PIR/EICR

[RMS]

I might be in the wrong for isolating a supply but if there was a high chance of death I would stand by my actions. I certainly would not carry on with an EICR if a C1 was found as it would need rectifying before I could carry on as it would also present a danger to myself.

So would you consult with the customer an say "I'm going to switch off your electric because there is a chance you might die"?

Your choice of words is nearly as strong as your will to prove people wrong.

RELAX!

 

[securespark]

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

 

[riveralt]

Vibro, you may be be spending time making safe at you own cost. Would you not at least discuss this with the customer or you QS before hand or do you work for yourself?

Depending on the time implication and cost of materials would be a factor of whether or not I would discuss with my QS before or after rectification.

Which law of the land gives you the right to carry out work without the consent of the owner? There is no legal power invested in electricians to declare an installation unsafe and effectively shut it down. If automatic rectification work for C1 faults is not included in the Inspection contract then you are in breach of the contract and could be sued. You would advice the customer of the fault and leave them to decide what action they take. They can if they wish do nothing and its nothing to do with you if they do.

If there was a fault (C1) on the DNO's supply/equipment I would stay at the property and contact my QS to explain that the distributor needs to be contacted as a matter of urgency and explain to the customer what is happening.

The DNO will tell you to sod off! Their contract is with the owner of the property and they will not act unless the owner states they should. You seem to be of the belief that you can write cheques for other people.

JownW2 is probably right in the sense that legally I might be in the wrong for isolating a supply but if there was a high chance of death I would stand by my actions.

Has this high chance of death suddenly appeared or has it been there for some time? Methinks you are nuts. If I was employing you and you pulled that stunt you would be sacked - especially as the customers prized fish has died as a result of your actions .

I certainly would not carry on with an EICR if a C1 was found as it would need rectifying before I could carry on as it would also present a danger to myself.

If you feel the installation is unsafe to work on then stop, inform the customer of the reason and leave it to them to decide what to do. Don't start making decisions for them.

 

[SimonH2]

Speaking as a customer, I personally know enough to be able to interpret what's been put - but I agree with others who've suggested that most people, when told by a qualified electrician that "Improvement (is) recommended" would consider that means something needs to be done. Look at it from a non-technical persons POV - why would someone recommend improvement if not on safety grounds, and if safety is involved, then it should be done.

I'd agree with others, it wasn't a good move to remove the "not to current standards" option - which still exists for gas installations I believe.


Now, putting on my landlords hat, if I get a report back with "improvement recommended" then in effect it's much more than a recommendation. People can be numpties, and numpties often want to blame someone else for their stupidity. So I have to consider, what if someone gets hurt in my property ?
Well there's a good chance they'd try and blame me (= get money from me). And what's my defence ? Well the first one (for electrical stuff) would be "I had the electrical installation inspected, and it was declared to be safe". But if there are any C3s on the report, someone could say "but there were recommendations for improvement, you didn't do them". Whether they are relevant or not, it waters down any defence I might have. So in effect, even a C3 becomes somewhat more than just a suggestion.

 

[SimonH2]

If there was a fault (C1) on the DNO's supply/equipment I would stay at the property and contact my QS to explain that the distributor needs to be contacted as a matter of urgency and explain to the customer what is happening.

The DNO will tell you to s** off! Their contract is with the owner of the property and they will not act unless the owner states they should. You seem to be of the belief that you can write cheques for other people.

Isn't that slightly different ? If there's a fault on the DNO equipment that aren't they obliged to deal with it ? So they can't tell someone to "sod off" if told their (for example) service head is dangerous.

As to the rest, I agree - you can only advise the customer. If they won't accept your advice then there's little you can do.
However, if the installation is seriously dangerous, isn't the DNO entitled to disconnect supply ? How dangerous does it have to be before it justified to report it to the DNO ?

 

[riveralt]

If there was a fault (C1) on the DNO's supply/equipment I would stay at the property and contact my QS to explain that the distributor needs to be contacted as a matter of urgency and explain to the customer what is happening.

The DNO will tell you to s** off! Their contract is with the owner of the property and they will not act unless the owner states they should. You seem to be of the belief that you can write cheques for other people.

Isn't that slightly different ? If there's a fault on the DNO equipment then aren't they obliged to deal with it ? So they can't tell someone to "s** off" if told their (for example) service head is dangerous.

The problem the DNO will have is that the call out charge (if there is one) will fall on the customer and not the person who is calling them. They will at the very least want to clarify with the customer that they require them to attend.

 

[starspark]

Oh dear oh dear less than a hundred posts in and vibro has already upset everyone with his attitude and bull in a china shop style!!
Guess i was right in the other thread (which he got locked) about him as BAS among others basically told him to go away to put it nicely!!

 

[JohnW2]

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/industry/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

Thanks. As you will know, in relation to the primary discussion in this thraed (C3 vs 'code 4'), this guideline says:

Amendment 1 of BS7671:2008 no long requires departures from the current edition of BS7671 that do not give rise to danger or need improvement to be recirded in condition reports.

