Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 40 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4933 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Best practices

MrJack96

Hi all can someone please give me some advice on the following? 

 

  1. say you’re maintaining a circuit and you realise parts of the circuits do not comply to the regulations what is the standard procedure for example ZS values that do not comply or IR that’s too low. I know in the industrial setting we are pressured to keep things going (critical kit) but say even if we’ve got it in writing we’ve said it’s potentially dangerous and we’ve been told in writing to switch it back on who is then at fault?

 

  1. say the circuit is an old installation and complied at the time of installation if we were then doing work on that circuit say for instance changing adding a spur to sockets that aren’t RCD protected what is the protocol with regards to bringing it up to current standard? 

 

Parents
  • 0

    If a company vehicle is really unroadworthy you do exactly as I outlined above, and wait for the instruction before driving it. BUT are you qualified to know of its faults completely? IF the fault is technical (beyond your reasonable understanding) the law says your employer is responsible (HSAW act) but you must act reasonably, so a flat tyre is within your understanding. If you were stopped with a fault outside your reasonable understanding then your defence is that your employer provided an unroadworthy vehicle, that you could not reasonably recognise as defective. Your book Z is rather curious, the second example that you have shown us before, is because a fool acts outside his knowledge zone and pretends to be something he obviously isn't ("a competent electrician"). I am beginning to feel that you have a “worry” problem, perhaps caused by reading lurid press reports. Very few electricians are prosecuted, many carry out seriously defective work!

Reply
  • 0

    If a company vehicle is really unroadworthy you do exactly as I outlined above, and wait for the instruction before driving it. BUT are you qualified to know of its faults completely? IF the fault is technical (beyond your reasonable understanding) the law says your employer is responsible (HSAW act) but you must act reasonably, so a flat tyre is within your understanding. If you were stopped with a fault outside your reasonable understanding then your defence is that your employer provided an unroadworthy vehicle, that you could not reasonably recognise as defective. Your book Z is rather curious, the second example that you have shown us before, is because a fool acts outside his knowledge zone and pretends to be something he obviously isn't ("a competent electrician"). I am beginning to feel that you have a “worry” problem, perhaps caused by reading lurid press reports. Very few electricians are prosecuted, many carry out seriously defective work!

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines