C3s putting you in harms way ??

[Dartlec]

Time will tell what code lack of AFDDs will be in 5 years time, only 99.99999% of properties affected by that one....some very unhappy landlords who were overcharged for a dual RCD board this time round no doubt...

 

[Dartlec]

I had a great one for remedials recently.
C1 for lack of RCD protection
C1 for plastic CU.
C2 for lack of two colours sticker
C2 for lack of last inspection sticker ?!
C2 for lack of RCD test sticker
C2 for cables inadequately supported

Apparently a quote of £1200 for a new RCBO board and "other urgent safety-critical repairs" though I didn't see this for myself.

So I slapped 3 stickers on, including one the inspector should have put on himself, knocked in 3 cable clips, then looked at the RCD issue.
It was a split load board and 4 of the 5 circuits on the non-RCD side had RCBOs. So only one B6 in the whole board was not RCD protected and it's sole purpose in life was supplying the light in the cupboard where the CU and meter was. And that got a C1! Needless to say I didn't change the board.

Not even AFDDs should get to £1200 for a new board unless it's ludicrously large!

 

[Soi disant]

I had a great one for remedials recently.
C1 for lack of RCD protection
C1 for plastic CU.
C2 for lack of two colours sticker
C2 for lack of last inspection sticker ?!
C2 for lack of RCD test sticker
C2 for cables inadequately supported

Apparently a quote of £1200 for a new RCBO board and "other urgent safety-critical repairs" though I didn't see this for myself.

So I slapped 3 stickers on, including one the inspector should have put on himself, knocked in 3 cable clips, then looked at the RCD issue.
It was a split load board and 4 of the 5 circuits on the non-RCD side had RCBOs. So only one B6 in the whole board was not RCD protected and it's sole purpose in life was supplying the light in the cupboard where the CU and meter was. And that got a C1! Needless to say I didn't change the board.

The guy who did that should be :

a) ejected from his scheme
b) charged with fraud.

 

[Lister1987]

Maybe they got the information required between doing the test sheet and completing the front page? ?

They didn't even do that right, I'm on a TN-C apparently ?

 

[LastManOnline]

And sadly, the way the world is heading I have to agree with him, trying to be honest and doing the right thing is just giving more leverage to a lawyer if god forbid it ever got that far

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

What was it about the concrete that caused the damage mate?

 

[Dartlec]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

Unfortunately price of insurance seems to be no guarantee that they'll be any good when you need them - and the only way to find out is to need them, which isn't ideal!

Besides which, trying to work out who is actually doing the underwriting is often not simple and turns out to be the same very few names in any case...

I guess at least you get someone saying you weren't negligent! Sounds like the builder's insurance should be stepping in, but no doubt they'll claim it's an 'electrical issue...' etc...

 

[LastManOnline]

What was it about the concrete that caused the damage mate?

They put a retardent in it. Retardent was acidic. This was during the building boom in the noughties. Concrete was delivered on site hours before the brickies arrived due to demand. Issues resulting from the retardent now manifesting

 

[LastManOnline]

I guess at least you get someone saying you weren't negligent! Sounds like the builder's insurance should be stepping in, but no doubt they'll claim it's an 'electrical issue...' etc...

Yes. Its a "cu de sac" basically. Builder long gone anyway. But when you consider the pages and pages of stuff you receive on paying for public liability it would be really nice if someone told you upfront what you can realistically expect to happen in the event of a claim. I am disappointed but can't say I, m totally surprised. Yes, it cost me a night or two, s sleep but I am determined to draw a, line in the sand and not allow it fester. I, m stung but not bankrupted. Am grateful for that

 

[Welchyboy1]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

You say it’s a claim on your prof. Indemnity ins was the matter over an eicr you carried out I take it, or with cabling that you personally installed?