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 16 replies
  • Subscribers 35 subscribers
  • Views 2014 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Insurance requirement for 3phase competence for a single phase building

Hamish Bell

I've just taken over the running of a community building which is single phase and is no more complex than a large 4-bedroomed bungalow in terms of space, load and number of socket outlets. The electrical test electrician currently conducting the test is qualified for single phase only. The new insurance company specifies the tester must be qualified for 3-phase. While they have a right to do this, is it reasonable and based upon a real need? Can I contest it and on what technical basis?

Parents
  • 0

    It is not unreasonable for stakeholders, such as the insurance company in this case, to have an input into the demand for competence. Regulation 16 of the EAW Regs might be focused firmly at duty holders but I can imagine that if injury occurred due to lack of competence, a court might reasonably extend that focus to others. A mere mention of lack of clarity from stakeholders could open the gate to a civil action. Setting aside the threats of legal consequences, the regulation below should also sit easy in any stakeholder's moral compass. 

    Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury

    16.  No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work

Reply
  • 0

    It is not unreasonable for stakeholders, such as the insurance company in this case, to have an input into the demand for competence. Regulation 16 of the EAW Regs might be focused firmly at duty holders but I can imagine that if injury occurred due to lack of competence, a court might reasonably extend that focus to others. A mere mention of lack of clarity from stakeholders could open the gate to a civil action. Setting aside the threats of legal consequences, the regulation below should also sit easy in any stakeholder's moral compass. 

    Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury

    16.  No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines