[Question] Question regarding single phase electrical wiring of premises

[Howler]

Good day all.

Good to be here and part of this community.

I hope you all can help me in regards to legislation surrounding SANS10142.

I have recently moved into a new property, and after a few weeks noticed a dead short/ sometimes just not working on one of the wall sockets.

I also had to crawl around in the roof, to install new network cables to evenly distribute wifi and network connections between all the devices and my router.

I notices allot of shoddy open connections, with either no junctions boxes (only chocolate block) or connections within junction boxes with no lids/covers or glands protecting the connections from strain.

One of these uncovered metal junction boxes are right next to my geyser (with the geyser being connected with a bunch of ppr pipes)

There is also allot of cabtyre and twinflex wire being used instead of flat twin+ earth.

I contacted and paid for a report and fault-finding exercise from another registered electrician.

But right now, i find myself in the middle of a he said she said, "I didn't install that, show me the regulations back and forth.

Would you guys be so kind as to comment and recommend a course of action. And potentially point out the Sans regulations pertaining to these connections (for or against)

Are these open connections with chocolate block and no junction boxes allowed on Sans 10142, and are the use of these junction boxes only considered "good practise"?

Or are there grounds to contest this COC?

Thx in advance for all the help.

Kind regards

H

[GCE]

The joint in the photo is illegal and the twin flex coming out of the mess will not be suitable rated at 230v besides that fact that there is no earth

If the COC is done by an ECA member you could take it up with ECA alternatively you would need to report through the Department of Labour or contact and employ an AIA do take the case up for you .

Extract from SANS 10142-1 below

6.3.7 Joints and terminations
6.3.7.1 Joints and terminations of cables, cores and conductors shall be
made in accordance with manufacturers' instructions or the appropriate part
of SANS 10198-10 and SANS 10198-11.
Flexible cables shall only be joined using termination boxes, cable couplers or
manufacturers’ jointing kits.
All joints shall be accessible, protected against strain, and protected in
accordance with 5.2.1, except for joints made and sealed permanently and
intended to be maintenance free.

5.2.1 Live parts
It shall not be possible to touch any live part within arm's reach with the
standard test finger (see SANS 60529)
a) during normal operation, or
b) when a cover is removed, unless the cover is removed with the use of a
tool or a key.

[Isetech]

The best advice I can offer is to get a test report done with a list of all the non compliant items.

Contact the estate agent who must have arranged the COC, and go that route

I am busy with another of the 100% fail rate COC's that I deal with, literally on a weeky basis.

The estate agent arranged the COC (by the way as I chat to more electrical contractors, are experiencing the same issue with COC's issued by the person they are using), because they arranged the COC, they have given us the go ahead to repair all the non compliant items (the bill is already more than R20K) and we havent even started testing yet, we are still sorting out the visual non complaint items.

I am going to say it again... THE CURRENT COC AND THE POLICING OF IT IS A SCAM BEING USED BY MANY AS A WAY TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK.

You are wasting your time, just get someone who has your best interest at hear to make it right, or just do what many people now do, hand it to the isurance company and ignore the non compliant items. So long as the insurance company has a copy of the COC, if somethings goes wrong they will pay for the repairs and sue the contractor.

Take the COC with a pinch of salt, its a wate of time and money.

What we do now, if the COC was issued by an ECA member, contact the ECA , they will contact the member and get them to return to site, you then contact a reputable electrical contractor to suspervise the job, to make sure it is done properly. You end up paying for the contractor to watch that they fix it right, but at least by the time the they are finished fighting with each other, over how the regs are interpreted and implimented, you might have a reasonably safe installation. This industry is a f^&* joke.

[Isetech]

By the way looking at that connection, chances are the person who signed the COC was never on site.

I would sotrangly advise you get someone in to check the entire property, you gonan find many many other issues.

If the kitchen was recently upraded, tap the tile and check for all the old fluch boxes and joints which are now inaccessable, it shyte show out there.

[Howler]

the response from a certain Association............that i will not name here. I find this absurd.


Good Day,



We need to distinguish between:

the certification of the existing installation as it stands as not being hazardous, per the CoC, and
how the installations should ideally have been done whenever it was, and best practice and how we would like it done or would do it better today.


