nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

House Rewire - DIY first-fix?

GreeBo

Hey,

what are the options/implications of doing a DIY rewire but only up to first-fox/running the wires?

I need to get a new DB but also the house would benefit from a rewire.
However I cant get anyone to even quote for it as running the cables will be awkward (lots of chasing, tiles etc, existing sockets on skirting boards)

So, is it permissible/advisable/a thing to run the wires myself and then have a RECI do the second fix?

Assuming it would pass certification, are there any issues with this approach?

Cheers!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

2011

17larsson wrote: »

It's just low voltage circuits isn't it? I don't think there's any law against extra low voltage cables (TV, data etc.)

That’s what I would have thought but when I look at it the legislation does not differentiate.

disposableFish

2011 wrote: »

That’s what I would have thought but when I look at it the legislation does not differentiate.

It's open to interpretation really.

EHP wrote: »

the installation, commissioning, inspection and testing of a new Electrical Installation which is fixed, fastened or mounted or otherwise secured so that its position does not change and requires connection or re-connection to the distribution network or the transmission network,

A phone wire for instance would be seem to be clearly exempt as it has no "connection to the distribution network".

After that it depends on the precise meaning of "connection". In a sense anything that's plugged in is connected to the distribution network. Another interpretation is that something would only form part of a connection to the distribution network if it form part of a circuit - I think this is more likely. The explicit mention of a circuit in the subsequent paragraph helps set parameters here.

From a more legally point of view, it would be up to a judge to interpret; they'd be open to interpret it however they like and are likely to place more emphasis on the intent on the SI than specific words used. They'd look at a strict definition as being unreasonable as it's clearly not the intent to prevent a non-rec pinning a ethernet cable to skirting-board or plugging in an integrated dishwasher.

Looking at from the bottom up, we can use a few of the accepted rules a guidance. Take attaching something to a spur - permitted by a non-rec so we could take from this that what's downstream from the FCU isn't what the laws want to deal with.

2011

EHP wrote: »

See below definition of restricted works as per Safe Electric. Might help or make it more confusing. Ethernet cables, TV cables etc do not fall under these rules as they are not wired to the distribution network.

Definition of Restricted Electrical Works

As set out in Statutory Instruments, S.I. No. 264 of 2013, Restricted Electrical Works are:

the installation, commissioning, inspection and testing of a new Electrical Installation which is fixed, fastened or mounted or otherwise secured so that its position does not change and requires connection or re-connection to the distribution network or the transmission network, as the case may be;
the modification, installation or replacement of a Distribution Board including customer tails on either side of the Main Protective Device or of an Electrical Installation in any of the special locations listed in Part 7 of the National Rules for Electrical Installations, as the case may be;
the installation or replacement of one or more circuits in an Electrical Installation, including the installation of one or more additional protective devices for such circuits on a Distribution Board; or
the inspection, testing or certification of, or reporting on, existing Electrical Installations covered by Chapter 62 of the National Rules for Electrical Installations;
in a Domestic Property.

^^^ This

disposableFish

2011 wrote: »

^^^ This

So...we all agree then?

2011

disposableFish wrote: »

So...we all agree then?

.

I will take EHP’s word for it that the above is the exact text which makes it clear that first fixing of LV cabling is not permitted with the exception of minor works.
So, yes.

Steve

2011 wrote: »

In summary if you want to do electricians work become an electrician.

Everything you have said so far in this thread I agree with, except this.

You know as well as I do that it's not enough to simply 'become an electrician'.

Yes, you can become an electrician, first day out, still wet behind the ears, and dumb as a rusty nail, can do an abysmal job on someones home provided you have paid the REC tax, and it's all grand..

Someone - like you and I - from an industrial background, who actually understand what risks and calculations and have many years experiences of what the consequences of shoddy workmanship and lack of understanding means.

I'm not knocking REC (not much anyway) as there is a need for regulation, I'm just saying the whole setup is flawed.

If a 3rd party installs a cable from A to B and it passes a continuity and IR test on a calibrated meter then there is absolutely no reason I can see that it should not be certifiable.

2011

Steve wrote: »

If a 3rd party installs a cable from A to B and it passes a continuity and IR test on a calibrated meter then there is absolutely no reason I can see that it should not be certifiable.

There are many, many things that could be wrong with the cable that would pass an IR or continuity test for example:
1) Exposed live conductor (at one or more point on the cable)
2) Dodgy joint on the cable, this often will not show up when resistance is measured.
3) Damage to cables due to the way they are pulled through joists.
4) No voltage segregation.
5) Cables not suited to ambient conditions (heat, sunlight etc...)
6) Joints not suitable for ambient conditions (ingress of moisture)
7) Incorrect cable sizes or types used.
8) Has conduit even been used on embedded cables?
9) Are chases diagonal?

