This is a rant. Don't read it if it's going to bore you. I realise that I run the risk of antagonising many with this but I feel bad about the accusations.
OK Vortigern, I'll bite. Your cosy rationalisation of unfounded speculation on the basis of easily refutable logic needs to be challenged. To all others, my apologies, for in this particular post, we have moved from my original two questions (is it dangerous? what could have caused it?) to an argument about the lazy assumption that "I must be lying". How does Vortigern and others arrive at that conclusion? - well it is based on the Notion of Infallibility of REAL electricians who would NEVER repeat never make a mistake and even if they did it just could not be a mistake of such catastrophic and dangerous proportions. Therefore, if it wasn't the electrician in the hallway whodunnit, who could it have been? Mmmmmm (ponders weightily).
The accusation you are presenting (which you lazily disguise as inference) is as sound as that used to dunk presumed witches. In other words, it isn't evidence at all. I originally raised the issue of trolling because I seriously doubted the motivation of some of the contributors, which in my opinion goes against the stated community orientation of the forum. And you virtue-signal this as "conferring amongst yourselves".
Here are the facts, believe them or not.
1. I contracted with an electrician after querying his qualifications and experience as much as reasonably can (for reasons best known to the electricity regulators and the electricians community, there isn't an easy online reference such as Gas Safe which can tell me instantly whether an individual, who carries photographic identification on a lanyard at all times, is registered and in which disciplines he has qualified). And as some on this and other threads have stated, registration on any of the existing (voluntary registration) electricians bodies is no guarantee of competence and vice versa.
2. I had already agreed a schedule with the Power Companies involved to get my meters changed to SMART meters in advance of the CU change. However, due to the need to change some of the electricity supply infrastructure before changing the meter, the CU change went ahead prior to the meter changeover. Both the supply company electrician who was on site to survey the meter change and the electrician who came to change the CU - both agreed the change in schedule wasn't significant.
3. Unfortunately, the electrician who came to change the CU did not test the sockets IN ADVANCE of the changeover from fuse box to the EN 61439-3, BS 7671 Amendment 3 compliant CU from British General. Everybody without exception has assumed that the electrician created the problem - perhaps he just continued an existing problem? As the infrastructure upgrade and the meter changeover have not yet taken place, we cannot be absolutely certain that the cause of the problem does not exist elsewhere from the CU installation. The issues about testing are mentioned later.
4. From what I could see, and I did watch from time to time, the electrician did the changeover from the old fuse box to CU diligently and neatly. The meter tails were upgraded as he suggested they should be. As I mention below, I'm not sure what testing was done, if any.
5. The property is old with both old and mixed old/new wiring, lots of surface cabling etc. I was pleasantly surprised when the double RCD units stayed positive when the system was switched on. I didn't expect the system to fail but it wouldn't have greatly shocked me (punny!) if it had.
6. I have to agree that, all the other issues notwithstanding, the electrician demonstrably failed in the adequate testing of the system, especially after the reversed polarity was discovered. Yes, he used a socket tester only at that stage (I can't say he hadn't done any other testing at the CU only that I didn't see that testing happen), one of the reasons I bought a similar and good reputation socket tester from Amazon - would another device of the same type replicate the problem?. [Here's another logical conundrum, for me anyway. If these devices are so crap, why believe their results? It is ONLY these devices that have uncovered the fault that has led to this long and meandering thread, why has everybody believed the output of these crap devices rather than perhaps challenging their results. Remember, the only testing which has shown reversed polarity, comes from these little plug in devices. Why are they so right even when they are so crap?]
7. Electricians disagree about things even on this excellent forum. Many on the thread say that reverse polarity is a potentially dangerous situation only under certain specific circumstances and the problem should be remedied as soon as possible. Others say, cut the electricity supply now, touch nothing and call this emergency number. Some say yeah, a bit of risk management is OK while waiting for the electrician to come ASAP and remedy the situation, others say that cannot happen, all must be cut now, no exceptions. This is a common feature it seems of electricians forums, disagreements about faults or solutions - either there is a hell of a lot of ambiguity in the regulations or there is a huge disparity in the skills levels involved (but it cant be that, cos electricians cannot make these kinds of mistakes according to Vortigern and others).
8. As soon as I contacted the electrician and told him of my concerns, he cleared his diary for Monday to come back and resolve the situation, free of charge. He has already said he will test every single socket for faults if there is no "central" or common fault/ solution. Me? I am worried that the fault somehow lies with the supply company's system and will mean even greater delays and upheaval. We can all agree that the situation should not have been allowed to exist but given it has, I think he is giving a fair response under the circumstances. This view will never satisfy the vitriolic critics but I prefer to live on my planet. NB We all agree he should never have left the reverse polarity situation in the first place.
9. Perhaps I still fundamentally misunderstand the overall processes about RCDs and safety, perhaps not. However, I can't shake the feeling that if the presence of RCDs cannot detect or protect against a reversed polarity situation, then there is some kind of design failure, or at least a missed opportunity. Given that there is so much safety literature out there about the need for correct wiring - and given that at least one qualified electrician has allowed a reverse polarity situation to exist
- surely the 17th Ed mandated protections on the CU should cover the (remote) possibility of reverse polarity?
Because I live in an older flat and I am planning other electricity change projects, I read a lot about it. The number of forums where electricians just plain disagree with each other, both sets quoting the 17th Edition etc regulations (which some claim are still only advisory not compulsory anyway!) is scary.
That's enough from me, no more biting or ranting. Sorry to take up so much of your time.
As a courtesy to those who have given me pragmatic advice and information, I will update after the electrician has resolved/tried to resolve the problems tomorrow.
My sincere thanks again to those who have helped make my first venture to this Electricians Forums a pleasant and informative experience.
