No earth in lighting circuit what next?

[Midwest]

I’ve done it.
Made a visual inspection, run a few tests and asked some questions.
Then turned round and said they don’t need a new CU.

Each to their own. I changed a few light bulbs for Mrs Miggins and never charged her. Trump that.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

Interesting post this. I’ve only just started consumer unit change outs.

I have one due very soon - it’s taken me two days so far to test, fault find and rectify. Things like this NE fault on a lighting circuit as shown in image above (Light was still working!). Other faults as well.... a bit of a list.

I just want a full schedule of good test results before swapping out. Dangerous faults found were found and rectified before re-energising. I’ve still a couple of further investigations to carry out.

Then again my customer is very understanding. The vast majority of the wiring is in good condition. He is saving thousands by getting repairs instead of a rewire.

I can’t imagine swapping a CU and ‘hoping for the best’. (Comment not aimed at the OP - but if I’m honest - am taking his dilemma as reinforcement on my desire to thoroughly test first).

Good luck to Elliott.

 

[Andy78]

Each to their own. I changed a few light bulbs for Mrs Miggins and never charged her. Trump that.

But did she give you one of her famous pies ?

 

[Midwest]

But did she give you one of her famous pies ?

Nope, just some brown grit in hot water.

 

[ruston]

View attachment 47704 Interesting post this. I’ve only just started consumer unit change outs.

I have one due very soon - it’s taken me two days so far to test, fault find and rectify. Things like this NE fault on a lighting circuit as shown in image above (Light was still working!). Other faults as well.... a bit of a list.

I just want a full schedule of good test results before swapping out. Dangerous faults found were found and rectified before re-energising. I’ve still a couple of further investigations to carry out.

Then again my customer is very understanding. The vast majority of the wiring is in good condition. He is saving thousands by getting repairs instead of a rewire.

I can’t imagine swapping a CU and ‘hoping for the best’. (Comment not aimed at the OP - but if I’m honest - am taking his dilemma as reinforcement on my desire to thoroughly test first).

Good luck to Elliott.

Being on site could you actually see how they managed to get that nail through that second cable , obviously it must have been trapped, but how have they hammered the nail in in the first place?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I think the floorboard has been lifted and flipped over.

 

[ruston]

I think the floorboard has been lifted and flipped over.

Yes obvious now you point it out . I need more bananas today .

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes obvious now you point it out . I need more bananas today .

Carrots.
It’s carrots for eyes, not certain what bananas are for.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

I think the floorboard has been lifted and flipped over.

Correct. Yes. I pulled up the floorboard to look for the fault beneath, and the fault came up with the board!

Nail was straight through neutral and earth on both cables.

 

[ruston]

Carrots.
It’s carrots for eyes, not certain what bananas are for.

Ross Braun when he was in the pit lane for Ferrari used to eat at least two bananas during the race .
The potassium is supposed to be good for the brain. But not in my case.

 

[alasdairp]

It was unprofessional and unthinking to do the CU change without a check on CPCs (etc) in the first place. As members have said you could see this just by looking at the wiring in the old fuse box. However, now I would suggest replacing all metal light switches with plastic ones at your time and expense (that would not cost much) and stick warning notices (clearly visible but not enormous) on all metal light fittings (that are rarely touched) saying "Danger of electrocution - not Earthed - do not touch" and take photos of them for the record. It would be wrong to re-energise unearthed metal light switches that are regularly touched. That would be my approach now.

 

[peterhyper]

It was unprofessional and unthinking to do the CU change without a check on CPCs (etc) in the first place. As members have said you could see this just by looking at the wiring in the old fuse box. However, now I would suggest replacing all metal light switches with plastic ones at your time and expense (that would not cost much) and stick warning notices (clearly visible but not enormous) on all metal light fittings (that are rarely touched) saying "Danger of electrocution - not Earthed - do not touch" and take photos of them for the record. It would be wrong to re-energise unearthed metal light switches that are regularly touched. That would be my approach now.