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

There are many, many things that could be wrong with the cable that would pass an IR or continuity test for example:
1) Exposed live conductor (at one or more point on the cable)
2) Dodgy joint on the cable, this often will not show up when resistance is measured.
3) Damage to cables due to the way they are pulled through joists.
4) No voltage segregation.
5) Cables not suited to ambient conditions (heat, sunlight etc...)
6) Joints not suitable for ambient conditions (ingress of moisture)
7) Incorrect cable sizes or types used.
8) Has conduit even been used on embedded cables?
9) Are chases diagonal?

How could you test a circuit without knowing if the cable was suitable to the conditions or the correct gauge or type?

GreeBo

disposableFish wrote: »

It's open to interpretation really.

A phone wire for instance would be seem to be clearly exempt as it has no "connection to the distribution network".

After that it depends on the precise meaning of "connection". In a sense anything that's plugged in is connected to the distribution network. Another interpretation is that something would only form part of a connection to the distribution network if it form part of a circuit - I think this is more likely. The explicit mention of a circuit in the subsequent paragraph helps set parameters here.

From a more legally point of view, it would be up to a judge to interpret; they'd be open to interpret it however they like and are likely to place more emphasis on the intent on the SI than specific words used. They'd look at a strict definition as being unreasonable as it's clearly not the intent to prevent a non-rec pinning a ethernet cable to skirting-board or plugging in an integrated dishwasher.

Looking at from the bottom up, we can use a few of the accepted rules a guidance. Take attaching something to a spur - permitted by a non-rec so we could take from this that what's downstream from the FCU isn't what the laws want to deal with.

It also implies that a non REC can add 5 spurs to a circuit or a spur to a spur... as, since I'm an ignorant non REC how would i know its a spur off a spur or already has spurs?

2011

GreeBo wrote: »

How could you test a circuit without knowing if the cable was suitable to the conditions or the correct gauge or type?

That is easy once you know what you are doing.
Generally:
Set the meter to the correct test setting, apply the test leads, press the button, take the reading, compare this to the pass fail criteria and then record the results.

Steve

Just playing Devil's advocate here.

2011 wrote: »

There are many, many things that could be wrong with the cable that would pass an IR or continuity test for example:
1) Exposed live conductor (at one or more point on the cable)

How does being a REC reduce the risk of this?

2) Dodgy joint on the cable, this often will not show up when resistance is measured.

In my scenario (and the OP's) there are no joints. It's a first fix.

3) Damage to cables due to the way they are pulled through joists.

Again, how does being a REC reduce this risk? I've seen damage to cables in certified installations due to shoddy workmanship.

4) No voltage segregation.

Please elaborate in terms of a domestic first fix.
5) Cables not suited to ambient conditions (heat, sunlight etc...)
[/QUOTE]
Again, it's a first fix, this would be obvious on visual inspection.

6) Joints not suitable for ambient conditions (ingress of moisture)

Again first fix = no joints.

7) Incorrect cable sizes or types used.

Easy to determine on first fix as no cable is terminated anywhere.

8) Has conduit even been used on embedded cables?

Is this a rule for domestic? Genuine question.

9) Are chases diagonal?

Again visual.

If any circuit passes an earth loop impedance test and an insulation resistance test is it not deemed safe by current standards? If the test is not definitive then what use is it?
Again, I've seen RECs look at at megger readings with blank faces not knowing what they mean.

Risteard81

Testing supplements inspection. It doesn't replace it, and inspection is the more important of the two.

Steve

Risteard81 wrote: »

Testing supplements inspection. It doesn't replace it, and inspection is the more important of the two.

Not disagreeing at all with that.

In reality tho, what's the difference between a REC inspecting what his non competent apprentice has done and certifying it and what a competent 3rd party has done?

(obvious issues of legal liability aside)

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

That is easy once you know what you are doing.
Generally:
Set the meter to the correct test setting, apply the test leads, press the button, take the reading, compare this to the pass fail criteria and then record the results.

O.k. I'll play along... apply the test leads to what?

2011

Steve wrote: »

Just playing Devil's advocate here.

How does being a REC reduce the risk of this?

He installs the cables himself.

Have a look at some of the stuff that happens out there.

In my scenario (and the OP's) there are no joints. It's a first fix.

That should be the case, but the OP is asking that a REC has to trust that he has no joins anywhere on the cables and take ownership of them. This may not be the case which is part of the reason that a REC is not permitted to certify someone else's work.

