Lock offs for unenergised cable

[securespark]

My point was two-fold.

One, you document (in writing) that the situation is unsafe. Presumably that has already been done.

Two, if payment has not been made for materials supplied by the spark, you further document that the cable is YOUR property and it is not to be tampered with. You take pictures of this as proof, along with a copy of the written hazard warning previously given. If the customer is willing to sign, you get them to do this. If they are not, you write "CUSTOMER REFUSED TO SIGN"

Ultimately, you cannot stop the customer doing what they want. But you can cover your arse and prove that you have done everything possible to make the customer aware of a dangerous situation that means a supply cannot be installed at this time.

 

[securespark]

Deleted duplication.

 

[JohnW2]

Well it sounds like he suspects the tenant to bodge it in somewhere, so maybe a chance he may be going into the Live head fitting a fuse with a deliberate fault on it, with no PPE unaware it will blow in his face, yeah maybe he should not be doing it, but would you be happy, potentially maiming him for life.

I suppose the most important think to say is that I personally would almost certainly not do what is being discussed. As I said/implied, I would probably use a 'Henley' (or similar), with a seal. That would obviously be no impediment to someone (with wire-cutters or scissors) determined to do things with the cable, but provided I had documented what I had done (e.g. by photograph, probably with a warning label on the Henley, also photographed) I reckon that would fairly well establish that I had 'taken reasonable steps' to prevent 'interference' with the cable.

I am no lawyer but i would think if someone was injured then there would be questions asked.

I'm no lawyer, either, but I imagine that 'questions would probably be asked' (in the event of an injury) even if, in the situation that has been described, one did what I've just suggested, even without any 'deliberate fault'....

[ Do we really believe that this customer would be likely to 'work live' to temporarily connect this cable to a source of power. If not, then, as I originally said, there would be no real danger created by a 'deliberate short'. ]

... Working live, itself, is dangerous enough (for the 'untrained') in the absence of a 'deliberate short'. If one really did suspect that the customer in question was likely (or even very slightly likely) to work live to connect the cable (which he had been told not to energise), I do not think that one could/should do what the OP has done without risking 'questions' if anything went wrong - since to leave a cable (even if 'locked off' in a Henley/whatever) in proximity to a potential source of electricity would be very tempting to someone who wanted to energise it (possibly by working live) - so the electrician could still be criticised for creating that temptation (in someone suspected of being capable of working live), and facilitating such craziness!

If the cable is new but the installation unsafe then leave the load end safely isolated, if someone else reconnects either end then it becomes there problem surely.

Dunno. In that situation I would certainly want to 'isolate' both ends of the cable (in Henley's with seals, or whatever). However, a person who I suspected was capable of working live in order to connect the upstream end of the cable would presumably be more than capable of also connecting the downstream end - so I suppose the electrician could again be criticised for 'facilitating' any stupidity that took place.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that if one really suspected that the customer was capable/likely of doing the sort of things that have been suggested, I don't think the electrician should do anything to facilitate it - for example, in the case in question, should not install the distribution cable until everything at both ends was ready for 'immediate termination' of the cable as soon as it was installed.

However, I do wonder how likely it is that, having been 'warned', the customer really would do what people seem to be fearing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

Am i the only one shocked that someone would even consider putting a deliberate short on a cable knowing that someone may have intentions of connecting it, surely that would be a criminal offence

Shorting conductors to Earth to prevent unwanted energisation is a recognised safety procedure and is actually required before working on equipment in some instances.

 

[333rocky333]

Shorting conductors to Earth to prevent unwanted energisation is a recognised safety procedure and is actually required before working on equipment in some instances.

Yes it is, but i would quess there is a certain protocol.

I did think actually of hiding a short on the cable somewhere, with the idea being if he does it himself it will catch him out

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not see why the OP's back would be "uncovered" if the customer does something stupid.

 

[JohnW2]

Shorting conductors to Earth to prevent unwanted energisation is a recognised safety procedure and is actually required before working on equipment in some instances.

Very true, but someone (Rocky?) has tried to counter that by saying that, when that is done, the short is usually (indeed, I suspect in some cases may "be required to be") visible - in which case the issue might become the fact that the OP was talking about a 'hidden' (and probably 'undisclosed') short.

