Interesting videos from Bundy

[nicebutdim]

Watched these two videos over the last few days.

Nick Bundy's mother in law had her bathroom remodelled and called him in when the lights went out.

Pt1

 

[LukeD]

Tell NICEIC that the contractor was using their logo and they will be up in court in double quick time. Tell ANY of the schemes about iffy workmanship and they will really not have much to say.
It isn't even in their remit to police anything.
Trading standards ? Possibly IF you could get a bored inspector who might know a regulation or 2 about electrical installations. But even in this case and it IS bad, What was the outcome? What damage was done? What "law" would they get dragged to court based upon?
Building control? They will just go after the householder for employing someone to do work in a notifiable location and for failing to notify.
It's not an offence to be a pretend electrician nor is it an offence to be rubbish at it...

100% so true ...

 

[mainline]

Do you know that he hadn't already told her, because nothing in that video suggests either that he had or hadn't?

Regardless of the hypothetical musings about unknown conversations within the family, someone felt there was no need to concern themselves with such matters, plough on regardless and then lie about using ELV lighting.

Had the board already been upgraded the result would still have been a sh*t show, albeit one with RCD protection to cover work in that special location.

You say no relevance to the work but mr bundy has now taken responsibility for the work by making alterations while pointing out that there is no rcd protection

 

[mainline]

I have never seen my mother in laws fuse box and would not even think about asking to see it if she asked me to change a light bulb.
I too fail to see the relevance

How about if she asked you to put right some iffy electrical work in the bathroom where there is no rcd protection

 

[nicebutdim]

You say no relevance to the work but mr bundy has now taken responsibility for the work by making alterations while pointing out that there is no rcd protection

Take that up with Nick Bundy, if indeed he hasn't provided RCD protection (I've no idea if that's the case).

It still has no bearing on the mess left by the bathroom fitters and anyway what evidence is there that he carried out any work in the bathroom - it's not as though he filmed himself doing so and posted it on youtube.

 

[LukeD]

You say no relevance to the work but mr bundy has now taken responsibility for the work by making alterations while pointing out that there is no rcd protection

if so...thats an issue

 

[nicebutdim]

if so...thats an issue

I'd say you'd have a good defence if rectifying dangerous work as an emergency, leaving the installation safer than it was found and then returning at the earliest possibility to carry out other required remedial work.

Would you argue that it's better to walk away and leave a potentially dangerous situation?

 

[LukeD]

I'd say you'd have a good defence if rectifying dangerous work as an emergency, leaving the installation safer than it was found and then returning at the earliest possibility to carry out other required remedial work.

Would you argue that it's better to walk away and leave a potentially dangerous situation?

Interesting....If in this situation the Mother has another bathroom etc etc . I would be tempted to say "use the other one" until its all ok. But In reality , yes you make sense, yet in the silly world of Electrics , NEICIC . Building control and all the other stuff. Would not want to be in court over it !

 

[mainline]

plough on regardless and then lie about using ELV lighting.

He didn't say ELV he said LV.

 

[mainline]

I'd say you'd have a good defence if rectifying dangerous work as an emergency, leaving the installation safer than it was found and then returning at the earliest possibility to carry out other required remedial work.

Would you argue that it's better to walk away and leave a potentially dangerous situation?

If he thought that the situation was dangerous, then he should have disconnected the circuit.

 

[nicebutdim]

He didn't say ELV he said LV.

He was a bathroom fitter, whose comment was related by a 3rd party, defending the fitting of lights in a special location which lacked RCD protection. While you might consider him correct in stating they were LV, I think most people know exactly what was meant.

 

[James]

If he thought that the situation was dangerous, then he should have disconnected the circuit.

he left it safer than when he started and in my opinion, no less safe than it had been for the est. 30 years previous to the bathroom work.
in his situation with time limitations, I would have done the same if it was a member of my family.

the only thing i may well have done would be to do an earth loop test using the case of the mirror as earth to check for a good earth connection to it as the terminals were not accessible. for all we know, he may have done that but not videoed it.

edit,
I don't recall him stating that it was dangerous (I could be wrong) he did point out it was a poor quality job and there were many things wrong with it from a standards point of view. most of the issues were correctly rectified in my opinion. the only thing left is for rcd protection at a later date.

 

[nicebutdim]

If he thought that the situation was dangerous, then he should have disconnected the circuit.

Is that what you would do and leave someone without lights in a bathroom? Seems a rather irresponsible thing to do, especially in a room containing essential services for a lady of a certain age.

 

[mainline]

Is that what you would do and leave someone without lights in a bathroom? Seems a rather irresponsible thing to do, especially in a room containing essential services for a lady of a certain age.

Try calling NICEIC and say ive just made alterations to a bathroom, but it has no RCD is it OK to leave it for a week as is as i have to go on holiday.

What do you think they would say ?

 

[mainline]

Is that what you would do and leave someone without lights in a bathroom? Seems a rather irresponsible thing to do, especially in a room containing essential services for a lady of a certain age.

There is no argument he's altered a lighting circuit and left it non-compliant.

In the time it took him to make the video he could have fitted an rcd to that circuit.

 

[nicebutdim]

Try calling NICEIC and say ive just made alterations to a bathroom, but it has no RCD is it OK to leave it for a week as is as i have to go on holiday.

What do you think they would say ?

I think they'd ask why you were calling them about someone who isn't a member of their scheme, but I'm not sure why you'd even invoke NICEIC in this conversation. They don't write the regulations on which you have a very limited interpretation.

 

[James]

Try calling NICEIC and say ive just made alterations to a bathroom, but it has no RCD is it OK to leave it for a week as is as i have to go on holiday.