Using the term 'unprofessional' might be going a bit far. You might check every single light switch and light fitting before quoting to fit a consumer unit but you are in a minority, and I guess you also go up into the loft to check the light switch and light fitting is earthed. I wonder if you also check the exterior lights to ensure they have an earth before quoting even if it's pelting down.

So when the customer says they don't want your cheap looking plastic light switches because their lovely shiny chrome ones look much classier, would you stick labels on every light switch stating "danger of electrocution'?

Looking at the wiring in a fusebox is no guarantee everything will be earthed.

 

[delano]

So you do a full detailed check of every circuit, every socket, every light switch, every light fitting etc before you replace a consumer unit?

If necessary, yes.

 

[Midwest]

However, now I would suggest replacing all metal light switches with plastic ones at your time and expense (that would not cost much) and stick warning notices (clearly visible but not enormous) on all metal light fittings (that are rarely touched) saying "Danger of electrocution - not Earthed - do not touch" and take photos of them for the record. It would be wrong to re-energise unearthed metal light switches that are regularly touched.

If you care to read the BPG linked in this thread, you'll see that Electrical Safety First suggest doing what you've suggested, is not an option in a domestic property. They are referring to reg 412.1.5, which in my yellow copy is 412.1.3, I believe.

Edit, and even if the OP has dropped a clanger, as some suggest, its not his responsibility to rectify at his own expensive, something that existed before the replacement of the CU.

Your not the first to suggest this FOC thing, but its not his work that is faulty, so to suggest such, is frankly absurd from a business point of view.

 

[Pete999]

If you care to read the BPG linked in this thread, you'll see that Electrical Safety First suggest doing what you've suggested, is not an option in a domestic property. They are referring to reg 412.1.5, which in my yellow copy is 412.1.3, I believe.

Edit, and even if the OP has dropped a clanger, as some suggest, its not his responsibility to rectify at his own expensive, something that existed before the replacement of the CU.

Your not the first to suggest this FOC thing, but its not his work that is faulty, so to suggest such, is frankly absurd from a business point of view.

Right Ok but it will be his responsibility, not to have checked any prospective faults out to the client in the first place, )I don't want to pay for any pre inspections before hand, and expecting the Sparky to carry this cost should there be any faults is downright stupid in my book.

 

[Midwest]

Right Ok but it will be his responsibility, not to have checked any prospective faults out to the client in the first place, )I don't want to pay for any pre inspections before hand, and expecting the Sparky to carry this cost should there be any faults is downright stupid in my book.

I don't quite follow your post Pete. Don't want to disagree with you, if your agreeing with me?

 

[magnoliafan89]

Each to their own. I changed a few light bulbs for Mrs Miggins and never charged her. Trump that.

Ive just got back from doing 4 hours work at my nans....still took payment....

 

[Midwest]

Ive just got back from doing 4 hours work at my nans....still took payment....

You tight -------

 

[Midwest]

What he meant was, Nan gave him an apple pie and a nice bottle of homemade wine.

 

[Toneyz]

It is either 1. rewire of the lighting circuit(s).
2.additional earth installed
3.all fittings are plastic.
if the customer refuses then the circuit cannot be connected.
if the customer wants to connect once you have compleated and certified that is his own risk.

 

[dksanders]

I have to agree with Murdoch, we have turned up to an old 3036 board often with no gas or water bond, undersized tails, undersized main earth conductor, and often connections not great. We have replaced the board with a C/U with RCDs, sorted all the other issues out and improved its safety. But some of the lights don't have a cpc, so we've highlighted this verbally to the customer, also in writing and put a warning sign on the C/U regards the danger etc.

The likelyhood of this ever ending up in court is very very very slim, but if it did I am confident that I left the customer's installation far safer than how I found it and I have clearly highlighted the issue with the light circuit having no cpc and I can't physically do anymore. The lighting circuit was there before I arrived, I didn't cause the lack of cpc problem n the lights, but I have definitely improved the safety of the customer's installation.

