Blimey, wasn't this a diy job?

[scousespark]

IF the job has been notified, the QS is the person responsible for signing the job off.

Maybe if it had been notified DIY work, inspected by a third party, rather than (one guesses) self-certified by an electrician, the victim would still be alive?

I'm not surprised to see the only 'IF' that comes to your mind is if it was a diyer and tested by a third pary it may have been okay.
It is your mantra.

It was you who introduced the 'IF it had been notified'. I merely pointed out that 'if it had been notified' by a DIYer, then inspection would necessarily have been by a third party (rather than self-certification by the person who did the work, which may have been what happened in this case) - and, as a general principle, inspection by a third party is usually 'better and safer' than self-inspection of one's own work. I accept that self-certification is always going to happen but was really highlighting the irony that (expensive) third-party inspection of DIY work is probably more likely to prevent (incredibly rare) tragedies like this than is self-inspection of work undertaken by the person who undertook the work.


Kind Regards, John

I hadn't intended the IF to be in upper case, as I was only pointing out that there were 2 people potentially responsible. The socket would only be tested, if the tester was made aware of it. None of us know the full picture, and yet you have immediately jumped to the conclusion which supports your view that DIY work inspected independently is best.

 

[scousespark]

I have absolutely no objection to being assessed and would happily have a randomising element included. How do you see your random inspections work and who will pay for it? You are talking about people's homes here. Does the inspector turn up at tea-time demanding access to check the installation?

The details and practicalities would obviously have to be worked out. However, it's far from a unique situation and has been made to work in many fields. As for cost, that would presumably become part of the payments for scheme registration and thus would presumably ultimately be passed on to customers.


Kind Regards, John

As an NICEIC AC, I have been assessed every year and have been so since well before 2005. The assessment doesn't cover every single piece of work I've done, but it is a reresentative sample.

I have an annual assessment and schedule my workl to free a day up. If this changed, to random assessments, it would be a nightmare scheduling visits. You have stated on here that you have decades of 'mainly amateur' experience in our field. You never tell us what your job is, so we can never challenge your assertions.

 

[bernardgreen]

I have an annual assessment and schedule my workl to free a day up.

This suggests the assessment may not be "on the job" under site conditions but is a desk and paper activity in an office. exam room or similar environment. Also the person being assessed will be on their best behaviour and not looking to reduce time taken and/or expenses incurred in the work.

If this changed, to random assessments, it would be a nightmare scheduling visits.

All that would be needed is for the assessor to contact on the day of a possible assessment and ask where you are sorking that day. You are then assessed on site with the work you have done rather than a test piece in the examination room.

That might seem a bit draconian but having seen some examples of very poor work by a few people who are (apparently ) members of schemes I have the opinion that either these people have two standards of work or the assessing system does not find all of those with poor standards of on site workmanship.

 

[Bill Stickers]

Ah ha yet another armchair electrician on here who doesn't have the first clue what actually happens in the real world, but it doesn't stop him commenting on a subject he knows absoloutly nothing about.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Often it is comments and observations and suggestions from people who don't know "what happens in the real world" which are needed to break the constraints imposed by a "this is the way it's always been done" mindset.

I'm talking generically here - not saying that any particular alternative inspection regimes are either workable or justifiable or needed, but the point is that people with experience of other "safety auditing" environments might well have valuable insights into how an existing system could be reformed, if it needs it, which those steeped in the tradition of how it's currently done because that's how it's always been done are unable to see.

To think that any particular trade or profession cannot learn anything from different ones is narrow minded and arrogant.

 

[dhutch]

Just read this for the first time. Certainly a real reminder as what can happen if it goes wrong, poor bloke. Cant comment on the outcome of the hearing so im not going to, but certainly a powerful reminder of the importance of not getting it wrong.


Daniel

 

[SimonH2]

This case is possibly a good reminder that most incidents are not caused by a single event, but by a chain of events. Break any link in the chain and the final result doesn't happen.

In this case, it sounds like :
Multiple people working on job, so no-one "knows everything" about it.
Speculation - the marking on the socket may not have been clear and/or the terminal arrangement different to that expected.
Speculation - if this was the "show home" then the trades may have been under pressure (more than normal) to complete quickly to allow viewings.
Kitchen used as office, with filing cabinet obscuring view of socket.
Speculation - lack of "as installed" drawings.
Tester may have been a different person to installers, so unfamiliar with all the fittings as installed.
Combination of above 3 leads to socket not being tested.
Washing machine fitter failed to do any basic checks on socket.
Fitter unlucky to touch both washing machine and earthed pipe at same time.
Unluckier still, the shock was fatal.

