Electrician fined for EICR.

ebee: 
 

geoffsd: 
 

But an electrician preparing an EICR must raise a list of concerns and list the non-compliances with the current requirements of the Wiring Regulations.

 

Don't forget that according to BS7671 definitions;  a “non-compliance” is a “non-conformity that may give rise to danger".

Geoff. I would have thought that a non compliance is something which does not comply. 

One example wrong colour coding 

So there are two parts to a non-compliance according to the definition:

a, It is a non-conformity

which

b, may give rise to danger.

So just green earth sleeving is not likely to give rise to danger but is a  non-compliance.

Or cables coloured with red and black conductor insulation.

Z.

 

Geoff. I would have thought that a non compliance is something which does not comply. 

Well yes, it is - but only if it “may give rise to danger” otherwise it is just a non-conformity.

 

One example wrong colour coding 

Only if you think it “may give rise to danger”.

John Peckham: 
 

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. 

 

John,

If it is considered an indictable offence it can be sent to the Crown Court  with a not guilty plea. Hence the lack of robust defence and acceptance of flimsy evidence from a Council Electrician. It might have served our industry better if his Trade Body, STROMA we’re put on the rack along with their errant member. 

Interesting that a lack of sleeving would render an installation ‘unsafe’, let alone non-compliant.

So does that mean that by default, all non-compliance's are ‘unsafe’?

Someone needs to do a rethink upon what they precisely mean for the definition of ‘Danger’ when it is used for the purpose defining wiring regulations non-compliance's.

Otherwise I can foreseen a situation whereby not a single existing installation can ever be compliant when examined by a third party who did not carry out the initial install.

Hm, as I predicted one can see the way this is going.

We have Toms installation, which is not the 18th amdt 1 but is probably safe from most of the things Tom is likely to do. It could be that you want RCD protection in case he drills the walls, but this does not mean a new CU. It could then be argued that this might be “inconvenient” so a raft of new RCBOs is required. Then someone notices that Tom has some electronic items, so it is necessary to fit type B RCBOs (Those seem to be a bit like hen's teeth), and as he is fairly old and may not notice a fire, AFDDs. You suggest that a bill for £3 grand is reasonable and he has a heart attack and dies. Did you kill him, because I think that a case for negligent manslaughter might be made?

I have just been helping an old lady who is being severely harassed by BG. She moved into a new sheltered flat, that had a BG electricity supply. She moved supplier as soon as possible because she had the same problem at her old property. They then sent a bill for £200 for 4 days of supply, both ends being “estimated readings”. It might just about be possible to use 1000 units in 4 days in a domestic (very small) premises, but the whole place would be unbelievably hot! She queried the bill by phone (1.5 hours), I did the same (2 hours), her daughter did (1.75 hours), I did again (2 hours) and although each person answering the phone apologised and said that the problem was corrected, she now has a debt collection agency letter! She was positively suicidal yesterday, she has not had a good night's sleep for weeks, and BG is uncontactable. I know because I made a serious complaint and was assured that I would get a return call within 48 hours four weeks ago. There has been no contact. I have to ring again tomorrow. I would love them to try court action because that would be in all the papers, and if the lady actually comes to any harm I am sure there is an excellent case as above. Her actual smart meter consumption including heating etc (no gas) is £8 per week. In the end, they will try to blame “computer error”. The only error that computers make is bad programs, like the Post Office.

I give the illustration because proper professional advice is very complex to do well. If one follows some of the comments above, the installation as a whole must be replaced, to protect the inspector! This is not electrical safety, it is actually serious incompetence. Nowadays some people see danger everywhere and it must be avoided at all costs. This is not the correct view of professionals. Imagine your Doctor had the same level of both fear and control. NO drinking, eating, smoking, enforced 2 hours of serious exercise per day, no carrying anything above 15kg, no running upstairs, no using sharp or powered tools, in fact, an end to life. Regular testing of every known bodily function just in case something turns up, and certificates galore. Are you sure that you are not doing this?

There are many different methods of marketing. Selling to need is one, and if the ‘need’ isn't there you create it, and one of the best ways to create it is to create fear, then you sell to fear. Burglar alarms are one of the best examples. The risk-averse society we now have has been carefully groomed, along with it's so-called ‘professionals’ to a point whereby critical thinking skills and 1st principles are not applied at the early learning stage. This renders ordinary people into positions of vulnerability whereby their ignorance and carefully groomed fears can be easily manipulated for selling purposes. Further up the gene pool we have semi professionals who again have been told what's good for them and to not think too much about what they are doing and why, but to just follow the list on the clip board and all will be well.

Above all, they are ordered not to question anything. The main problem the sellers have is the older existing generation who were taught to ask awkward questions and to relate the given responses back to 1st principles. We elders are the Awkward Squad because we can still critical examine and smell the snake oil, and sellers don't like that. Sadly, we are dying out, and as the next lot take over, my fear is that they will be ill equipped to challenge those who profess to know better.

Therein lies the rub.

geoffsd: 
 

 

One example wrong colour coding 

Only if you think it “may give rise to danger”.

It may because there is no guarantee that the old and new colours will be joined correctly. That's even with a warning notice!

Lyle

Indictable offences can only be tried in the Crown Court. This offence is triable  either way which means that it can be tried in the magistrates court or at the Crown Court. This means the accused can elect for the case to be tried in the Crown Court or the magistrates can send it to the Crown Court. If tried in the magistrates court and convicted the magistrates can then send the case to the Crown Court for sentence if they think the person needs a sentence that requires more than the limit of their sentencing powers which is 6 months imprisonment. 

Summery only offences can only be tried in the magistrates court.

Chris Pearson: 
 

geoffsd: 
 

 

One example wrong colour coding 

Only if you think it “may give rise to danger”.

It may because there is no guarantee that the old and new colours will be joined correctly. That's even with a warning notice!

Competent electricians should have no trouble in joining any old and new “colours” correctly. I would not be so sure about kitchen fitters, D.I.Yers or plumbers though.

Z.

So, BOD, are you saying that any non-RCD protected circuit with cables in walls is a C2?

The Inspector is tasked with compiling an EICR with regard to the requirements of the 18th.

I imagine that there is quite a disclaimer in the front of any Coding Guide making it the EICR signatory's decision as to what Code to classify any observation.

The requirement in 522.6.202 to 204 for suitable cable/depth/RCD is not an 18th requirement having been a requirement for quite some time now.

As I've posted many times before, sooner or later something that was acceptable at the time becomes unsatisfactory.

When gripping the bar having given a C3 that led to a court case, do you think the Coding Code compilers or any others on here declaring themselves experts would be so vocal in defending you?

Regards

BOD