When I put my car in for a service and the mechanic tells me my brakes are dangerous and I refuse to pay him to fix them, is he then responsible if I have an accident due to my brakes failing. Of course he's not responsible, he can't force me to pay him to fix my brakes just I can't force the customer to pay to have their light circuit sorted.

The analogy is flawed, telling you the brakes are dangerous is the same as telling the client there are no CPCs. Changing the CU and re-energising the circuit without CPCs is analogous to the mechanic taking the brakes out then putting them back in, knowing they are dangerous.

Also I don't know what legal obligations mechanics have but we as electricians have quite a few to ensure that what we do is safe.

 

[peterhyper]

The analogy is flawed, telling you the brakes are dangerous is the same as telling the client there are no CPCs. Changing the CU and re-energising the circuit without CPCs is analogous to the mechanic taking the brakes out then putting them back in, knowing they are dangerous.

Also I don't know what legal obligations mechanics have but we as electricians have quite a few to ensure that what we do is safe.

If the mechanic had to get the brakes off to get to another component, should he leave the car without any brakes at all because you won't pay him to replace them?

If a mechanic forgot to put the brakes back on the car, he is clearly negligent just as I would be negligent if I forgot to reconnect the cpc I removed. The light circuit didn't have a cpc when I arrived, so what I have done to make the circuit any less safe (absolutely nothing) In fact as previously mentioned, I have vastly improved the safety of the customer's installation by not only highlighting the danger of not having a cpc, but fitting RCDs, water/gas bond, upgrading tails and main earth and conducting a full test and inspection of all circuits.

So mylord, my client Peter Hyper left Mr Smith's overall installation in a much safer condition than when he arrived. He stressed to Mr Smith verbally, in writing and by a notice on the consumer the potential danger of not having a CPC on his lighting circuit. Mr Hyper did not remove the said earth conductor from Mr Smith's lighting circuit as one was never present to start with. Mr Hyper doesn't have the authority to force Mr Smith to have his lighting circuit rewired. Those mylord are the facts in this case.

 

[dksanders]

If the mechanic had to get the brakes off to get to another component, should he leave the car without any brakes at all because you won't pay him to replace them?

If a mechanic forgot to put the brakes back on the car, he is clearly negligent just as I would be negligent if I forgot to reconnect the cpc I removed. The light circuit didn't have a cpc when I arrived, so what I have done to make the circuit any less safe (absolutely nothing) In fact as previously mentioned, I have vastly improved the safety of the customer's installation by not only highlighting the danger of not having a cpc, but fitting RCDs, water/gas bond, upgrading tails and main earth and conducting a full test and inspection of all circuits.

So mylord, my client Peter Hyper left Mr Smith's overall installation in a much safer condition than when he arrived. He stressed to Mr Smith verbally, in writing and by a notice on the consumer the potential danger of not having a CPC on his lighting circuit. Mr Hyper did not remove the said earth conductor from Mr Smith's lighting circuit as one was never present to start with. Mr Hyper doesn't have the authority to force Mr Smith to have his lighting circuit rewired. Those mylord are the facts in this case.

Lol.
The prosecution puts to your client that safer or not, he did not comply with current legislation, guidance, and good practise and is therefore not compliant with the relevant standards and Best Practise Guides and so is liable as charged. The prosecution rests its case.

I sympathise, I really do, but it is what it is. Knowing there were metal fittings without a CPC I could not in good conscience energise that circuit and walk away no matter what labels etc. I fitted. In my Terms & Conditions I have that clause about situations that become apparent after the work has started etc.

If he is not prepared/able to pay for the required remedial actions then I would give the client two options and tell him that you are legally bound to do one or the other, you have no choice in it. The options would be, 1) as a minimum replace metal fittings and accessories with plastic, with him paying but at worst case scenario, at my cost and 2) leave the circuit disconnected (presumably he can use table lamps plugged in the sockets for lighting.