Again, how does being a REC reduce this risk? I've seen damage to cables in certified installations due to shoddy workmanship.
Please elaborate in terms of a domestic first fix.

Yup, so have I. Again the REC installs the cables himself so as to ensure that this does not occur. The person that will legally be held responsible for the installation tends to be more diligent than a person who has little or no training / understanding.

Increasingly houses have RSJs installed that cables must pass through. I have burnt out many drill bits drilling through these. This was a lot of work for me, my expensive Hilti drill and my abundant supply of new drill bits. The untrained tend to do a lot of damage to cables pulling them through these (sharp edges, too many cables through one hole etc...). Due to the fact that armatures use DIY tools hole drilling is something they tend to minimize to the point that cables suffer.

Again, it's a first fix, this would be obvious on visual inspection.

Again first fix = no joints.

Should be no joints but untrained DIYer's have been known to do some mad sh!t.
Admittedly some sparks have done some horrific stuff too, but at least if they first fix and second fix it is very clear where the blame lies.

Easy to determine on first fix as no cable is terminated anywhere.

Really, how?

Is this a rule for domestic? Genuine question.

Absolutely. You are not permitted to plaster directly onto cables.

Again visual.

Not possible without x-ray equipment

If any circuit passes an earth loop impedance test and an insulation resistance test is it not deemed safe by current standards? If the test is not definitive then what use is it?

No. Visual inspection during installation is required. These tests will not shown everything up. The IR test for example will only test the integrity of the insulation between cores, it will not show that a conductor is exposed at a point. EFLI will not show a poor quality join that will only deteriorate under high load conditions.

Also IR tests and EFLI (more so) tests are only done after second fix. What happens if these cables fail tests? Will the sparks blame the DIYer? Will the DIYer blame the sparks and due to this decide not to pay the sparks?

Again, I've seen RECs look at at megger readings with blank faces not knowing what they mean.

Some RECs are far from perfect, I agree 100%. Many electricians can not test at all, some can only do "metalwork".

However the law whether you or I agree with it is that RECs are not allowed to get anyone else to first fix an installation for them (see EHP's post above) even if they are experienced electricians. Let us not forget that this was not permitted long before "Restricted Works" existed.

Personally I think there is lots of donkey work a DIYer can do to reduce the cost as I have detailed in this thread already.

With very few exceptions a REC must do the electrical work that he certifies from start to finish. That way he / she takes complete ownership and no 3rd party can be blamed.

Although I have lots of issues with what we have in place at present I think it is unreasonable to allow a situation develop where RECs are forced in leaner times to finish work that has been started by unskilled / untrained workers (which is where it will end up). This will become a race to the bottom.

2011

GreeBo wrote: »

O.k. I'll play along... apply the test leads to what?

The cables. What is your point?

listermint

It's quite evident there's is a mountain load of interpretation and a clear understanding that the definitions are vague as f. Their sole purpose to generate enough fear to enforce regulation rather than actually enforce them by clear instruction.

Their only intention being to drive money to REC rather than make regulation water tight.

2011

listermint wrote: »

It's quite evident there's is a mountain load of interpretation and a clear understanding that the definitions are vague as f. Their sole purpose to generate enough fear to enforce regulation rather than actually enforce them by clear instruction.

Their only intention being to drive money to REC rather than make regulation water tight.

Many would share that view, however allowing anyone to first fix (which will be of varying standards) for electricians is a slippery slope to chaos. This was not permitted long before the Restricted Works was in place.

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

The cables. What is your point?

The point is how on earth (har har) would the REC not notice that the cables are the wrong gauge, type, whatever if they are attaching bloody leads to them?

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

He installs the cables himself.

Wait, I thought earlier the apprentice was mostly doing this work.
So the REC can check what the apprentice has done, but for some reason cant check what Joe Public has done? #confused

2011 wrote: »

Should be no joints but untrained DIYer's have been known to do some mad sh!t.
Admittedly some sparks have done some horrific stuff too, but at least if they first fix and second fix it is very clear where the blame lies.

How does having someone to blame help if a house burns down?

2011 wrote: »

No. Visual inspection during installation is required.

As above, so just inspect what was installed by your unpaid apprentice (i.e. me)

2011 wrote: »

Although I have lots of issues with what we have in place at present I think it is unreasonable to allow a situation develop where RECs are forced in leaner times to finish work that has been started by unskilled / untrained workers (which is where it will end up). This will become a race to the bottom.

RECs are already working on systems that were started, modified, guntered by unskilled/untrained workers....i.e. the majority of the second hand house market for the last 150 years.
If the goal of the regulations is to improve safety (which it seems to be) then why distinguish between work done before vs after the regulations?

