# Interest group forums > Electrical Contracting Industry Forum >  Valid COC?

## Sparks

How about some thoughts on this:
*use link further down*
I want to help a youngster but do not know who/where he can contact the correct person, he is in Alberton.
All comments will be appreciated.
Thanks

----------


## murdock

i cannot load the link...it gives a picture error message.

----------


## Sparks

Sorry about that, it is a Large PDF, I will change the format.

----------


## Sparks

A sample of what the COC was issued for:

Attachment 2085

That is cabtire feeding other socket outlets.

----------


## Sparks

The outbuildings which have been excluded insidently do have power.

----------


## Dave A

I don't know how anyone else is going, but I got gateway timeouts trying to download from those links.

Sparks sent me the pdf - I've got it down to 300dpi and it's now 993KB available at https://www.theforumsa.co.za/documen...-scan-tfsa.pdf

Hope that helps.

I'll pass it by my wireman for some feedback too, but I did notice a few things that surprised me:

Why would you use a calculated PSC on a single phase supply? Use a PSC tester for crying out loud.
How can you issue a COC on an installation where your PSC is higher than your short-circuit/withstand rating?
Section 3 - description of installation... Ja, about that one  :Confused:

----------


## AndyD

Single phase with clockwise rotation is already setting off alarm bells. Also no geyser......?

----------


## Dave A

> Single phase with clockwise rotation is already setting off alarm bells.


I had the same thought and checked what we're doing on our COC's - and we're doing the same thing. Apparently it comes from a "how to complete the electrical COC form" session done by the ECA I sent my top staff to a couple of years back.

----------

AndyD (28-Jun-11)

----------


## Sparks

Thanks Dave, I usually download not upload so I am green on that. Will educate myself for next time though.
All valid coments so far. As per "notes" althought the fixed appliance circuits are indicated on the COC, the actual appliance is not covered. The circuits still have to be indicated and must comply.
I am hoping someone can give me details of where to report this turd.
I am not even sure where exactly the house is, looks like the guy who signed off is not either.  :Smile:

----------


## Sparks

> Single phase with clockwise rotation is already setting off alarm bells. Also no geyser......?


Maybe they can prove it to us?

----------


## Dave A

I think I'm going to bomb those links to those monster files and save everyone some serious bandwidth, Sparks.




> That is cabtire feeding other socket outlets.


Here's that picture



And yes, now I understand why Sparks is getting hot under the collar on this one.

----------


## Sparks

Thanks Dave, you certainly are on the ball. Much appreciated.

----------


## AndyD

> Originally Posted by AndyD
> 
> 
> Single phase with clockwise rotation is already setting off alarm bells. Also no geyser......?
> 
> 
> Maybe they can prove it to us?


Prove which bit, the single phase rotation or the no geyser?

We always mark the rotation as not applicable if it's a single phase supply. I've never had any guidance to say we should do otherwise but not working in the domestic field we only issue maybe one COC a month so maybe it's slipped through the net. I would carry on doing this unless someone can show me firstly how to determine the rotation of a single phase supply and secondly a good reason to worry about it.

I've never seen a domestic property that doesn't have a geyser. Also if there's a gas water heater there's more regs such as the cage for the bottle requires earth bonding and lightning protection plus they still need the earth service bond to the water pipework.

----------


## Sparks

The rotation of 1 phase around itself  :Smile: 
The geyser is still there  :Smile: 
I have just heard that there are another two powered-up DBs'

----------


## Sparks

I was hoping there is an ECA member in the Gauteng area with a contact number for someone there. Here is another sample:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27556811/100_2272.JPG

----------


## murdock

nothing wrong with that its not part of the installation because its plugged in :Yes:

----------


## Dave A

> nothing wrong with that its not part of the installation because its plugged in


Yep - when I saw that photo I started wondering about the plug/junction box in the earlier photo too. How is that supplied?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

I have some concerns about some aspects of how the electrician that issued the COC went about his/her business, but ultimately the COC only covers the portions of the electrical installation it was issued on.

You can contact the ECA in Gauteng on 011 392 0000 (Jhb) or 012 342 3242 (Pta). They should be able to point you to one of the GEIA chaps - I believe there are some in Gauteng.

When it comes to the parts of the installation where no COC has been issued - there I think you'll have to be chasing the seller (if this was a sale situation).

----------


## Sparks

Thank you Dave,

I just need to backtrack a bit now though. Murdock, I agree with you in some cases, not this one however. The underfloor heater is a fixed appliance and as such is required to have a dedicated circuit fed through the ELCB with either a double pole isolator or be fed through a socket outlet for isolating purposes. The socket outlet is not there to discount the heaters from the COC but rather as an alternative isolating mechanism. If the heaters are excluded, does it mean that the earthing mesh is also not required? Is the floor heater exempt from the regulations completely because an alternative "isolator" is being used?