If presented with an 'either or' situation, in life I've found most people, reluctantly or not, choose one of them.

 

[peterhyper]

Lol.
The prosecution puts to your client that safer or not, he did not comply with current legislation, guidance, and good practise and is therefore not compliant with the relevant standards and Best Practise Guides and so is liable as charged. The prosecution rests its case.

I
I sympathise, I really do, but it is what it is. Knowing there were metal fittings without a CPC I could not in good conscience energise that circuit and walk away no matter what labels etc. I fitted. In my Terms & Conditions I have that clause about situations that become apparent after the work has started etc.

If he is not prepared/able to pay for the required remedial actions then I would give the client two options and tell him that you are legally bound to do one or the other, you have no choice in it. The options would be, 1) as a minimum replace metal fittings and accessories with plastic, with him paying but at worst case scenario, at my cost and 2) leave the circuit disconnected (presumably he can use table lamps plugged in the sockets for lighting.

If presented with an 'either or' situation, in life I've found most people, reluctantly or not, choose one of them.

For clarification: I am the defence lawyer's client

When you conduct an EICR and establish that the lighting circuit has no CPC do you also disconnect the lighting circuit until the owner either has a rewire or replaces all the metal light fittings and switches for plastic?

Where does it actually say you are 'legally bound' to disconnect the lighting circuit if it doesn't have a cpc and the owner won't replace the metal fittings with plastic?

Finally, if you quoted a customer to install a couple of sockets and when you turned up to do the socket job and opened the C/U you then noticed that the lighting circuit had no cpc, do you also disconnect the circuit if the customer refuses to replace the metal light fittings for plastic?

 

[Starjack]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

 

[chris gray]

Tbh it’s good to see different people views on the question

 

[peterhyper]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

Lol, but lots of people have responded, whereas you have singularly made over 200 posts in just 8 days and even had a ban, which has to be a record on any forum

 

[Silly Sausage]

When you conduct an EICR and establish that the lighting circuit has no CPC do you also disconnect the lighting circuit until the owner either has a rewire or replaces all the metal light fittings and switches for plastic?

EICR: the clue's in the name.
It's a report, no action required. It's down to the customer whether they want to take further action.

Where does it actually say you are 'legally bound' to disconnect the lighting circuit if it doesn't have a cpc and the owner won't replace the metal fittings with plastic?

I don't know if you can, but the problem the OP has, as already pointed out, he's worked on the CPCless circuits and has now left Exposed Conductive Parts un-Earthed, hence the thread!

Finally, if you quoted a customer to install a couple of sockets and when you turned up to do the socket job and opened the C/U you then noticed that the lighting circuit had no cpc, do you also disconnect the circuit if the customer refuses to replace the metal light fittings for plastic?

Report the fact. You would be working on a different circuit.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

Geez, I nearly had a heart attack there, thinking you were going to post a technical response.

 

[peterhyper]

Geez, I

lol

 

[Starjack]

My input for what it's worth, the op should not have swapped the Db without knowing if all circuits were safe, bonding up to scratch etc, a few dead tests would have revealed the problem thus allowing the conversation to take place with the customer before ripping it out and then finding the problem.
The whole crux of it is he should not have energised the lighting circuit , forget about having the power to disconnect it, it should never have gone back on.

 

[45140]

My thoughts for what they are worth. No offence intended to anyone but based on experience.

1 : The principle issue here is does the work undertaken comply with the Regulations or failing that any subordinate guidance ?

2 : Failing 1 above if there is no guidance or Industry best practice, has the installation been left in a safe state

Given my understanding and what I have read the answer to both is No, and can only be NO because there are both BS7161 requirements as well as Industry best practice that set out clearly and unambiguously what should be done.

The answer to both of the questions above would be used in Court by the Prosecution in the event of an accident or injury/loss, and any defence would need to demonstrate without question that the installation was safe and without danger. The legal eagles deal only in facts and would not even entertain a "in my opinion" argument unless it was given by an expert witness. What would an expert witness say in these circumstances ? I think we all know.