If its unsafe then it surely shouldnt matter when or who installed it?

2011

GreeBo wrote: »

Wait, I thought earlier the apprentice was mostly doing this work.

You are being pedantic. Yes insured apprentices under supervision can install cables or assist with this task.

You do know that I do not decide what is permitted?

]So the REC can check what the apprentice has done, but for some reason cant check what Joe Public has done? #confused

Correct. Because to do this the REC must be present during the install so that this can carefully supervised. This is important because the REC is expected to take ownership of any and all cabling issues. In the event that there are issues it is highly likely that fixing them will be difficult and expensive.

How does having someone to blame help if a house burns down?

Insurance. Maybe you want a replacement home and can't afford one if there is no insurance payout?
The most important point is that an installation is less likely to burn down in the first place if wired from start to finish by a trained professional.

As above, so just inspect what was installed by your unpaid apprentice (i.e. me)

Can't be done unless you are directly supervised, good luck finding a REC that is prepared to do this. Will you be insured?
Why not stick to doing the chases, lifting floorboards, drilling holes, clearing the house to save money?

RECs are already working on systems that were started, modified, guntered by unskilled/untrained workers....i.e. the majority of the second hand house market for the last 150 years.

Very true. This is why you should read the certs they provide you for this very carefully to see exactly what parts of the installation they are taking responsibility for.

If the goal of the regulations is to improve safety (which it seems to be) then why distinguish between work done before vs after the regulations?

As I have stated many times I don't think that is the primary aim of restricted works.

If its unsafe then it surely shouldnt matter when or who installed it?

Agreed, but you are missing my point. You want a REC to be responsible for work that you have had a hand in. That is not only illegal it is not acceptable.

As I have pointed out this is the slippery slope to anyone at all being permitted to entirely first fix any installation regardless of how proficient they are or how much they care about regulations / safety. Can you honestly say you see no risk in this? If there is an issue who is to blame? This can end in a REC through no fault of his own not getting paid. This will also lead to minimum wage people wiring complex installations. Is this where we should be going?

Risteard81

Regarding the Apprentice/employee issue, GreeBo doesn't appear to understand that a REC is a company and not an individual. Employees of a company are legally under the supervision of the company (and covered by their insurance etc.). This is vastly different to taking on some randomer's efforts.

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

You are being pedantic. Yes insured apprentices under supervision can install cables or assist with this task.

Not being pedantic at all, just pointing out an apparent inconsistency.

2011 wrote: »

Correct. Because to do this the REC must be present during the install so that this can carefully supervised. This is important because the REC is expected to take ownership of any and all cabling issues. In the event that there are issues it is highly likely that fixing them will be difficult and expensive.

Hmm it appears 2011 doesnt understand that a REC is a company not an individual!
So are you honestly telling me that the electrician is watching every step of what the apprentice does as they do it? Coz if you are I dont believe you I'm afraid.

2011 wrote: »

Insurance. Maybe you want a replacement home and can't afford one if there is no insurance payout?

Insurance is no use to you if you are dead. In your mind are the regulations in place for safety or to have someone to blame?

2011 wrote: »

The most important point is that an installation is less likely to burn down in the first place if wired from start to finish by a trained professional.

Indeed, but that is not the case for 99% of existing houses in the country, so its pretty much a moot point.

2011 wrote: »

Can't be done unless you are directly supervised, good luck finding a REC that is prepared to do this. Will you be insured?
Why not stick to doing the chases, lifting floorboards, drilling holes, clearing the house to save money?

I think they could inspect what I pulled just as well as they could inspect what an apprentice pulled?
Insurance is an unrelated matter to the safety of the install.
Doing the chases/pass throughs, etc without actually pulling the cables seems a little pointless to me, until you actually start pulling the cable you dont know exactly what you need to expose.

2011 wrote: »

As I have stated many times I don't think that is the primary aim of restricted works.

So what do you think the primary aim is? (Genuine question)

2011 wrote: »

Agreed, but you are missing my point. You want a REC to be responsible for work that you have had a hand in. That is not only illegal it is not acceptable.

Not really, I want them to be as responsible as they would be if they were using the existing cables.

2011 wrote: »

As I have pointed out this is the slippery slope to anyone at all being permitted to entirely first fix any installation regardless of how proficient they are or how much they care about regulations / safety. Can you honestly say you see no risk in this? If there is an issue who is to blame? This can end in a REC through no fault of his own not getting paid. This will also lead to minimum wage people wiring complex installations. Is this where we should be going?

