Customer don't think they have to act on do the corrections

[djlander]

Hello guys
I have done a periodic test and inspection of a commercial building where public are involved in activities in the Areas, the document has a lot of number 1's on it but the customer thinks they don't have to act and do any of the changes because the document is not a notice! I have advised that they need to correct the number 1's but I keep hitting a brick wall, is there any documentation on the net that I can down load to show them that it is a requirement that they need to do the corrections to help them understand?:coolgleamA:

 

[djlander]

Sorry for typos but pressed wrong button ha!

 

[malcolmsanford]

They have no obligation to carry out any remedial work, the same as you have no standing in disconnecting a circuit that is dangerous.

What you do have though is the ability to isolate a circuit/installation and issuing the client with either a danger notice or first a verbal and then a written indication that the circuit/installation "Requires urgent attention", and that you have isolated that circuit/installation. Unfortunately you can not disconnect the cables to completely shut off the danger as we can not do that under the law.

If the customer then re-energises the supply then they have taken the responsibility and if anything happened it is their comeback. Also most insurance companies would null and void a policy on a report that had code 1 and 2, and was left without remedy.

 

[djlander]

Thank you, I had a feeling that was the case but just wanted to be sure, I may have to issues a danger notice and isolate the circuits that are a danger, I know they will reenergise the circuits so it will then remove me from responcibilty, thanks for your help

 

[Blowcat]

Just out of curiosity, what are the faults on the circuits that you will isolate??

 

[djlander]

The worst one is where three lighting circuits on spereate mcb's have been cross wired, lives and nuterals are interconnecting the 3 circuits

 

[Ponty Massive]

The worst one is where three lighting circuits on spereate mcb's have been cross wired, lives and nuterals are interconnecting the 3 circuits

How does that work, how is it crossed wired? 3 lights, 3 mcb's and neutrals are connected?

 

[NMc]

Are you talking about borrowed neutrals?

 

[IQ Electrical]

The worst one is where three lighting circuits on spereate mcb's have been cross wired, lives and nuterals are interconnecting the 3 circuits

If that's your worst one then I suspect that and the rest are in fact code 2 defects.

You must point out that the client is in breach of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 while the code 1/2 defects have been brought to his/her attention but not rectified.

It can also be an insurance requirement that a current Periodic Inspection Report is in place with a 'satisfactory' assessment.

Current guidelines suggest the absence of any code 1 and code 2 defects to allow a 'satisfactory' assessment.

 

[Blowcat]

I personally am always reluctant to disconnect circuits unless there are exposed live parts present even then I try to avoid it.
Assuming there are either borrowed neutrals and/or crossed feeds from the 3 MCB's I myself would leave it all alone till they ask for it to be fixed as I dont consider it to be causing immediate danger to any persons.
It can be frustrating when a customer thinks they dont have to repair any code 1 or 2's. However it is their responsibility to ensure the electrical safety of that commercial property (as described in electricity at work regs 1989 I seem to remember???). They may have financial difficulties or just getting the periodic test done for statutary complience.
Ive been to countless jobs where the previous cert is avaliable and all code 1's are still there from the previous test.
All you can do is peform a good test, give them sound advice, get paid and move on.

 

[oxocube]

You have no right to switch off anything and could end up in a lot of trouble if you do. You were hired to do a PIR thats all, you should immediately verbally advise your employer of any dangers. Then back this up with a covering letter clearly explaining the dangers and the need for immediate action.

 

[NMc]

Correctly put

 

[malcolmsanford]

You have no right to switch off anything and could end up in a lot of trouble if you do. You were hired to do a PIR thats all, you should immediately verbally advise your employer of any dangers. Then back this up with a covering letter clearly explaining the dangers and the need for immediate action.

It is not sufficient simply to draw attention to the danger when submitting the periodic inspection report. At the very least, the inspector must ensure that the client is made aware at the time of discovery of the danger that exists. An agreement should be made with the client as to the appropriate action to be taken to remove the source of danger (for example, by switching off and isolating the affected part of the installation until remedied),before continuing with the inspection or testing.

Taken from the ESC guide

Not according to the ESC guide or IMO, You have every right to isolate a dangerous circuit. As I originally posted you can not disconnect it, but you can isolate it.

 

[johnboy6083]

i xcant imagine any court in the country would succesfully prosecute a spark or other engineer who disconnected a circuit because they believed it caused real danger to personell. I would do it, because i konw that anybody who owned an isnatllation like thatb woul;d know i was right, and wouldnt bother pursuing me, becauase if they did,i would back up my decision with a report including photos, and test results.

 

[oxocube]

Well I don't accept the esc stance or the difference between switching off or disconnecting. For the majority of cases, something that is dangerous is no longer dangerous once you are aware of the danger.

For instance , you do a PIR and discover all class 1 light fittings outer casings are live. They are out of reach, so although potentially dangerous, they're not if you don't touch them. But some of you would scare the customer and switch off the circuit, so what happens later that night when the customer falls down the stairs or knocks over a candle and sets fire to the house. You removed one potential danger but in doing so have created others.

 

[telectrix]

personally, i would isolate the faulty circuit. only disconnecting with the customer's agreement. in the case you have just outlined, it's a risk assessment as to which is the greater danger. if it were metal switches on the lighting circuit that were live, then i would not leave the premises until i had either disconnected the circuit or rectified the fault .

 

[malcolmsanford]

OC class I fittings on a circuit without a CPC should be a code 2 so as the potential to be dangerous. You would not isolate the circuit in that case.

A code 1 should be for example a broken socket face where someone can touch un-insulated live terminals. If I drew the attention of this to the client and he told me well it's a socket that is in a room hardly ever used. I'll stick a notice above it so no one can use it, so I don't want it replaced, then I would be telling him that I'm going to isolate that circuit, by switching off the protection device, and then informing in writing later that day.

If it was a broken light fitting on a circuit of say 6 lights, and again there were un insulated terminals that can be touched, I would be within my rights to isolate that circuit. Now I would give the customer a choice, I either turn off the entire circuit, or I disconnect that one light and leave you the other 5 working. If they told me no, they need that 1 light as it's the light that is above the store keepers desk and so it must be left on, I would simply isolate the entire circuit by turning off the protection device and tell him I was doing that and then put it in writing the same day.

 

[oxocube]

Been thinking about this and I think we have all made valid points and I reckon you would have to assess the individual situation, but it led me onto something else.

If you discover something that you have switched off is potentially dangerous, then the correct action must surely be to leave it switched off, otherwise you would be complicit if an accident ocurred. And will the p***** of customer refuse to pay you?

But if you discover something dangerous without switching off (as in my earlier scenario) then you have no right to switch it off, you just give the advice.

 

[NMc]

We appear to be talking about code 1s. I seen Tony Cable (NICEIC) video and I am sure that he states that any code 1 (requires urgent attention) have to be corrected there and then.

Comments welcome

 

[Blowcat]

I never heard of that before. Could you imaging repairing all the code 1's and at the end the customer says I never ordered that work, But thanks for doing it at your own expense. Your contract is for a pir only unless otherwise agreed.