and improving life for everyone. Using taxpayers money to penalise homeowners will not produce the desired results. The number of saveable lives from unsafe electrical works is preciously small, and regardless of Part P it is very likely that at least that number of lives will continue to be lost in the future.

What Does Part P Mean?

In plain English, part P means that work carried out in domestic premises may - depending upon its location and nature - be subject to new rules. In short, any electrical work which is undertaken in a kitchen, bathroom, or in the garden will need to be either undertaken by a certified (note: not simply qualified) electrician who is enabled by government to issue certificates on completion to satisfy these regulations. Or alternatively, once the work has been completed the local authority must be contacted so that they can send round their representative to issue the certificate. It is quite probable that because of the need to service this legislation local councils will have to employ more people, thus your council tax bills will go up in the future.

The homeowner will no longer be able to carry out much of their own electrical work.

What It Means In Practice

Once Part P comes into force the homeowner may be in for a nasty shock - and not of the electrical variety.

Assuming you can find a suitably certified electrical tradesperson it is exceedingly likely that the homeowner will be faced with a very inflated invoice. For example where a simple change of a light fitting might have incurred an invoice for £30, any such change requiring certification will most likely incur an invoice of £200 or more.

There are two possible motivations for that higher cost coming about. Firstly, in order to carry out all of the necessary checks to produce the certificate the electrician will have to invest time and effort, billable on a time and materials basis. Whereas before the electrician would have quickly carried out the safety checks for the installation the new scenario is that he will have to follow a dogmatic process of form-filling to meet Part P requirements. Your electrician will need new skills as an administrator filling in forms. It could easily be the case that the job you employ him for takes 5 minutes to resolve, followed by 2 hours of unproductive testing and form filling. Personally if I employ someone I have expectations that they will do a competent job to the best of their abilities without having government impose dogmatic processes where they have to prove time and again that they are using best practices.

Secondly, one of the main reasons why this legislation was introduced was to stamp out cowboy operators. And yet using part P as an excuse it is entirely possible that cowboy electricians will blossom and inflate their prices to increase their profits. Homeowners will most likely hear excuses like "Sorry mate, it's the regulations you see.....".

Another aspect of this legislation being introduced could well be that the cowboy cash-in-hand operators will cash in on the arrangement - "We'll do that job for cash mate!". There will be no audit trail left behind, no certificates, and if the electrical installation is left unsafe then the homeowner will be liable and unable to pursue the real culprit. Plus the chancellor of the exchequor will not see any tax paid on the cash-in-hand payments (you have discussed this with Mr Brown haven't you Mr Prescott?).

No-one Will Know About This So It Will Be Okay.....

You might think so, but come the time when you sell your house be aware that the buyers solicitor will send you a questionaire, on which will be questions asking if any electrical work has been carried out within the premises during your tenure - and if so please produce the required certification.

You would need to think very hard and carefully about answering that question honestly and truthfully, because if you try to hide the fact and it is discovered years afterwards (and/or a serious electrical incident occurs) then not only will the new homeowners be after you but most probably solicitors acting on behalf of large insurance companies who have carried the risk on the property in the intervening period. You could lose everything you own if such an approach was successful, and all because you answered no on a legally enforcable document thinking it would be okay to tell a small white lie.

And what about the situation where you employ an electrical contractor at high price, and get the certificate. Some years later you decide to move home and you lose the certificate in the intervening period. This isn't like an MOT ( BUT - A PIR IS) where you can obtain a certified copy for a small sum of money - because there are safety issues involved no-one is going to issue you a new certificate without fully testing the installation for compliance first. That's several hundred pounds you will need to find just because you wanted (or had) to move home. And in due course you can bet your bottom dollar that government will see fit to ensure that you provide valid certificates for your home as part of the sellers packs which are being brought into statute against all advice, whether or not you have had any electrical work carried out on the property being sold.

Clearly, no-one can ever be justified in creating an unsafe electrical installation and I would never support such activity. But thanks to Part P you will not be able to sign away your home to someone else and leave the problem behind for someone else to sort out - you will have to sort it out before you sell the house. And if you decide to blag it and not tell the truth then you risk your entire livelihood of you, your family, and any dependents you may have. A highly unlikely scenario but bear it in mind all the same.

And what about another possibly dire situation? You bought the house and then sold it later. Unknown to you the previous owner to you had introduced some bad wiring in the property. The owner after you gets electrocuted - and you get called into the dock to defend yourself because you signed a form to say there was no electrical work undertaken during your tenure. All very well that justice may come to your rescue (and it may not, there are cases where people have been wrongly convicted of an offence), but you could be in for some major disruption to your life whilst this is going on, and you will need to employ your own legal representative to defend you until you are proven innocent. Look forward to saying goodbye to hundreds if not thousands of pounds if this were to happen.

Surely The Tradesman Can Control His Prices?

Yes and no. But consider that in order to satisfy Part P the tradesman will need to do the following:

Undergo an inspection with an approving authority at a one-off cost of about £650.
Incur membership fees to the approving authority at a cost of about £350 a year.
Purchase certificates from the approving authority at a cost of £100 or more per year (previously suitable certificates which did not need to carry the certifying authorities emblem could be purchased from anywhere at much lower cost).

This is on top of test equipment costing over £1,000, and the annual calibration costs of £100 per year.

It is also a fact that the legislation favours big companies and penalises the small players. In order to satisfy the legislation the company only has to have one of its electricians certified, not all of them. And that electrician takes responsibility for signing off the certificates. The company only needs one set of test equipment too. Clearly in a one-man-band operation the only electrician in the company has to shoulder the cost, but in big mega-corporation employing 20 or more electricians the cost is distributed amongst all. This isn't fair by anyones standards.