It would be for the Installer to demonstrate that through his actions he has not left the installation in a unsafe condition and frankly I do not think he has. Once having started the installer has both the legal and moral responsibility to do the work to the correct standards Departures from Standards, etc are fine as long as you can demonstrate that they improve or are at least no more dangerous than the solutions in BS7161 or Industry best practice.

If the installer has "ended up" in this situation because they have not assessed the condition of the installation and obtained adequate information prior to the work starting then sorry but the problem is down to them to resolve through agreement with the client unless contractually the installer has have covered this eventuality in the Contract or Quotation, in which case they can rely on this to disconnect and leave disconnected any affected ccts - with suitable warning notices documented to the client.

The problem then becomes the client's not the installers.

Unfortunately the Installer has met someone who for whatever reason is holding out against paying anymore money for the work and further the installer appears to have no Contractual basis upon which to claim for additional unforeseen work.

Now the Installer could disconnect the cct but were the client to put litigation in place, it could be argued by an adept Barrister, that the work should not have commenced and that it was actually now in a less safe condition because it does not meet the current Regulations and best practice has not been followed. This would leave the installer to carry out remedial work at their expense and no doubt pay substantial compensation to the client. Then of course there is the debate about whether the installer's Insurance Company would be happy that the installer has acted with due diligence.

Even thinking of going into a legal situation on the basis of some of the justifications put here would be suicidal as any competent Barrister would tear them to pieces. Basically once your mouth was opened with one of those the only debate would be how many zeros were to go on the cheque

FWIW I think the only option now left is for the installer to formally notify the client that during the course of the work, unforeseen conditions have been discovered that require the cct to be left disconnected or for the client to pay for the necessary remedial work to bring the system into compliance with BS716 or industry best practice. The client should be reminded that they have a legal obligation not to endanger any person in their property as well as a contractual obligation to the Insurance Company to maintain the property in a safe condition.

One possible alternative to disconnect would be to through-wire any metallic fittings thus leaving the cct intact but the affected equipment in situ. The client could be asked to check to see if the remedial work is covered under their insurance as this may be a means of unlocking the deadlock.

Out of interest is there no standard form of contract for small companies/sole traders that can be followed, something which would deal with such eventualities and disputes ??

 

[peterhyper]

EICR: the clue's in the name.
It's a report, no action required. It's down to the customer whether they want to take further action.



I don't know if you can, but the problem the OP has, as already pointed out, he's worked on the CPCless circuits and has now left Exposed Conductive Parts un-Earthed, hence the thread!



Report the fact. You would be working on a different circuit.

With regards the EICR, he has removed the lighting circuit and then establishes that it doesn't have earth continuity throughout, and the customer won't replace the metal light fittings. Or are you saying that because it's just an EICR then it's fine for him to then knowingly reconnect the unsafe circuit back into the consumer unit?

 

[Octopus]

The case for the prosecution:

The you the electrician did refuse to change a BS3036 board because the lightening circuit didn’t have a CPC. The net result is that my client is now dead, the result of a fatal shock from the socket circuit.

How do you plead?

Defendant: Not guilty!

Prosecution: So why is your plead not guilty?

Defendant: Because of the wording of BS 7671, I wasn’t permitted to upgrade the fuseboard, because the client couldn’t afford a partial rewire...

Prosecution: so you wouldn’t improve most of the installation which would have almost certainly prevented the death of my client

Defendent: yes sir

Prosecution: so you are saying BS 7671 prevents you making an installation safer

Defendent : er ........

 

[Norah Nabino]

So what do you guys do after you replace the consumer unit and then discover that there is no cpc continuity on one metal light switch, but the customer refuses to pay to have the issue resolved. Let's assume that you didn't check every single light switch and every single light fitting before replacing the consumer unit (as some of you definitely appear to do prior to a C/U change), do you then remove the consumer unit and reinstall the one you took out?

