Shock Likelihood at Switch.

Yes, I agree that it does happen. The live, not necessarily comes disconnected but somebody has previoulsy disconnected a live conductor which has been the feed for another part of the lighting circuit and just left in the unearthed metal backing box.


Legh

At this stage of the proceedings M'lud Z offers this additional information in his "defence"..


1. The new metal light switches were installed by the flat owner and examined behind by Z. There is no earth (C.P.C.) wire at their positions.


2. The back boxes are old hard wooden types sunk into a brick wall ( in both cases).


3. The cabling is imperial in manufacture and each conductor comprises three stands of tinned copper wire. Thus ensuring a good grip by the terminal screws.


4. The conductors are positioned so that to come loose from the switch terminals they would have first to move backwards substantially, which space limitation prevents in the wooden back boxes. There is very little chance of a live conductor coming into contact with the metal switch plate.


5. The flat is of Victorian construction on the first floor. The floors are made of wooden floor boards covered with new nylon carpets.


6. There is are no exposed conductive parts near to the two light switches.


7. The lighting circuit has 30mA R.C.B.O. protection.


8. The flat owner has been told that an improvement is necessary and this has been confirmed in writing providing details.


9. The flat is currently unoccupied.


10. Permission of the flat owner will be required before the switches and wiring are worked on.


11. Z is a very experienced qualified electrician and made his judgement of a C3 rating after many years of work in the electrical trade. He does not consider that the unearthed metal light switches are AT PRESENT sticks of dynamite with their fuses positioned next to an open log fire.


Z rests his case.


Z.

but improvement is nonetheless recommended.

Indeed - just "recommended" - not the "necessary" that Z. said.

   - Andy.

"So Mr Z we have heard from the learned pathologist that the cause of death was electric shock caused by water from a wallpaper steamer dripping in to the light switch have we not? We have also heard from our expert witness Mr P he found that the metal light switch was un-earthed and the special shock protection device known as an RCD was not working. We also heard from Mr P that in his view your report showed the electrical installation was "satisfactory for continued service" as stated in the recognised electrical safety standard was not correct and in his expert view your report should have concluded that the installation was in fact in an un-satisfactory condition for continued service. Mr P also produced as part of his evidence documentary evidence a document from the acknowledge electrical safety body know as Electrical Safety First that clearly indicates that an un-earthed light switch to be potentially dangerous and further more the document says this type of dangerous defect should have lead to the outcome of the report as being un-satisfactory. You said in your evidence in chief that it was your opinion that the electric installation was in satisfactory condition, are you seriously telling this court that you know better than the expert witness and the Electrical Safety First? Or is the case that you took money from the landlord, who needed a satisfactory report, and getting payment for your services would have been more difficult so you gilded the lily to please him? 


I sat in the well of a court in the Emma Shaw case where the electricians mate confessed when challenged about his entries on a test certificate said "I would not have done it if I had known" .

THE SWITCH.


I went out and bought a twin switch of the type installed in the flat out of curiosity. I insulation resistance tested it at 1,000 Volts. The result; infinity Ohms. Perfect insulation between the common terminal and the metal plate.


The switch is well made and very solid. Between all live parts and the metal plate is a plastic moulding that is about 5mm thick.The rocker is plastic and has a nylon spring loaded round ended pin that operates the switch innards. The switch is a two way type. No live parts are able to touch the metal plate or arc between live parts and plate.


The switch has an earth terminal to the plate.


It is rated 10AX 250 Volt.


The switch is labelled CE, BS EN 60669 and is ASTA certified.


The instructions state: ALL EARTH WIRES MUST BE SLEEVED AND TERMINATED TO THE BACK BOX.


The terminal screws are positioned so that a screwdriver can secure them from the top or bottom of the switch. They are recessed and are about 9mm away from the metal plate. The wires enter from the rear of the insulated back plate. There appears to be no way that the metal switch plate can become live if the switch is mounted in a wooden back box and the wires enter from behind the switch.


I hope that this info helps.


Z.

3. Some say that the code should have been a C2, "Potentially dangerous, urgent remedial action required". This would have made the overall assessment of the whole installation "unsuitable" for continued  use.


And what is wrong with declaring this?


From the silence. being nice and popular with plenty of revenue for having this reputation? 


Regards


BOD

And as to any recipients of a Satisfactory EICR endorsed with C3 "improvement recommended" or the earlier version of Satisfactory PIR  endorsed with 2 "requires improvement", in the last 30 or more years of reviewing these and their subsequent report after the recommended interval, I've yet to see one out of the many hundreds, that the second report doesn't pick up the same, un-improved items.


There is absolutely no incentive for the recipient to do anything about remedial work because as far as they are concerned, the compiler has issued a document with the front page declaration of it being satisfactory............. They simply pass it on to the enforcing body (insurer, Local Authority etc) who required the piece of paper, who in turn files it under "satisfactory".It is not their job to question the competence or accuracy of the document, they at best rely on the compiler being "approved" by a scheme.


It only ever gets read again when produced as "exhibit A"..........


Should the enforcing body representative be asked when "gripping the bar" why they accepted it, their response is simply that "what more could we have been reasonably expected to do, having already restricted the reports to a scheme member?". Now if the scheme has approved someone that clearly isn't up to scratch, perhaps the scheme should be asked to join me in gripping the bar?


In turn, the scheme representative will refer to their "guidance notes" and then invite the compiler to take his place in the bar gripping experience.


Regards


BOD