I guess I dont see the point in a system where it completely ignores existing installations....sure it has insurance and blame implications, but, for my reading of the regs, the are supposed to be for safety reasons. It would be far safer for my house to use new, compliant TWE that I run than the existing, crappy, undersized, in some cases perishing, red/black thats there today.

2011

GreeBo wrote: »

The point is how on earth (har har) would the REC not notice that the cables are the wrong gauge, type, whatever if they are attaching bloody leads to them?

Because they only see the ends of the cables, not the entire length. Both ends could be 10 mm sq. and the intermediate parts could be 1.5mm.

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

Because they only see the ends of the cables, not the entire length. Both ends could be 10 mm sq. and the intermediate parts could be 1.5mm.

tbf I think you are now straying into Dallas territory.

Sure the tiler could nip in and add a section of flex to the shower cables pulled by the sparks himself also.

Risteard81

The cable could be substantially damaged but this not be visible when it's concealed. This is why verification is to take place DURING ERECTION and on completion.

I really don't understand why this is still being discussed. You can't do what you were suggesting. Full stop. End of story. If you do then you will be guilty of a crime.

2011

GreeBo wrote: »

Not being pedantic at all, just pointing out an apparent inconsistency.

I believe I answered that.

Hmm it appears 2011 doesnt understand that a REC is a company not an individual!

Please keep it civil. I was a REC many years ago so I know how it works.

So are you honestly telling me that the electrician is watching every step of what the apprentice does as they do it? Coz if you are I dont believe you I'm afraid.

A good REC should watch a new apprentice like a hawk. Over time the supervision can ease off as trust builds and experience is gained. It is a gradual process. This is very different from trusting a randomer instantly and fully.

Insurance is no use to you if you are dead.

1) Not every fire results in the death of the homeowner.
2) Insurance is still important to others.

In your mind are the regulations in place for safety or to have someone to blame?

It can be both in addition to many other reasons.

Indeed, but that is not the case for 99% of existing houses in the country, so its pretty much a moot point.

Unless you are thy one percent. If we follow your logic why bother with insurance at all?

I think they could inspect what I pulled just as well as they could inspect what an apprentice pulled?

That is due to your lack of understanding.

Insurance is an unrelated matter to the safety of the install.

Yes, but it is also an important point that you have no answer for.

Doing the chases/pass throughs, etc without actually pulling the cables seems a little pointless to me, until you actually start pulling the cable you dont know exactly what you need to expose.

Again this is due to your lack of experience. You could ask the REC for guidance.

So what do you think the primary aim is? (Genuine question)

Tax revenue.

Not really, I want them to be as responsible as they would be if they were using the existing cables.

That’s unfortunate because that does not align with reality.

I guess I dont see the point in a system where it completely ignores existing installations

It doesn’t. It’s a completely different inferior inspection and certification process than that for a new installation. This is the point you seem unable to grasp.

GreeBo

2011 wrote: »

Please keep it civil. I was a REC many years ago so I know how it works.

Thats a direct quote from what Risteard81 posted to me and you thanked.
Civility works both ways!

2011 wrote: »

1) Not every fire results in the death of the homeowner.

Thats seriously your answer? "not everyone dies"?

2011 wrote: »

That is due to your lack of understanding.

Well no one has adequately explained to me (or the others who have posted the same question) as to how a cable I installed cannot be checked but one an apprentice pulled can be.

2011 wrote: »

Yes, but it is also an important point that you have no answer for.

I do have an answer. Insurance will be the exact same as if the REC used the existing wire on my house.

2011 wrote: »

Again this is due to your lack of experience. You could ask the REC for guidance.

No one is going to be able to give 100% guidance on chasing wires until they are actually chasing the wires, which was exactly my point.

2011 wrote: »

Tax revenue.

By pushing more work through REC's?

2011 wrote: »

It doesn’t. It’s a completely different inferior inspection and certification process than that for a new installation. This is the point you seem unable to grasp.

I grasp it 100%. You seem to be failing or ignoring the point that the overwhelming majority of houses in Ireland are in this state and are relying on this inferior inspection and certification process. Or at best dont have a answer for it other than "insurance"

GreeBo

Risteard81 wrote: »

The cable could be substantially damaged but this not be visible when it's concealed. This is why verification is to take place DURING ERECTION and on completion.

When is it concealed?
Again are you stating that the sparks is watching every inch of cable being pulled by the apprentice?

Risteard81 wrote: »

I really don't understand why this is still being discussed.

Why bother posting so?

Risteard81

GreeBo wrote: »

Why bother posting so?

I'm just trying to keep you out of Portlaoise.