As a matter of principle you have to do the cpc continuity test to be absolutely clear of what you need to do.
As an Electrician you should know the importance of a cpc (SAFETY)

 

[paulcopeman]

I Always insist on an EICR b4 doing a DB change. Mostly because I want to find out any existing faults that are going to be picked up after fitting RCD.
I've never had a customer decline after explaining to them that RCD will trip with just a small fault (but the MCB/fuse, they currently have won't pick up these faults) making the installation much safer so I need to check for them b4 I do a DB change.
You live and learn.

 

[MFS Electrical]

Should never have swapped the board without doing proper testing before, no stickers or excuse will get you out of it, you dropped a major one and need to put it right whether it cost you or not.
The amount of people that do something as stupid as this baffles me, all about the quick buck.

Or don’t price accordingly and make the job fit the price rather than do it right. To be fair though we are all human and have made mistakes-learn from it and move on..... I’d lock the circuit off with a little cheap lock off and a tie wrap then issue an Electrical Danger Notification and keep a copy. Then if the customer were to re-energise it after you left I don’t think that would be your problem, because you did inform them of the danger in writing and gave professional advice that the circuit is not safe to use. Ball would be in their court.

 

[Norah Nabino]

This isn’t an EIC for an installation though.
It’s an EIC for a new Consumer Unit.

What is the difference? ???
When you change the CU it is mandatory to issue an EIC .
You don't just issue it but you make sure all circuits connected in that board work and comply with BS 7671.

 

[peterhyper]

The case for the prosecution:

The you the electrician did refuse to change a BS3036 board because the lightening circuit didn’t have a CPC. The net result is that my client is now dead, the result of a fatal shock from the socket circuit.

How do you plead?

Defendant: Not guilty!

Prosecution: So why is your plead not guilty?

Defendant: Because of the wording of BS 7671, I wasn’t permitted to upgrade the fuseboard, because the client couldn’t afford a partial rewire...

Prosecution: so you wouldn’t improve most of the installation which would have almost certainly prevented the death of my client

Defendent: yes sir

Prosecution: so you are saying BS 7671 prevents you making an installation safer

Defendent : er ........



I rest my case

This is exactly how it is in reality.

Crazy that we aren't leaving the lighting circuit any less safe than when we arrived, and we have made the house owner aware of the potential dangers and made all the other circuits much safer and as a result could actually save peoples lives as you suggested, but some consider this to be the action of an unprofessional electrician.

I honestly don't believe for a second that many electricians do a full and detailed inspection of every single light switch and light fitting including the external lights and loft lights as well as every possible test on each circuit at every point along it before they quote for a C/U. Clearly some suggest that just opening the fuseboard will tell you the lighting circuits have a CPC which confirms Jack S**t, and perhaps they are also able to establish when looking inside the fuseboard if the lighting circuit has a borrowed neutral.

I apologise for so many posts on this subject, although I still haven't made as many posts since joining in December 2017 as the guy who joined just 8 days ago (lol),

 

[MFS Electrical]

The trouble with relying on an RCD to provide protection when there is no CPC is that people never test them. Just the other day I replaced a socket for a customer carried out an RCD test and got over 310ms. Customer had never tested it. Luckily after a manual test it came unstuck and was working within correct tripping times.

I’d still be replacing that RCD if I were you....

 

[Toneyz]

I can't believe this thread is at 125 posts and you say I'm bad.

Yes, but they were nothing but you arguing and belittling people that went on and on and on.

 

[Norah Nabino]

This is exactly how it is in reality.

Crazy that we aren't leaving the lighting circuit any less safe than when we arrived, and we have made the house owner aware of the potential dangers and made all the other circuits much safer and as a result could actually save peoples lives as you suggested, but some consider this to be the action of an unprofessional electrician.