As I've said, although it's probably not something I would do (in the OP's situation), I would personally not see any significant danger in introducing the short (even if 'hidden and undisclosed') since I would assume that any sane person wanting to 'temporarily energise' the circuit (despite having been told not to) would do so 'safely'.

To my mind, a potential issue only arose when Rocky suggested that the customer might not only 'temporarily energise' the shorted circuit but might do so by 'working live'. That seems pretty far-fetched (i.e. extremely improbable) but, as I've said, if one really believed that such was a significant possibility, then it would be inadvisable to introduce the short and, indeed, quite probably (as has been suggested) a criminal offence - in the same way as it is an offence to install potentially lethal measures to protect one's property from people who enter it illegally.

As I've also said, if one really believed that those 'far-fetched' scenarios were a significant possibility, then one really should not install the cable until things at both ends are ready for 'immediate termination' of the cable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I do not see why the OP's back would be "uncovered" if the customer does something stupid.

As I've just written, if an election in the OP's position really believed that there was a significant possibility that the stupid person would do the ridiculously stupid things Rocky has suggested, then their back might be a bit "uncovered" in law - as I said, in a similar fashion to it being illegal to deliberately create potentially lethal hazards that would only be dangerous to someone who illegally broke into one's property.

However, as I've said, I think that the scenario postulated by Rocky is so far-fetched as to probably not be something which the law would expect an electrician to take into consideration.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

@JohnW2 I was not really meaning working live as such to do the work, more that he or someone may well withdraw the cut out Live fuse to work safely, only then a situation may arise where they refit that said fuse Live under a shorted load condition.

 

[jelliottelectrical]

@JohnW2 I was not really meaning working live as such to do the work, more that he or someone may well withdraw the cut out Live fuse to work safely, only then a situation may arise where they refit that said fuse Live under a shorted load condition.

But that scenario has many issues, which I have no control over. Like interfering with the cutout fuse and failing to do any initial verification before energising, ie an IR test.

I think I will leave the SWA disconnected both ends, heat shrink up the ends, tag it and issue in writing it is not safe to energise. That way should someone else connect it, the comeback on me is limited

 

[JohnW2]

@JohnW2 I was not really meaning working live as such to do the work, more that he or someone may well withdraw the cut out Live fuse to work safely, only then a situation may arise where they refit that said fuse Live under a shorted load condition.

Fair enough - I obviously misunderstood you. I'm still not sure what sort of method of 'temporary connection' you are contemplating (that would require pulling the cutout fuse).

If it were an electrician (or, indeed, a sensible non-electrician) doing it in some fashion that did require the pulling of the cutout fuse, one might hope that they would undertake dead tests before replacing the fuse, since it's not impossible that there could be 'unintentional shorts', even if there are no 'deliberate' ones!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But that scenario has many issues, which I have no control over. Like interfering with the cutout fuse and failing to do any initial verification before energising, ie an IR test.

Quite so - see what I recently wrote to Rocky.

I think I will leave the SWA disconnected both ends, heat shrink up the ends, tag it and issue in writing it is not safe to energise. That way should someone else connect it, the comeback on me is limited

I must admit that I wasn't thinking of SWA, which rather throws my 'Henley' suggestion out of the window (but I'm sure it could be 'terminated' within some sort of enclosure). However, I feel sure that what you are proposing would, as you say, very much 'limit', if not totally eliminate, and possible 'comebacks'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

But provided I had documented what I had done (e.g. by photograph, probably with a warning label on the Henley, also photographed) I reckon that would fairly well establish that I had 'taken reasonable steps' to prevent 'interference' with the cable.
I'm no lawyer, either, but I imagine that 'questions would probably be asked' (in the event of an injury) even if, in the situation that has been described, one did what I've just suggested, even without any 'deliberate fault'....

Presumably the customer has already been told 'not to tamper', so I'm not sure that trying to prevent interference would make a lot of difference, would it?


Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/lock-offs-for-unenergised-cable.570259/#ixzz6tpDF2F4l

 

[JohnW2]

Presumably the customer has already been told 'not to tamper', so I'm not sure that trying to prevent interference would make a lot of difference, would it?

Do I hear a (perfect) echo - or is it just a case of "Great Minds"? ...

Presumably the customer has already been told 'not to tamper', so I'm not sure that a label saying the same thing would make a lot of difference, would it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

I was having a little dig at you because you seemed to be pointing out the futility of the point I was making then effectively said something very similar!