As regards the varying views about 'unauthorised' remedy of C1s, the guideline says (my emphasis):

Inspectors should note that, even in domestic premises, Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 effectively require them to endeavour to make safe, before leaving the site and with the agreement of the user or owner, any dangerous conditions found in the installation. ... At the very least, the inspector must ensure that the client is made aware, at the time of discovery, that a danger exists

.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RMS]

Thanks. As you will know, in relation to the primary discussion in this thraed (C3 vs 'code 4'), this guideline says:

Amendment 1 of BS7671:2008 no long requires departures from the current edition of BS7671 that do not give rise to danger or need improvement to be recirded in condition reports.

Damm! I was just about to post that quote.

So thats cleared it up. It will be down to the inspector to make a judgment on their findings and decide if they give rise to danger. So for example, a lack of colour identification on a switch line within a light switch in my opinion would not give rise to danger and therefore would not receive a code.

 

[vibrobullit407]

Vibro, you may be be spending time making safe at you own cost. Would you not at least discuss this with the customer or you QS before hand or do you work for yourself?

Depending on the time implication and cost of materials would be a factor of whether or not I would discuss with my QS before or after rectification.

Which law of the land gives you the right to carry out work without the consent of the owner? There is no legal power invested in electricians to declare an installation unsafe and effectively shut it down. If automatic rectification work for C1 faults is not included in the Inspection contract then you are in breach of the contract and could be sued. You would advice the customer of the fault and leave them to decide what action they take. They can if they wish do nothing and its nothing to do with you if they do.

If there was a fault (C1) on the DNO's supply/equipment I would stay at the property and contact my QS to explain that the distributor needs to be contacted as a matter of urgency and explain to the customer what is happening.

The DNO will tell you to s** off! Their contract is with the owner of the property and they will not act unless the owner states they should. You seem to be of the belief that you can write cheques for other people.

JownW2 is probably right in the sense that legally I might be in the wrong for isolating a supply but if there was a high chance of death I would stand by my actions.

Has this high chance of death suddenly appeared or has it been there for some time? Methinks you are nuts. If I was employing you and you pulled that stunt you would be sacked - especially as the customers prized fish has died as a result of your actions .

I certainly would not carry on with an EICR if a C1 was found as it would need rectifying before I could carry on as it would also present a danger to myself.

If you feel the installation is unsafe to work on then stop, inform the customer of the reason and leave it to them to decide what to do. Don't start making decisions for them.

please read page 7 of the best practice guide (link provide by securespark) and give me your interpretation please.

Are you saying that if you found for example a bare conductor that you would just walk away and say "you;ll have to sort that". I for one would not. What for example if there were young kids in the property? As mentioned before by myself death could occur! how would you live with yourself.

Also I think you'll find that the DNO's are usually a bit more friendly that that. I for one have had the DNO out to 3 poor ZE's due to corroded connections on their sheath in the past month and funnily enough since it was their equipment they came out and rectified almost immediately.

Starspark aka "Mr agree", instead of just agreeing and thanking people for disagreeing with me maybe for once you could impart some of your meager knowledge!

 

[starspark]

bet vibro mentions or was going to mention before i posted this the ESC guide prob page 7 so so so predictable.

 

[JohnW2]

Damm! I was just about to post that quote.

I know the feeling but, just occasionally, I manage to type faster than others!

So thats cleared it up. It will be down to the inspector to make a judgment on their findings and decide if they give rise to danger. So for example, a lack of colour identification on a switch line within a light switch in my opinion would not give rise to danger and therefore would not receive a code.

That would certainly be my interpretation, and also the answer to the question on this issue which I initially posed - i.e. a good few of the PIR 'code 4s' (maybe the majority of them) could now get no code at all, not necessarily a C3.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[starspark]

there was my knowledge i just second guessed you at more or less the exact same time u wrote it!!!so so predictable!!

To be honest i would make safe whatever i had to causing minimum disruption and possibly taking advice from relevant people informing the customer of my intentions then issue an electrical improvement notice and keep a copy for myself to cover me and let them do with it what they will.
As said previously i cant tell them what to do only advise.

 

[vibrobullit407]

there was my knowledge i just second guessed you at more or less the exact same time u wrote it!!!so so predictable!!

To be honest i would make safe whatever i had to causing minimum disruption and possibly taking advice from relevant people informing the customer of my intentions then issue an electrical improvement notice and keep a copy for myself to cover me and let them do with it what they will.
As said previously i cant tell them what to do only advise.

A bit contradictory there "Mr agree". Would you make safe or advise?

 

[starspark]

Thats why i said if needed i would take advice from relevant people then go from there!!
I would hope they would allow to make safe with minimum disruption then advise from there.
Am i not allowed to agree with people? are you forbidding that now??
How about predicting your responses am i allowed to still do that?
Is this a democracy???