I honestly don't believe for a second that many electricians do a full and detailed inspection of every single light switch and light fitting including the external lights and loft lights as well as every possible test on each circuit at every point along it before they quote for a C/U. Clearly some suggest that just opening the fuseboard will tell you the lighting circuits have a CPC which confirms Jack S**t, and perhaps they are also able to establish when looking inside the fuseboard if the lighting circuit has a borrowed neutral.

I apologise for so many posts on this subject, although I still haven't made as many posts since joining in December 2017 as the guy who joined just 8 days ago (lol),

You are there to make the installation safer not partially safe.

 

[Norah Nabino]

Nothing can be done if the Owner will not permit it. I have had one where I saw that an RCD was required in a Special Location but not present. I had the necessary Wylex RCBO to hand and offered to "just do it" for its cost price and was refused. Still bothers me.

It is ignorance on their side they don't get it when you advise them.

 

[MFS Electrical]

I think the main issue here is if he had done a few basic tests he would have found the lighting had no doc.
At that point he should have had a conversation with the client, if they refused to have it rectified he should have walked away. Instead he as swapped the Db and then energised a dangerous circuit. And sèems to have adopted a don't care attitude.

Playing devils advocate here, surely the circuit in question, having been isolated for inspection and dead testing should not be reenergised after finding such a problem? Technically the circuit should have been left isolated and an electrical danger notice issued even if the CU change where never to proceed?
As the last electrically skilled person to touch the circuit, the blame, should anything go wrong could still be on your head....
This is purely theoretical but it makes me think maybe walking away isn’t always the best course of action.

 

[Octopus]

Playing devils advocate here, surely the circuit in question, having been isolated for inspection and dead testing should not be reenergised after finding such a problem? Technically the circuit should have been left isolated and an electrical danger notice issued even if the CU change where never to proceed?
As the last electrically skilled person to touch the circuit, the blame, should anything go wrong could still be on your head....
This is purely theoretical but it makes me think maybe walking away isn’t always the best course of action.

We, as competent sparks have no legal rights to disconnect circuits.....

 

[peterhyper]

You are there to make the installation safer not partially safe.

Sorry but that's not very sensible. We can't always completely solve every issue in life 100% and we rarely do. If a doctor could resolve the majority of a patients medical conditions, accept for just one (he wouldn't make that condition any worse) would he not bother sorting any of the other medical conditions out because he can't solve every single one. Oh I forgot the doctor doesn't come under the same criteria as an electrician, so that isn't relevant.

So if we can only make the installation 90% safer than it was, then just leave it and do nothing unless we can make it 100% safer. If you said that to an intelligent person they would think you were on a wind up.

 

[45140]

The case for the prosecution:

The you the electrician did refuse to change a BS3036 board because the lightening circuit didn’t have a CPC. The net result is that my client is now dead, the result of a fatal shock from the socket circuit.

How do you plead?

Defendant: Not guilty!

Prosecution: So why is your plead not guilty?

Defendant: Because of the wording of BS 7671, I wasn’t permitted to upgrade the fuseboard, because the client couldn’t afford a partial rewire...

Prosecution: so you wouldn’t improve most of the installation which would have almost certainly prevented the death of my client

Defendent: yes sir

Prosecution: so you are saying BS 7671 prevents you making an installation safer

Defendent : er ........

All the defendant would need to do would be to reply to the last question along the lines that the installation was in a condition that could only be remediated by work in compliance with the 18th Edition. There is NO responsibility on the electrician to force the client. If the client decided not to pay for the work then their inevitable death was as a result of their own actions. Easy Peasy

 

[telectrix]

My thoughts for what they are worth. No offence intended to anyone but based on experience.

1 : The principle issue here is does the work undertaken comply with the Regulations or failing that any subordinate guidance ?

2 : Failing 1 above if there is no guidance or Industry best practice, has the installation been left in a safe state

Given my understanding and what I have read the answer to both is No, and can only be NO because there are both BS7161 requirements as well as Industry best practice that set out clearly and unambiguously what should be done.

