Electrician fined for EICR.

Bet this defendant pleaded guilty. No way would a well defended case accept he opinion of a council electrician.

lyledunn: 
 

Bet this defendant pleaded guilty. No way would a well defended case accept he opinion of a council electrician.

But what did he actually do? Failed to apply a warning label onto a consumer unit? We need to be told not held in suspenders.

Quote. “After a visual inspection and conducting some tests, they (a second sparks, a John Morley) concluded that the electrics were unsatisfactory, and advised a complete re-wire and to report the matter to a certification body.”

Was there no second opinion on this matter?

Flippin ek! It was only a 40 year old installation.

Z.

The problem is really none of these things. It is that the qualification of inspectors is inadequate and not specified. The term “competent” is completely ridiculous, and this is being used as a cash for "competence" ie. logo arrangement by certain bodies. This is the thing that is “unsatisfactory”. Having a logo is then exploited by many, everything needs a new CU or complete rewire. There needs to be a complete split between inspection and reparations, the only way that some degree of honesty can be brought back. Conspiracy between that two groups should have a very severe penalty! The coding guide books should also be history, they simply encourage incompetence.

Lyle

No he must have pleaded not guilty at the magistrates court (the court of first instance) who then committed the case to the Crown Court where he would have had the charge put to him again at a pleas and directions hearing. Clearly he pleaded not guilty as the matter went to full trial. With a guilty plea the prosecution witnesses do not have to appear with just the prosecution lawyer reading out the brief facts of the case. So as the council electrician gave evidence it must have been a not guilty plea. No doubt the 12 just men and women of the jury decided the prosecution case was believed beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Sadly, I believe this is only going to get worse. We regularly see new entrants into the industry obtaining the current (practically worthless) 2391 with no experience at all, for the express purpose of ‘doing landlord certs’. As always, regulation with good intent has produced the unintended and perverse outcome that you are FAR more likely to have work carried out by the incompetent than otherwise.

whjohnson: 

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. 

There should be no concern for a conscientious, competent inspector, rather gratification that chancers are being found out - Only one of many I fear.

The public is uniformed about the professional requirements needed or to check the qualifications of the employed individual, not the company! An inspector is an inspector at face value until found out!. Beware the bogey man!  ?

Jaymack  

Steve Briggs: 
 

Sadly, I believe this is only going to get worse. We regularly see new entrants into the industry obtaining the current (practically worthless) 2391 with no experience at all, for the express purpose of ‘doing landlord certs’. As always, regulation with good intent has produced the unintended and perverse outcome that you are FAR more likely to have work carried out by the incompetent than otherwise.

Hi, so what verification would you suggest, in doing a CCU change, would be suitable, (if the 2391 is of little use)?

Tomgunn: 
 

Steve Briggs: 
 

Sadly, I believe this is only going to get worse. We regularly see new entrants into the industry obtaining the current (practically worthless) 2391 with no experience at all, for the express purpose of ‘doing landlord certs’. As always, regulation with good intent has produced the unintended and perverse outcome that you are FAR more likely to have work carried out by the incompetent than otherwise.

Hi, so what verification would you suggest, in doing a CCU change, would be suitable, (if the 2391 is of little use)?

Compliance with 641.1 is essential. It shall be undertaken by a qualified, experienced and skilled person, preferable a qualified time served electrician.

“Every installation shall, during erection and on completion before being put into service, be inspected and tested to verify, so far as is reasonable, that the requirements of the Regulations have been met.”

After major work like a consumer unit change full inspection and testing is required of the whole installation.

Z.

Steve Briggs: 
 

Sadly, I believe this is only going to get worse. We regularly see new entrants into the industry obtaining the current (practically worthless) 2391 with no experience at all, for the express purpose of ‘doing landlord certs’. As always, regulation with good intent has produced the unintended and perverse outcome that you are FAR more likely to have work carried out by the incompetent than otherwise.

I doubt that 2391 is a cause. As I recall, there was an excessive rate of failure by “electricians” for 2391, it was considered too difficult to pass/too many failures, hence was watered down to another C & G number, in order to increase the pass rate. 

George Orwell and his Animal Farm kicked in. ? We are not all created equal.

Jaymack