Take another example. A semi-retired electrician who has served a lifetime in the domestic electrical maintenance industry and who does a few odd jobs for people in order to pick up some beer money. He doesn't earn anything like enough to pay for Part P certification and he's not trying to build an enterprise. Thanks to Part P you can say goodbye to that electrician helping you out with your little jobs, you can instead pay through the nose for another tradesman who has to obey the rules as set by government.

It should be little wonder to the homeowner that the tradesman is not a registered charity, and will need to pass on these inflated costs to the end user.

My Opinion

Nice try Mr Prescott, but no gobstopper. There were far better ways of spending taxpayers money than Part P. For example why not have anyone who is carrying out electrical installation work to have minimum qualifications and experience before offering electrical services? Why not require the tradesman to implement BS7671 practices in all electrical work (BS7671 is only advisory and has been since the outset)? Why all this dogma about the tradesman having to belong to a government-inspired quango designed to drive consumer prices up?

As a side issue, I happen to have obtained my BS7671 certificate by going to college and sitting an examination early in 2003. I know for a fact that at the time I did my C&G2381 course many practicing electricians out there with years of experience did not have that certification. They will have to acquire C&G2381 under Part P, but why on earth tell tradespeople that they can't be trusted to carry out electrical work unless they belong to a quango recognised by government? This is enforced union membership by the back door, and ordinary members of the public (and tradesmen) can be left to wonder whether there might be backhanders being paid by the quango operatives and those who run larger electrical contracting firms who would be delighted to see the small operators squeezed out of business.

If I applied to be a taxi-driver it would be a reasonable expectation that I should hold a clean and valid driving license. If it applied to taxi-driving, Part P would force me to join a motoring organisation such as the AA or RAC (and in cost terms having to join such an organisation at least four times each year). And the AA/RAC would be empowered to carry out checks of my vehicle at least once per year - at my cost. I'm not going there Mr Prescott - the amount of electrical work I do in any one year is relatively small and wouldn't cover the onerous costs of belonging to your quango.


So in future I will be forced to turn away income that your chancellor would have received taxes from. It's no good pretending that the work will go to a larger more expensive outfit on which higher taxes will be paid, as already mentioned it's just as likely that the have-a-go homeowners will be encouraged to do the work themselves, the end result being that no paid work will be undertaken by anyone, representing a nett loss to the UK taxation system. And at the same time introducing the possibility of more fatalities because work will be done by people who do not understand what they are doing nor use safe working practices.

Please don't mis-read these comments. In essence I am fully supportive of any moves which make homes a safer place, and if we can do anything to get rid of the fly-by-night cowboy operators then that's something that will get my full support every time. But what I do not and cannot support is government red tape which has been invented on the back of the proverbial fag packet by bureaucrats who haven't the foggiest clue about what they are legislating for. Those bureaucrats are not asking questions about the material they are working with, and are believing they are doing the right thing to save lives - the opposite is true.

Joined up government strikes again!

If you got this far, you did well !!!!!

[SMHarman]

So in actual fact, using the governments own official figures, this legislation is specifically designed to save 4-6 lives per year. And that's all. Furthermore, if the fatalities were properly recorded (for example a fatality involving someone running over their electric lawnmower cable could be recorded as an electrical death and be one of the 4-6 lives) then it is quite possible that the number of actual fatalities each year which Part P is supposed to affect would approach zero.
<heavily snipped>
... and of course any modern electrical installation will now have RCDs at the CU to help ensure this does not happen.

You sound very much like the electrician I had do the work on my extension. He was effectivly moonlighting, working full time for a major electrical contractor (big buildings, not domestic stuff), but the legislation will mean he won't be doing this anymore.

[yesman]

... and of course any modern electrical installation will now have RCDs at the CU to help ensure this does not happen.
Correct !!!!
But the Regs state that RCD's need only be installed to protect sockets on the ground floor of a domestic installation, as they are also deemed for use outdoors.
I usually put one in regardless.

You sound very much like the electrician I had do the work on my extension. He was effectivly moonlighting, working full time for a major electrical contractor (big buildings, not domestic stuff), but the legislation will mean he won't be doing this anymore

Almost, the difference being I run my own business, so I have to join one of these conforming bodies, but I haven't made up my mind which one yet.

Yes he would have to stop if he follows the rules, but if he carried on, who would know?

And to think I used to oversee other peoples work :rolleyes:

But now I actually install once again, I gotta join :td:

[andrew_wallasey]

Correct !!!!
But the Regs state that RCD's need only be installed to protect sockets on the ground floor of a domestic installation, as they are also deemed for use outdoors.
I usually put one in regardless.



Almost, the difference being I run my own business, so I have to join one of these conforming bodies, but I haven't made up my mind which one yet.

Yes he would have to stop if he follows the rules, but if he carried on, who would know?

And to think I used to oversee other peoples work :rolleyes:

But now I actually install once again, I gotta join :td:
You should not put ring mains which computers are used on, on an RCD. Computers produce quite a lot of power leakage which can cause the RCD to trip off.

[ian@huth]

You should not put ring mains which computers are used on, on an RCD. Computers produce quite a lot of power leakage which can cause the RCD to trip off.

Mine hasn't caused the RCD to trip in over 5 years we have been here and it's tested regularly when the PC is off. :)

The new regs will probably mean insurance companies insisting you get your electrics checked every year or so otherwise they may not pay out a claim resulting from an electrical fault. Either that or they load premiums and give you a discount if your electrics are certified.