The answer to both of the questions above would be used in Court by the Prosecution in the event of an accident or injury/loss, and any defence would need to demonstrate without question that the installation was safe and without danger. The legal eagles deal only in facts and would not even entertain a "in my opinion" argument unless it was given by an expert witness. What would an expert witness say in these circumstances ? I think we all know.

It would be for the Installer to demonstrate that through his actions he has not left the installation in a unsafe condition and frankly I do not think he has. Once having started the installer has both the legal and moral responsibility to do the work to the correct standards Departures from Standards, etc are fine as long as you can demonstrate that they improve or are at least no more dangerous than the solutions in BS7161 or Industry best practice.

If the installer has "ended up" in this situation because they have not assessed the condition of the installation and obtained adequate information prior to the work starting then sorry but the problem is down to them to resolve through agreement with the client unless contractually the installer has have covered this eventuality in the Contract or Quotation, in which case they can rely on this to disconnect and leave disconnected any affected ccts - with suitable warning notices documented to the client.

The problem then becomes the client's not the installers.

Unfortunately the Installer has met someone who for whatever reason is holding out against paying anymore money for the work and further the installer appears to have no Contractual basis upon which to claim for additional unforeseen work.

Now the Installer could disconnect the cct but were the client to put litigation in place, it could be argued by an adept Barrister, that the work should not have commenced and that it was actually now in a less safe condition because it does not meet the current Regulations and best practice has not been followed. This would leave the installer to carry out remedial work at their expense and no doubt pay substantial compensation to the client. Then of course there is the debate about whether the installer's Insurance Company would be happy that the installer has acted with due diligence.

Even thinking of going into a legal situation on the basis of some of the justifications put here would be suicidal as any competent Barrister would tear them to pieces. Basically once your mouth was opened with one of those the only debate would be how many zeros were to go on the cheque

FWIW I think the only option now left is for the installer to formally notify the client that during the course of the work, unforeseen conditions have been discovered that require the cct to be left disconnected or for the client to pay for the necessary remedial work to bring the system into compliance with BS716 or industry best practice. The client should be reminded that they have a legal obligation not to endanger any person in their property as well as a contractual obligation to the Insurance Company to maintain the property in a safe condition.

One possible alternative to disconnect would be to through-wire any metallic fittings thus leaving the cct intact but the affected equipment in situ. The client could be asked to check to see if the remedial work is covered under their insurance as this may be a means of unlocking the deadlock.

Out of interest is there no standard form of contract for small companies/sole traders that can be followed, something which would deal with such eventualities and disputes ??

you yourself should be up before the magistrate for using as font size that is dangerous to my ageing eyesight. only joking. can't insert a smiley for some reason.

 

[Wilko]

Playing devils advocate here, surely the circuit in question, having been isolated for inspection and dead testing should not be reenergised after finding such a problem? Technically the circuit should have been left isolated and an electrical danger notice issued even if the CU change where never to proceed?

Hi - If this was discovered during an EICR it would be coded and communicated. But if there was no active fault, would it be left isolated?

 

[45140]

So if we can only make the installation 90% safer than it was, then just leave it and do nothing unless we can make it 100% safer. If you said that to an intelligent person they would think you were on a wind up.

That is not how the legal mind would work. Whether or not the system was safe or not prior to working on it is completely irrelevant here.

The installer is a skilled person and thus has the responsibility to ensure that the system is safe NOT safer than it was before, but 100% safe after they have completed work on it. If you dispute this call your Insurance Company on Monday and ask them if you are still covered if you switch back into service an installation that is not compliant with BS7671.

BS7671 and the Industry best practice is absolute determination on this and it will be those documents that would be used by a Prosecution. You can only safely depart from BS7161 if in doing so you can demonstrate that what you have done achieves as a minimum the same level of safety.

Once the installer has identified the situation and the client will not pay for it to be done then you cannot issue and IEC and without an EIC you cannot re-energise.