ProDave

It is beginning to sound like he is a mate rather than a real sparky. Lets hope he actually knows how to connect up the other ends? I am sure the CU's you have can be reconfigured. If asked I would put all the big loads on the top CU and have the bottom one fed by one MCB in the top one as a submain and use that as an overflow for the small load circuits. That would avoid the dodgy 2 sets of tails in one terminal. I hope he has not actually charged you much for his efforts?

Well I will build the frame to match the door to save trimming, so if it is 2mm too small so what. I was hoping to read someone had used oil without problem. Most of our doors are XL Joinery who also say do not oil, but when questioned were happy for us to oil them with Osmo and indeed there have been no problems and a very nice finish.

Typo corrected, about 40cm / 18" so the pair of doors is about the width of one normal door.

So re phrase the question: Where can I buy a a pair of Oak very narrow doors, about 40cm wide each?

This seller on ebay has some https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/295684685686?hash=item44d82e3f76:g:ngAAAOSwQqBkV-dt&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA0ORp1VAxfkbNehWYtIdR3%2FzI33rzcS4upSsgZxjhF7tHEmgiquZcO0k5mLkBWHmVZ5SYKQEFXnnFIDgiZxJ5ZXvvnOOfb1LELxIUkMM7OQzSN1QIb%2BY8Y6JkMp52cO718DAgriI76hIsfVmICA%2F09JCZzSiArABtnyiMIQyhgtCQ6B%2FPbMm7LUB%2F2xqc4Td%2FMxPuDJbPcSVkIAHwAwLbEUrDJO6ma9VUfHPZ9sZGBmxetnG92jLkJ0uTlrvN8dNojAVdIUq5dWkzGe3QzzfKBtQ%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR9Cg6LqBYg Actually he only has one left. That is probably the best place to search.

Looking for this for the pantry. There is no room for a conventional width door to open or for a sliding door so we are going to use a bifold door set. The best (aka cheapest) I have found is from Wickes, irritatingly not in stock to view has to be ordered on line https://www.wickes.co.uk/Wickes-Geneva-Oak-Cottage-5-Panel-Internal-Bi-fold-Door---1981mm-x-762mm/p/132012 It's almost half the price of a seemingly identical thing from Howdens. Very mixed customer reviews from brilliant to rubbish. And it says not suitable to be oiled (we want to use Osmo door oil like all the rest of our Oak doors) Any opinions or other suggestions?

I am counting a total of 17 circuits connected (there may be some disconnected and there are more than 17 mcb's) The top split load board will take 16 mcb's so surely it would be possible to make some alterations so you only have 16 circuits? Or I would have preferred the top board set up with a main switch and 20 rcbo's it would have been a lot simpler, a lot better and I doubt much more expensive (funny enough this is almost exactly what I actually have)

Today's top tip. The average "1 ton builders bag" that you often get full of gravel, sand etc, nicely fits over the top of the average small cement mixer to keep the worst of the weather off it.

I am not convinced that the terminals will take two feeds like that, I would want to give them a good wiggle test to ensure they really are clamped properly and secure. I was questioning why no RCD on the bottom CU I think you have answered it that he has removed it, presumably because it was tripping as well? What really needs to happen is every circuit disconnected. Confirm the CUs really are configured correctly and work properly, rcd's tested etc. Then one at a time dead test then reconnect each circuit and then live test it. If that works, move on to the next etc. That is probably what a fresh electrician would do if someone else comes in to sort out the mess. And I agree with a comment above, before re connecting one circuit at a time, agree on a sensible split of circuits between the two rcd's,

I think you may be on to something there. How long it would take to sort out depends on the skill of the electrician and a bit of luck. See if moving that N cable fixes some of the issues? My concern is he has looped the feed into the top CU down to the bottom CU. In which case I await the explanation from the "electrician" as to why none of the circuits connected to the bottom CU require RCD protection.