----------


## murdock

> Thank you Dave,
> 
> I just need to backtrack a bit now though. Murdock, I agree with you in some cases, not this one however. The underfloor heater is a fixed appliance and as such is required to have a dedicated circuit fed through the ELCB with either a double pole isolator or be fed through a socket outlet for isolating purposes. The socket outlet is not there to discount the heaters from the COC but rather as an alternative isolating mechanism. If the heaters are excluded, does it mean that the earthing mesh is also not required? Is the floor heater exempt from the regulations completely because an alternative "isolator" is being used?


how do you know the under floor heating was installed before the COC was issued? you just never know...

something we must all remeber is maybe this person is not out to crook the system maybe this person just needs some help...pointed in the right direction...i still dont get this COC thing right every time i am lucky to have a very knowledgeable person who assists me when i need help...

after attending a refresher course at the eca i realised that this industry needs more teachers...and because of the amendments...refresher courses or a point system should be bought in to make sure we all keep up with the changes.

i for one would attend seminars or group meetings to discuss problems we are having in the industry and to address confusion with certain parts of the regulations...

----------


## Sparks

This COC was issued after the house was sold before the new owner had access. I somehow doubt you will install underfloor heating after you have sold your house.

I have highlighted all the items I have an issue with.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27556811/P1.bmp
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27556811/P2.bmp
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27556811/P3.bmp
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27556811/P5.bmp

This guy does not know how to complete a COC
This COC is worth less than toilet paper.
At least toilet paper does not give paper cuts.(not what I use anyway)

----------


## murdock

have you spoken to him?

----------


## Sparks

I skyped him the numbers , but have not heard from him yet. He is doing some work at the new place before moving in, chopping down trees, painting, tiling etc... so he is not as much online as usual.

----------


## murdock

> I skyped him the numbers , but have not heard from him yet. He is doing some work at the new place before moving in, chopping down trees, painting, tiling etc... so he is not as much online as usual.




the person who issued the coc?

----------


## Sparks

No, my nephew to whom the COC was issued. That COC is invalid for a whole list of reasons. He got suspicious when he saw some things & contacted me. I asked him to send me the COC and as many photos as possible. The photos are not even necessary. It is obvious the that COC was issued without a proper inspection or tests being done. That electrician does not even know how to complete a COC. I would not be surprised if it cost a bottle of wine.

----------


## murdock

what i have found...is if you contact the person who issed the coc directly they tend to get a bit of a spook when they know the coc is being investigated...he will either tell you to go fly a kite and  laugh you off in which case then the fun begins or he comes to the party and admits wrong doing and fixes the problems.

this coc issue is gona be a long healing process and i cant see it getting fixed any time soon unless...as i have mentioned in the past...the person who is responsible for the policing of the industry..parked his bmw in the garage...switches off his facebook...bbs...and all the other apps...has his entertainment account cut back....and is threated with a jail sentence...because at the end of the day he is allowing public lives to be put at risk because of his shoudy work ethic.

what the public whos lives are being threatened... and electrical contractors should do...is take this person who is responsible for policing the industry to court and sue him for negligence...just like some people have done about the potholes in the roads.

it must be costing the public millions in losses due to negligence and fraud from illegal COCs...but i suppose we are lucky there are not enough deaths from electricution and only 90% + fires are caused by electrical faults to worry about policing the industry...or to motivate an investigation into the DOL head....eeeeish

----------


## Sparks

Unfortunately you are correct, but on the other hand, a short while ago someone here in PE had success with the ECA and just before that one up there too. I thought I would first let my nephew contact them because if they are active it would be easier for them to check and it would obviously have more weight coming from them than from an overzealous uncle of the recipient of the invalid COC.
I would be ashamed to put my name on a COC like that.
As soon as my nephew has a buyer for his "old" property I will be going up to do the COC there. He has a few things he would like me to do at the new place too and his sister has also made a list of things she would like me to do as well. 
Maybe I should give that electrician a call on Monday un any case, my nephew is a bit soft and I suspect that he might just be avoiding the suspect items and waiting for me to come fix them. That electrician must know that as you say, he is putting lives at stake.

