In this case, he would have been well aware that thermal insulation was to be installed and without him specifically requiring measures to prevent the insulation covering the type of fittings shown in the photo, he has clearly not demonstrated compliance with 7671. 

I could see a good lawyer arguing that the installation complies when it was installed (pre-insulation) and if later other trades carry out work it's up to them to make sure they work in a way that doesn't leave the building less compliant than before they started. On larger projects of course I'd expect there to be come kind of oversight specifically to deal with the interfaces between different trades.

  - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

I could see a good lawyer arguing that the installation complies when it was installed (pre-insulation)

And the other side would have argued that the electrician (or electrical designer) should have known that thermal insulation would be installed, or if he (or she) did not, he should have enquired whether it would be.

Had the builder not installed the thermal insulation, but a householder had done so later, it would be a different matter.

And since the thermal insulation contractor takes tea everyday in the same hut as the electrical contractor, you might imagine that he would have twigged! 

Hi Lyle. Any updates regarding this?

- Andrew

Well, the contractor is now in receipt of my report. It will not be welcome reading for him. 

How did this representative inspection of a dwelling come about? I assume you are a Clerk of Works. When I was an apprentice, we had Clerks of Works, but it is unfortunate that this role is no longer as prevalent

AMK,

My stepfather used to be a Clerk of Works. He is a long time gone from us now, but he would be spitting fetahers if he now went on to a modern construction site or building project.

Im old enough to remember that Clerk of Works position on site. Contractors saw them as the Clients enforcer, but client also saw them as champion of the contractors. They were an arbitrator really but upholder of the building Regs and ensuring compliance and quality.

With them prowling the site every day, any bricklayer with too much sand in a batch of mortar or a plumber or electrician taking too much out a joist or a hole not centre, felt their wrath and had to correct the issue.

But they also stuck up for contractors, ommissions in the tender documents or spec, they supported the sub contractors in getting day works etc or the architect or engineering/services consultant had to sort a design issue for the particular trade to achieve compliance.

I believe that the client actually ended up with a far better quality project and one less likley in the future to have issues or latent defects nor have problems arise in future inspections.

Sadly, the design/build and one stop shop contract, came in and as long as the client gets a certificate is the world we live in  then the project must be perfect.

In the 1980's cutting out the Clerk of Works was just a very simple stroke of the pen to save cost, save a salary on site. My own thought is, indirectly cost contractors and the end user far more.

Believe the Clerk of Works Institute was set up back in 1882, My Step Father was a Fellow of that institute, but see they are now called The Institute of Clerks of Works and Construction Inspectorate of GB Inc.

So much litigation and issues on site these days and poor workmanship and defects, I think overall there should be a Clerk of Works on all projects over a certain value, Local Building control officers, fire officers etc dont have time to see everything.

Anyway being sentimental, but its a role that I think the industry has missed.

Cheers GTB

Well said! I fully agree. My Clerk of Works would often review the work and simply state, “I don’t like that,” necessitating a redo. Consequently, all work had to meet his exacting standards. In retrospect, I am grateful for having my work meticulously reviewed throughout my apprenticeship until I became fully qualified. This process instilled both respect and a healthy sense of apprehension towards him.

- Andrew

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?