There is such a tangle in there it will be impossible to fault find it remotely. I am still trying to work out where the bottom CU gets it's feed. It must be somewhere from the top CU otherwise why no rcd or rcbo. Time for a frank discussion with your "electrician"

The more I look at that, the more I think OMG. There is so much potential for getting things wrong there, let alone it is untidy. What an earth are choc blocks doing in a CU in a rewire?

Can you post a picture of the new consumer unit, preferably one with the cover on and one with the cover off? By all means try one circuit at a time and see if you get different results.

Oh dear that does not sound encouraging. I am all in favour of recommending upgrades where they are necessary but it seems a lot just want to bang in a new consumer unit regardless.

Your electricians has neutrals mixed up between circuits or a N-E fault. He should know how to test that, and should have done appropriate dead testing before energising. If he is scratching his head i would be starting to doubt his ability. The more I read of your post the less I trust him. Sorry. If in England or Wales I hope he is a member of a competent persons scheme as he will need to notify it under part P.

Wrong. He did not even fit a new circuit, he just altered an existing one. It had RCD protection and as long as the earthing was okay no problem issuing a minor works certificate for that. The labelling could do with improvement, is is not at all clear where the split between RCD and non RCD circuits occurs.

Roy Homes built the shell of our first build in 2004. It makes me feel how lucky I was this time around having a builder I knew already and we trusted each other and everything was invoiced and paid in arrears.

Reading that article, it suggests Ptarmigan homes is what grew out of the ashes or Roy Homes? Is that right?

Just because it is an existing plastic CU does not mean it must be replaced. There may be other issues that made him say that. Even a split load could back feed all circuits as long as the MAIN switch is turned off. Post a picture of what you have.

The pipe will leave in line with the valve and water meter so just about horizontal in the first picture. I would expect it to be 25mm mdpe Dig down on that line at the edge of your property and hopefully you will find mdpe. Worst case there is a joint to something smaller under the pavement. If you do need to dig up the pavement you need a road opening licence from your council and you must employ a contractor with a minor streetworks permit. Dig in your own garden as close to the pavement as possible to see what you have.

They are proposing a 260A 3 phase supply. You won't get that with a single meter easily, it would have to be a current transformer meter at that rating. It is possible (or certainly was possible) but it won't be what you recognise as a simple "supply head" It would still be via a Multi Service Distribution Board to split into separate feeds. Why do you want that much? 180KVA is 18KVA per flat, so that is an 80A feed to each flat. What are you putting in the flats that needs that much, a shower, sauna, and all electric heating? I think you need to properly design the installation, work out the real loads including diversity and when you are clear what you want, get them to re quote.

We know what the new rules are in theory, but I have yet to hear from anyone who has succeeded in getting upgrade charges removed or reduced.

I am saying it is insignificant. That little bit of the field is in a dip, when the ground water gets high, it floods. It only floods until it gets high enough to spill over it's little dip into the burn and run away down hill. I would call it a feature of local topography. I am sure the farmer could easily solve it by infilling the dip or digging a channel for this dip to drain into the burn. So it is really insignificant. Even if you had this particular "flood" on land you wanted to build on, you could easily mitigate against it. It is totally different to a flood of the sort where houses get flooded and then take days or weeks for the water to go down, yet it it highlighted the same.

Okay I tried looking on a different flood map, and got exactly the same result. Interresting all the main LGW buildings are in Flood Zone 3. Ask yourself, when was the last time you remember flooding there? I mentioned on another thread that the flood risk maps up here have been updated, and we suddenly now appear in a medium risk of surface water flooding, which means 0.5% chance of surface water flooding each year. The previous map did show a small patch of the field behind us prone to flooding, and that was the case, but more of a bit of a puddle in the field when the ground water level gets too high for it to drain and nowhere to run off to. I get the impression we are now becoming over cautions about the issue? Is it possible to get any data on how high a potential flood may get so you could mitigate it by a raised ground floor level (possibly meaning only a single storey building?

6 months max, yes it was an old car. But it was a lot easier than the likely grief of 2 rusted snapped studs trying to fix it properly.