----------


## Sparks

An update, you were right Murdock. The guy was so spooked that he tried to convince my nephew not to get me involved. I came to Joburg yesterday and when the electrician finally pitched today I let Albert meet him at the door. He was quite happy to fix whatever Albert wanted fixed, until Albert pointed out that the extractor and one socketoutlet are on the stove circuit. He claimed that there was no way he could pick that up during an inspection. I stayed in the background. Albert then pointed out that the bathroom heater was not earthed, the ceiling fans not on the ELCB, which did not trip at 35mA. At that point the electrician got fed up. He obviously realised that this would not be the walkover he was hoping for. He started to get technical, then I walked up to him and introduced myself. You could have bowled him over with a feather, his first utterance being " please do not fight with me". As calmly as I could, without laughing I told him that his COC was invalid and gave him a copy with all the irregularities marked and described. He tried to make excuses which obviously fell on deaf ears and irritated me. I have cancelled my return booking and will be here when he comes on Monday to sort it out. I have informed him very politely that Albert is not an electrician and that nothing other than a complete inspection and bringing the installation up to the minimum safety requirements will keep me back from going to DOL. He actually asked me if I would do the inspection and charge him. Obviously when I told him an inspection would cost R1200 he had a slight fart-attack(not so sure it was dry).
It was clear from his comments that he had not been in the house before. If he had, he did nothing more than give it a cursory glance. I already fail the open wiring in the roof because there is tension on the conductors as they enter the droppers, there are also open joints on the wires, the wires are also resting on some beams and the spacing is not correct throughout the installation. Tomorrow I will be doing an insulation test, which I doubt will pass, the insulation tester has the final say. I was also flabergasted by his reply to my query regarding the PSC. He said he is prepared to replace the single pole main switch with a double pole and would I approve of that. I then asked if it would be rated in excess of 16kA. He nearly blew his top asking why. When I pointed out that that would be required according to his "calculated" PS, he was so stunned that he could not tell me what formula he used. It quickly came out that his "formula" was the "test results average obtained from his son", this is apparently the "norm" for the Transvaal. My PSC tester will have the final say tomorrow. Apparently his "list of repairs done" in section 3 is an accurate description of the installation.

----------

Dave A (18-Jul-11)

----------


## Dave A

> I then asked if it would be rated in excess of 16kA. He nearly blew his top asking why. When I pointed out that that would be required according to his "calculated" PS, he was so stunned that he could not tell me what formula he used. It quickly came out that his "formula" was the "test results average obtained from his son", this is apparently the "norm" for the Transvaal. 
> 
> Apparently his "list of repairs done" in section 3 is an accurate description of the installation.


Eish! Doesn't have a clue  :No: 

Any idea why this guy is so clueless? It just doesn't make sense  :Confused:

----------


## murdock

i agree with dave something just doesnt sound right...

----------


## Sparks

I am as surprised as you guys. He is registered with ECB but not ECA unfortunately. He did agree last week to doing a proper inspection today, but did not show. When I called him he blew his top and said that I must go ahead and call the DOL. According to him the seller commisioned him to certify the house only, not the outbuildings.I find it very hard to believe that he is not prepared to rectify the situation without involving the DOL  I am certain that he is from an industrial background and is now in deep water.

----------


## murdock

maybe he is knows that you now have to pay for the inspection by the AIA or DOL and is hoping you will not want to pay the costs...rather just fix it and be done.

unfortunately this has been the case with most of my customers they dont want to go through the hassle of an investigation...so they just accept the illegal COC and move on...problem comes in when it is time to sell...they expect you to issue a coc...then when you remind them about the illegall COC...they turn around and ask you why you didnt fix all the problems as their electrician...i tell them them because they didnt give me an instruction to repair....suddenly you become the enemy...you cant win.

----------


## Sparks

I just returned to PE last night. The DOL inspector Vincent as well as the GEIA AIA Warren both did a cursory inspection. They have both taken notes and photographs. I have sent them a letter of confirmation that they were on site and found the installation non compliant as was requested. I also intend sending them a complete list of all the discrepancies.

I am however dissappointed that they already know of the illegal operations of Mr J Bornman of Volta Electrical. Apparemtly he has already been reported.
I am also delving into what I can find in the CPA. Another route I am considering is having the Child Protection Unit investigate his reckless endangerment of a minor.

----------


## Leecatt

> nothing wrong with that its not part of the installation because its plugged in


6.16.1.1 Fixed appliances do not form part of the electrical installation
other than their positioning in relation to the supply and the wiring carried
out between different parts of the appliances.

I always believed that the plug-top is part of the fixed appliance and therefore the wiring from it to the heater would be included in the COC.
Exactly the same rule can be applied to the gate motor which is plugged into socket outlet in the garage, it still requires a disconnecting device withing 1.5 meters of the motor.

----------


## murdock

> 6.16.1.1 Fixed appliances do not form part of the electrical installation
> other than their positioning in relation to the supply and the wiring carried
> out between different parts of the appliances.
> 
> I always believed that the plug-top is part of the fixed appliance and therefore the wiring from it to the heater would be included in the COC.
> Exactly the same rule can be applied to the gate motor which is plugged into socket outlet in the garage, it still requires a disconnecting device withing 1.5 meters of the motor.


i would like to see you put this into practise...

----------


## Leecatt

> i would like to see you put this into practise...


I dont understand, I do put this into practice. Maybe I am misunderstanding your reply, could you expand on your comment.

