lyledunn said:

There are over 1000 of these fittings, all covered in at least one layer of glass wool type thermal insulation.

'Insulation' is defined in BS 7671.

Insulation. Suitable non-conductive material enclosing, surrounding or supporting a conductor.

So, must be OK then ?

(Only kidding ... I think this is suitably covered otherwise in the Standard).

I did a County Court case some years ago where an electrician installed open backed halogen down lighters in a lathe and plaster ceiling with a loft conversion above. 

This resulted in a fire causing £30K worth of fire, smoke and water damage minimized by the fast attendance of the London Fire Brigade.

The occupiers insurance company paid for the damage but would not pay to correct the defective installation work to be put right. The occupier claimed against the electrician for £1200 for the remedial work. The electrician refused to pay so the occupier took the case to the County Court. She informed the insurance company who said they would join in for their £30K.

I asked for disclosure of the design information and the electrical installation certificate for the new lighting circuit. After a month the defendant solicitor came back with at the time no certification was required. So after presenting my evidence on manufacturers instruction for the light fittings, a light fitting with and intumesant vent and enclosed terminals and a displacement box I produced the current editions of the Wiring Regulations with copies for the judge and the 2 barristers to read indication the requirement to inspect, test and certificate to read I mentioned the earliest requirement for certification being 1939 to the judge. The applicant brought to court the melted driver transformer in a pudding basin covered with foil, always nice to have physical exhibits for the court to look at. The defendants barrister jumped up and said he wanted to see that requirement. I bent down in to my bag and produced my 1939 Edition with the page marked  with a post-it note. The barrister tried to back track and said I was only joking. The judge was roaring with laughter and said to the barrister I would suggest you don't joke with Mr Peckham as he clearly knows what he is talking about. At lunch time the applicants barrister said to me you can expect a hard time in cross examination this afternoon  as you have embarrassed my learned friend in front of the judge, my reply was bring it on.

After 2 days the judge found for the applicant and the electrician was ordered to pay all costs plus his own and full compensation to the owner and insurance company. The barrister said that would be in excess of £50K which was not a smart move as the electrician could have walked away at the start for £1200.

JP

Just out of curiosity, you showed that that work wasn't to current regs, but how did the court decide that the electrician was at fault for not working to regs? In that the regs is (mostly) not a statutory requirement. Does it boil down to - not being to regs is indicative of poor workmanship?

John Peckham said:

and the electrician was ordered to pay all costs

That does not necessarily mean the whole amount spent. My solicitor tells me that 70% is typical.

To be recoverable, costs must be proportionate to the value of the claim, but they can be so even when they exceed it. Let's not forget that they included JP's time.

wallywombat said:

but how did the court decide that the electrician was at fault for not working to regs?

Before that, did the case concern professional negligence (in which case the electrician may have been insured) or contract please?

wallywombat said:

but how did the court decide that the electrician was at fault for not working to regs?

Before that, did the case concern professional negligence (in which case the electrician may have been insured) or contract please?

The work was Building Work so required compliance with the appropriate Approved Documents so Part P applied and hence BS 7617. Also the electrician was a member of a Competent Person Scheme so had to comply with BS 7671 as a condition of registration.

I produced the manufacturers instructions for the light fitting and driver unit which stated the light fitting should not be installed in a lathe and plaster ceiling and the fitting and driver should not be covered by insulation (Regulation 134.1.1 ). I exhibited in my evidence the fire damage and the un-enclosed connector block joints in the T&E cabling with other light fittings and drivers covered with insulation. The insulation could have been removed as this was a loft conversion to add a 3rd floor which had all been wired by the electrician. The down lighters on the second floor and the 2nd floor lighting circuit had been altered with new wiring. Cables not clipped or supported anywhere. When the new oak floor was lifted on the 3rd floor, after my initial inspection, more thermal damage was found around other fittings.  No design information, no EIC no Part P notification.  

The Judge accepted my expert evidence on the non-compliances and the cause of the fire.  I had to give the judge a short explanation of what intumescent  material was and did, I indicated it was fitted around the door frame of the entrance door to the court, which he thanked me for as he had not noticed it before. 

The electricians evidence was he was an experienced qualified electrician and he had never caused a fire before.  

The judge awarded the  occupier her compensation and full costs including legal fees and my modest fee, the insurers claim and directed the electrician to pay his own costs. I don't remember anything about court costs and how they were to be paid.

JP