Electrician fined for EICR.

One down. How many to go!

Splendid, absolutely splendid!

(Though I doubt that the fail, put in a new CU, poor quality EICRs will be caught - they are potentially a worse offense contrary to S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006.)

Absolutely correct Chris, prison for that!

So, what exactly was the specific dangerous electrical problem or deficiency? I think we need to be told.

Z.

Agree, I smell a whiff of sensationalism here.

I suspect that from now on, by default, every inspection will have an ‘Unsatisfactory’ outcome as an ***-covering exercise. No one would dare pass an existing installation for fear of some ‘expert witness’ coming out of the woodwork to contradict their findings. One man's C1 is another's C2 and it has been ever thus. Until the IET begins to inject some prescriptive black and white into the regulations, then the arguments as to what does, and what does not constitute a non-compliance will rage on infinitum. I'll bet the lawyers are rubbing their hands as a consequence.

I did a large refurb, a few years' ago. I just had far too much to do to do the CCU, (I did everything else, ((apart from some very awkward recessed lights that had some huge rubber bungs on them)), sparky wise)), so the clients got this ‘electrician’ in. When he was changing the CCU I asked him if he had the 2391? He asked… “what's that?" I asked if he even had the 2381 / 2?? “What are they?” I knew what he was going to do, meet a ‘friend’, in his local pub, who could give him the cert… for a £100, or more!

regards, Tom

I have been a prosecution witness in similar cases 2 of which have gone to the Crown Court. Although the certificates/reports are fraudulent fraud is a very hard to prosecute as you have to give evidence to cover what are known as “points to prove”. If there are 4 or 5 points to prove you have to give evidence on all of the points not just a few. For this Trading Standards offence you only have to prove 2 points. They are the person was acting by way of trade e.g the advertised themselves as an electrician, they took money for there services, they had documentation in the form of business cards, invoices, van logos etc. The trading standards officer provides evidence for this. Secondly the certificate/report was false OR misleading. That is where I come in with my report and photographs giving evidence on the content of the report/certificate. The last line of my statement concludes that the document was BOTH false AND misleading.

After giving my evidence in chief the cross examination tries to  undermine me with all sorts of tricks including on one occasion inter-mating that I had planted evidence.  The defence evidence usually starts off with “it was all right when I tested it" . Then under cross examination they change their story and say “someone must of changed it”. That story falls apart when pressed who might have done that and why would they have done that. Asking the defendant to explain what the items on the inspection form are and why they have been ticked as satisfactory when they are not present is fun to watch.

The offence carries  up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine plus costs. The last one I did the judge was proposing a custodial sentence but when the defence barrister asked for 15 minutes to seek instructions from his client the judge agreed to this but bailed the defendant to the  confines of the court. After a long sob story of the defendants circumstances the judge agreed to to a non custodial sentence, a large fine and costs.

Today's legal system is principally all about money rather than justice. Fines rather than sentencing, and all goes to the treasury coffers. Police officers for example, have pretty much become revenue collectors without deterrent effect rather than protectors of society. Fines for this, penalty charges for that, just pay up and all will be well. Simply glorified bailiffs endorsed by the state nowadays.

I liked JPs tale there. I was a bit miffed that the defendant talked out of a jail sentence (i`d have hanged them) . 

Regarding the “someone musta altered it” I`m 99% with that but not more than 99%.

I have witnessed things stated even by the trusty old lady type and no them not to be true.

Reason 1/ they sincerely believe that. Reason 2/ they are embarrassed to admit otherwise. Reason  3/ A N Other has told them to say that and the little old lady actually believes a meddler has “put it back together like it was in the first place”.

It`s not that long ago I mentioned a call I got “You`ve just rewired my house” (it was 12 months ago!). Immersion heater stopped working a week ago. Nobody has touched it. You find the flex wired L & N across the heater then also wired to the stat in parallel . (but it`s worked  for 12 months. 

John Peckham: 
Although the certificates/reports are fraudulent fraud is a very hard to prosecute as you have to give evidence to cover what are known as “points to prove”.

I suspect that demonstrating dishonesty would be the biggest difficulty. Honest, guv, I really did believe that the absence of supplementary bonding in the downstairs khazi was a C2. The best that the most charming and silver-tongued counsel is going to get is an admission that the defendant isn't very good at his job.