The person who did the CoC did it in terms of the first and is not responsible for the latter, unless it transgresses the first.



We would recommend that you firstly determine

the cost of what should have been done in terms of legislation, and
then of what you would like, and
then decide based on that who is responsible for that,
and how to deal with it.


We have found that mostly the cost of legally required corrective action is minimal compared to the cost and trauma of legal action.

That said, personally I would simply fix what needs to be done and if the cost is significant, try recover from previous owner.



Remember that your legal recourse remains with the previous owner in terms of you purchase agreement.

You have no dealings/contract with the person who did the CoC, he worked for the previous owner who appointed and paid him.

He then has to address the electrician in terms of their contract.

[Derlyn]

Just something regarding cabtyre flex.

In previous editions of SANS 10142, the use of flexible cords in an installation was illegal as per the wording of 6.1.11. which stated that "flexible cords shall not be used as part of the electrical installation"

However

In the new SANS 10142 -1 Edition 3.1 the wording has been changed. It now reads "Where flexible cords are used as part of the electrical installation, the selection, installation and colour identification shall be done in accordance with this part of SANS 10142"

So according to the above, cabtyre flex is now permitted as long as the colour coding is adhered to and according to 6.1.12, bootlace crimping ferrules must be used to prevent strands of the conductor being cut off in terminations.

Just a bit of clarity regarding the regs and the use of cabtyre flex.
Hope this helps.

[Howler]

As you can see from the photo, bootlace crimp ferrules was not used.

[Derlyn]

As you can see from the photo, bootlace crimp ferrules was not used.

Correct. Also, most cabtyre has a blue conductor for neutral. This must be changed to black, using either tape or heatshrink. Neutral wires MUST be black.

GCE covered most of your query, but I just thought I'd mention the cabtyre issue as a large proportion of electricians think it's illegal to use on an installation, but according to the latest regs, not so.

Seems as if you got a raw deal.
Some people have no scruples.

[Howler]

Correct. Also, most cabtyre has a blue conductor for neutral. This must be changed to black, using either tape or heatshrink. Neutral wires MUST be black.

GCE covered most of your query, but I just thought I'd mention the cabtyre issue as a large proportion of electricians think it's illegal to use on an installation, but according to the latest regs, not so.

Seems as if you got a raw deal.
Some people have no scruples.

So just to verify

the exposed ends of the neutral that is exposed from the white casing, needs to be marked black (heatshrink or tape) at both ends of the cabtyre?

[GCE]

Just something regarding cabtyre flex.

In previous editions of SANS 10142, the use of flexible cords in an installation was illegal as per the wording of 6.1.11. which stated that "flexible cords shall not be used as part of the electrical installation"

However

In the new SANS 10142 -1 Edition 3.1 the wording has been changed. It now reads "Where flexible cords are used as part of the electrical installation, the selection, installation and colour identification shall be done in accordance with this part of SANS 10142"

So according to the above, cabtyre flex is now permitted as long as the colour coding is adhered to and according to 6.1.12, bootlace crimping ferrules must be used to prevent strands of the conductor being cut off in terminations.

Just a bit of clarity regarding the regs and the use of cabtyre flex.
Hope this helps.

There is twin flex used - which is a definite no - Also no cabtyre under 1sqmm

6.1.11 Where flexible cords are used as part of the electrical installation, the
selection, installation and colour identification (see 6.3.3) shall be done in
accordance with this part of SANS 10142. Flexible cords with cross sectional
area less than 1 mm2 shall not be permitted.
6.1.12 Where flexible cords are used, the strands of the conductors shall be
mechanically protected with ferrules to prevent the strands from being cut off
in terminations.

[Derlyn]

So just to verify

the exposed ends of the neutral that is exposed from the white casing, needs to be marked black (heatshrink or tape) at both ends of the cabtyre?

Yes.

Reg 6.3.3.2 (1) A neutral conductor shall be identified by black only.

[Howler]

Good day Gents.

Herewith the arrogant reply of the offending electrician.

Apologies for the Afrikaans. I would loathe to read this again, nevermind translate this.


I guess i have no option but to report this individual to the ECA , and hope they deal with him accordingly.