----------


## murdock

> I dont understand, I do put this into practice. Maybe I am misunderstanding your reply, could you expand on your comment.



you may abide by the rule...as i am sure most of the people active on this forum do...it trying to enforce...when broken by others...which could prove to be the challenge.

----------


## Sparks

> I always believed that the plug-top is part of the fixed appliance and therefore the wiring from it to the heater would be included in the COC.
> Exactly the same rule can be applied to the gate motor which is plugged into socket outlet in the garage, it still requires a disconnecting device withing 1.5 meters of the motor.


Garage to gate, 20+meters, you might want to look again at the use of "flexible" cable as part of the "installation"

----------


## murdock

the twin flex used from the 12 volt transformer normally has quite a volt drop...especially as you mentioned 20 -30 metres away...12 volt gate motor covered by coc?

----------


## Leecatt

> Garage to gate, 20+meters, you might want to look again at the use of "flexible" cable as part of the "installation"


I was researching for another question and have become aware of some rules I have overlooked previously.
I have started another thread regarding this

However flexible cable may not form part of an installation because of the following clause:

_6.3.2 Construction
6.3.2.1 Conductors of nominal cross-sectional area exceeding 2,5 mm2
shall be stranded,_

I believe this to mean that conductors less than, and including 2.5mm, shall not be stranded.
All conductors in an installation must be annealed copper and i believe that cabtyre is not annealed copper.
I may be missing something here, any takers?

----------


## murdock

look under definitions for cords and cables

----------


## bergie

> I was researching for another question and have become aware of some rules I have overlooked previously.
> I have started another thread regarding this
> 
> However flexible cable may not form part of an installation because of the following clause:
> 
> _6.3.2 Construction
> 6.3.2.1 Conductors of nominal cross-sectional area exceeding 2,5 mm2
> shall be stranded,_
> 
> ...


it doesnt mean cables 2,5 and below must be solid .that would rule out house wire. surfix and twin +earth is stranded from 4mm up in any case.
flexible cables and cords have their own set of rules.

----------


## Leecatt

> it doesnt mean cables 2,5 and below must be solid .that would rule out house wire. surfix and twin +earth is stranded from 4mm up in any case.
> flexible cables and cords have their own set of rules.


I agree, above 2.5mm they may not be solid, 2.5mm and below they may be solid or stranded.

House wire, which is a *single core cable* or GP wire, has strands *greater in size than 0.5mm.*
I hope that is correct, as then it would differentiate between single core cable and *flexible cable*, the strands of which are *between 0.5mm and 0.3mm*.
*Smaller than 0.3mm* and that is classified as a *flexible cord*.

Trying to get this right in my head as I once saw a house wires with "single core cables" in conjutes, but the strands of the cable were very fine and less than 0.5mm, much less. I see this as illegal  :Yes:

----------


## AndyD

Annealed copper is just the heating process it goes through to make it flexible. A busbar for example isn't annealed, it's what's referred to as hard-drawn copper. Cabtyre is made from stranded annealed copper.




> _6.3.2.1 Conductors of nominal cross-sectional area exceeding 2,5 mm2
> shall be stranded,
> _
> I believe this to mean that conductors less than, and including 2.5mm, shall not be stranded.


I would disagree. I don't think that because the rule states _Conductors of nominal cross-sectional area exceeding 2,5 mm2 shall be stranded,_ you can infer from it that conductors less than the size stated must not be stranded.

----------


## Leecatt

> I would disagree. I don't think that because the rule states _Conductors of nominal cross-sectional area exceeding 2,5 mm2 shall be stranded,_ you can infer from it that conductors less than the size stated must not be stranded.


Thanks Andy, yes I see that. I was trying to find a reason why cabtyre, and what I call panel wire, cannot be used to wire a house and I have pinned it down to the size of the core. Both would be classed as a cord.

----------


## bergie

> Thanks Andy, yes I see that. I was trying to find a reason why cabtyre, and what I call panel wire, cannot be used to wire a house and I have pinned it down to the size of the core. Both would be classed as a cord.


lee, i see in 6.1.11 flexible cords (c) can be used as single cores in conduits.

----------


## murdock

seems like they dont anneal the new cables...have you tried to bend one recently.

----------


## Leecatt

> lee, i see in 6.1.11 flexible cords (c) can be used as single cores in conduits.


Thats interesting, The beginning of the phrae tell one that flexible cords may not be used in an electrical installation and then part 'c' goes onto say they can :Confused:

----------


## AndyD

I would say the only reason you can't use cabtyre as installation cabling is that being fine stranded it's not suitable for the terminations in sockets, switches and circuit breakers. I suppose if you bootlace ferrule all terminations I don't see where there's a rule that would exclude it for any other reason.

----------


## bergie

6.1.11 excludes it, except for certain conditions. cabtyre up to 4mm is classified as flexible cord.

----------