I count potentially 8 links there which if broken may have led to a different (better) outcome.

Another useful consideration is to put yourself in the position of each of the people involved. What actions could we have taken which would have broken that chain ? Do we actually do them ?
For example, someone mentioned plugging in a basic socket tester. Do people do that before plugging something in ? Every time ?

 

[ricicle]

You may want to re-think this statement - 'Continuity of Ring Final Circuit conductors', (Figure of 8 ). if done correctly, confirms polarity of all conductors.

If you had N/E reversal at a socket outlet, you wouldn't get a reading at that 'outlet' during either of the cross-tests...........telling you that N and E are reversed.

Not all socket outlets are on ring final circuits !

 

[scousespark]

I have an annual assessment and schedule my workl to free a day up.

This suggests the assessment may not be "on the job" under site conditions but is a desk and paper activity in an office. exam room or similar environment. Also the person being assessed will be on their best behaviour and not looking to reduce time taken and/or expenses incurred in the work.

If this changed, to random assessments, it would be a nightmare scheduling visits.

All that would be needed is for the assessor to contact on the day of a possible assessment and ask where you are sorking that day. You are then assessed on site with the work you have done rather than a test piece in the examination room.

That might seem a bit draconian but having seen some examples of very poor work by a few people who are (apparently ) members of schemes I have the opinion that either these people have two standards of work or the assessing system does not find all of those with poor standards of on site workmanship.

Where did I say the assessment is done in an office. If you look at the NICEIC web site, the details are well documented. The assessment is done mainly at customer sites. There would be little point just looking at filled in certs, without going out to confirm the details. The issue I have is with trying to arrange this, if it became a random rather than annual event.

I can not comment on the work you've seen, as I wasn't there. There are bad examples in all trades and indeed professions. I still believe the decision to require 238 and 239 (or scheme equivalents) but not demand 2360/2330 was a mistake. The 5-day course is a poor substitute.

 

[scousespark]

Often it is comments and observations and suggestions from people who don't know "what happens in the real world" which are needed to break the constraints imposed by a "this is the way it's always been done" mindset.

I'm talking generically here - not saying that any particular alternative inspection regimes are either workable or justifiable or needed, but the point is that people with experience of other "safety auditing" environments might well have valuable insights into how an existing system could be reformed, if it needs it, which those steeped in the tradition of how it's currently done because that's how it's always been done are unable to see.

To think that any particular trade or profession cannot learn anything from different ones is narrow minded and arrogant.

I have never said there is nothing we can do to improve things, nor that other fileds have practices which would do so. My argument with JohnW is that he hasn't asked what assessment takes place. Surely it just as arrogant to determine he knows best.

 

[JohnW2]

My argument with JohnW is that he hasn't asked what assessment takes place. Surely it just as arrogant to determine he knows best.

I didn't need to ask, because I know what an assessment involves.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

My argument with JohnW is that he hasn't asked what assessment takes place. Surely it just as arrogant to determine he knows best.

I didn't need to ask, because I know what an assessment involves.

Kind Regards, John.

So now you have sat through the full day, or have you seen a site assessment where the purpose is for the electrician to confirm that he/she has the practical skills to back up the theory?

 

[JohnW2]

So now you have sat through the full day, or have you seen a site assessment where the purpose is for the electrician to confirm that he/she has the practical skills to back up the theory?

No, but I've talked to many electricians who have been through such assessments, and therefore have a fair idea of how they are (I would say satisfactorily) assessed in relation to their practical skills whilst being observed.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

So now you have sat through the full day, or have you seen a site assessment where the purpose is for the electrician to confirm that he/she has the practical skills to back up the theory?

No, but I've talked to many electricians who have been through such assessments, and therefore have a fair idea of how they are (I would say satisfactorily) assessed in relation to their practical skills whilst being observed.

Kind Regards, John.

Guest appearance ? Back for good (couldn't keep away could you ) or just tidying up loose ends?

 

[JohnW2]

Guest appearance ? Back for good (couldn't keep away could you ) or just tidying up loose ends?

Essentially the latter - it seemed a bit rotten to ignore questions/ comments directed at me in ongoing threads.

You know as well as I do that I'm not going to totally disappear any time soon but I'm certainly attempting to considerably reduce my involvement in new threads. Hence, once the loose ends of existing threads have been tidied, I'll probably be fairly thin on the ground ... if my will power holds out, that is

Kind Regards, John.