-----


Goeie naand Almal,

Dit wil vir my voorkom asof xxxx maar net besig is om ander besig te hou met allerhande verslaggies ens.en dat sy nie werklik weet waaroor sy graag wil kla nie

Ek wil op rekord plaas dat ek n Meester Installasie Elektrisien is en ook n lid van ECASA, dan is ek ook n Elektrotegniese Ingeneur en n lid van Die "Engineering Councill of South Africa.

Dit sal dus nie werk om met boelie tegnieke by my te kom nie, Ek ken die wet asook die elektriese regulasie en SANS 10142-1" en veele ander SANS regulasies.
Hoekom noem jy nie die hoog geplaaste van ECSA se naam nie, dan kommunikeer ek sommer direk met hom

Julle moet net onthou dat jy nie net na een of twee paragrawe in die regulasies kan kyk nie.

Ek heg graag n paar regulasie aan, en as iemand n teenstelling het laat hom of haar hulself identifiseer, met hul kwalifikasies want ons is nou besig om te reageer oor dinge wat sy gehoor het. Jy kan nie in n hof gaan staan met dinge wat jy gehoor het nie, en dan wil maak asof dit feite is nie

Ek wil ook se dat toe xxxxx my eendag geskakel het het hy sommer begin deur te vertel dat hy nie weet met wie hy praat nie, hy het my ook sommer drek aangeval soos jy nou maak en daarom stel ek nie belang in jul stories nie

Daar staan nerens in die regulasie dat n afskrif van die oorspronklike COC saam met my COC ingedien moet word nie, slegs die nommer en datum van oorspronklike COC moet ingevul word, ek het die COC gesien en is seker dat Marelise vir jou n afskrif sal gee om jou te pamperlang

Marelise tree op as n professioneele Prokureer en met enige elektrisiteits raad adviseer ek haar in my hoedanigheid as n elektriese ingeneur en kan jy glad nie iemand dwing om te doen wat nie nodig is om te doen nie.

Ek stel voor as jy nog nie tevrede is nie, om my hof toe te neem.

Ek gaan jou ook nie verder akkommodeer met allerhande eposte van jou af nie en ook geen meer korrespondensie van my af nie.
Ek het geteken dat "I deem the installation to be reasonably safe when properly used

en ek staan daarby.

Beste groete,

kb

[Isetech]

Anyone looking to buy a property, read this carefully, this is why I keep telling my customers to have the installation checked prior to signing the transfer document, once you sign that document, you are on your own.

the response from a certain Association............that i will not name here. I find this absurd.


Good Day,



We need to distinguish between:

the certification of the existing installation as it stands as not being hazardous, per the CoC, and
how the installations should ideally have been done whenever it was, and best practice and how we would like it done or would do it better today.


The person who did the CoC did it in terms of the first and is not responsible for the latter, unless it transgresses the first.



We would recommend that you firstly determine

the cost of what should have been done in terms of legislation, and
then of what you would like, and
then decide based on that who is responsible for that,
and how to deal with it.


We have found that mostly the cost of legally required corrective action is minimal compared to the cost and trauma of legal action.

That said, personally I would simply fix what needs to be done and if the cost is significant, try recover from previous owner.



Remember that your legal recourse remains with the previous owner in terms of you purchase agreement.

You have no dealings/contract with the person who did the CoC, he worked for the previous owner who appointed and paid him.

He then has to address the electrician in terms of their contract.

[Derlyn]

Well, one thing is clear. He is not interested in making good.

One would have expected a more professional approach from someone with his qualifications and membership of the organizations he refers to.

With your photographic evidence and a copy of the interaction you have had with members of this forum, who are all suitably qualified to voice their opinion, you should get some form of assistance from the ECA, but bare in mind that all organizations, irrespective of which one, have their members best interests at heart, so it won't be a walk in the park.

It might just be worth your while to get someone else to rectify the faults, issue a valid COC, so that you have the peace of heart you need.

Good luck.

[Dave A]

Daar staan nerens in die regulasie dat n afskrif van die oorspronklike COC saam met my COC ingedien moet word nie, slegs die nommer en datum van oorspronklike COC moet ingevul word

Which wasn't done in the COC shown earlier

I guess i have no option but to report this individual to the ECA , and hope they deal with him accordingly.

Please do. Based on what you sent me, "kb" will need to get off his high horse, climb a ladder to get into the roof void, and start apologising...