What do you think they would say ?

what would you have done differently if it was your mother?
honestly would you say "sorry mum, power is off in the bathroom for a week or two whilst i go on holiday?"
or look at it in a more pragmatic way and consider it no worse than before the other contractor messed about with it?

 

[mainline]

he left it safer than when he started and in my opinion, no less safe than it had been for the est. 30 years previous to the bathroom work.
in his situation with time limitations, I would have done the same if it was a member of my family.

the only thing i may well have done would be to do an earth loop test using the case of the mirror as earth to check for a good earth connection to it as the terminals were not accessible. for all we know, he may have done that but not videoed it.

edit,
I don't recall him stating that it was dangerous (I could be wrong) he did point out it was a poor quality job and there were many things wrong with it from a standards point of view. most of the issues were correctly rectified in my opinion. the only thing left is for rcd protection at a later date.

Nicebutdim stepped in with the dangerous view.

 

[nicebutdim]

There is no argument he's altered a lighting circuit and left it non-compliant.

You're right, there is no argument. What Nick Bundy does is Nick Bundy's business, but you seem intent on arguing the ---- and completely ignoring the point of this thread.

This isn't a party, so you can relax and enjoy yourself.

 

[nicebutdim]

Nicebutdim stepped in with the dangerous view.

I guess much depends on where in their home the householder happened to venture. Poking about in the loft those live terminals could certainly have been dangerous.

Perhaps the regs have changed and access to live parts is no longer considered dangerous?

 

[James]

I guess much depends on where in their home the householder happened to venture. Poking about in the loft those live terminals could certainly have been dangerous.

Perhaps the regs have changed and access to live parts is no longer considered dangerous?

And the point is @mainline
this part has been fixed!!

 

[mainline]

I think they'd ask why you were calling them about someone who isn't a member of their scheme, but I'm not sure why you'd even invoke NICEIC in this conversation.

N bundy is a member of NAPIT, but you know exactly what I meant.

They don't write the regulations on which you have a very limited interpretation.

What do you mean by that ??

And the point is @mainline
this part has been fixed!!

Yes by Mr Bundy who is now responsible for the non compliant work in the bathroom which he has left with no rcd protection.

I guess much depends on where in their home the householder happened to venture. Poking about in the loft those live terminals could certainly have been dangerous.

Perhaps the regs have changed and access to live parts is no longer considered dangerous?

Why are you posting like it's me that said it wasn't dangerous ?

 

[nicebutdim]

And the point is @mainline
this part has been fixed!!

The only changes made at this point have been improvements.

• CPC brought to each point
• Terminals suitably enclosed at several locations
• Cables freed from where they were trapped behind fan
• Fan no longer extracting to loft

That Nick Bundy is a maniac!

 

[nicebutdim]

N bundy is a member of NAPIT

Was that the response you got from NICEIC?

Why are you posting like it's me that said it wasn't dangerous ?

Because you deflected the point when James raised it and instead pointed to me.

 

[nicebutdim]

what would you have done differently if it was your mother?
honestly would you say "sorry mum, power is off in the bathroom for a week or two whilst i go on holiday?"
or look at it in a more pragmatic way and consider it no worse than before the other contractor messed about with it?

Solutions suggested so far have been disconnect the circuit or fit parts you don't have on the van after wholesalers have closed for the day.

Edit: Missed one... do nothing until the board has been upgraded.

 

[mainline]

what would you have done differently if it was your mother?
honestly would you say "sorry mum, power is off in the bathroom for a week or two whilst i go on holiday?"
or look at it in a more pragmatic way and consider it no worse than before the other contractor messed about with it?

That has no relevance

Solutions suggested so far have been disconnect the circuit or fit parts you don't have on the van after wholesalers have closed for the day.

You're being hypothetical.

The only changes made at this point have been improvements.

• CPC brought to each point
• Terminals suitably enclosed at several locations
• Cables freed from where they were trapped behind fan
• Fan no longer extracting to loft

That Nick Bundy is a maniac!

Is he now responsibly for the bathroom circuit
Answer = YES
Has he left the bathroom SAFE ?
Answer = NO

Pretty simple really.

 

[nicebutdim]

That has no relevance

It's the very situation under discussion, with some of your own responses offered as potential solutions.

You're being hypothetical.

I'm stating what can be seen in the videos.

Is he now responsibly for the bathroom circuit
Answer = YES
Has he left the bathroom SAFE ?
Answer = NO

Pretty simple really.

As it's so simple, perhaps you could point out the danger to this trainee. Not regulatory breaches, but actual danger.

 

[James]

I am out of this now,
rather than point out what he has failed to do.
I would love to hear some positive changes that people would have done differently if it was their own mother.

I have already stated that in his circumstances i would have done a very similar job.

I know that many would do similar but never have the courage to state on a forum that they would ever leave a job energised but not fully compliant with the current reg's and you are welcome to stay quiet.

 

[mainline]

As it's so simple, perhaps you could point out the danger to this trainee. Not regulatory breaches, but actual danger.

I have made my point many times over.
He's left it in a non-compliant state.
That's the simple bit.
Which i have stated many times over.
Take it up with IET you can argue the point with them.

 

[westward10]

Can we keep this reasoned and friendly please or this thread will be closed.

 

[nicebutdim]

I have made my point many times over.
He's left it in a non-compliant state.
That's the simple bit.
Which i have stated many times over.
Take it up with IET you can argue the point with them.

He left the installation safer than it was when he found it, fixed a number of issues within limited time constraints and did exactly what (I'm certain) most pragmatists would have done under the circumstances.

However he should be condemned for laying hands on an istallation, without immediately bringing it up to current regulatory standards, despite there being no apparent immediate danger?