Follow up to the 'jobsworth' thread

[flyingsparks]

So then what would you all do in this situation?
Go to a house to replace a faulty light switch. All wiring is fine and tests ok. But there is no main bonding to incoming water and gas pipes. Old lady who owns the house says it been ok for last 20 years will be ok for another 20 years. She doesn't want the upheaval of installing bonding which is at the other end of he house. And she can't afford it either.

I think only me,RF and Lectrician would insist on it being done or walk away judging by everyone else's comments here!?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I would inform the client of the importance of this protection and that it fails to comply to the standards.
If the old lady has family I would also inform them and to cover my own back, by handing written documentation of this defect, then inform my scheme provider and/or building controls of my findings.

Then leave it with the old lady to consider her options.

 

[Lectrician]

Swapping a switch is maintenance. You would swap like for like.

Not white for chrome, and not a room full. A single damaged switch.

Why would I even look at the bonding for a maintenance job?

Strictly speaking, you don't even have to carry out any testing or fill in a MWC if you are swapping like for like, carrying out maintenance.

Swapping several switches from white to chrome IS NOT maintenance.

This has got silly.

 

[securespark]

We used to change accessories all the time like for like. As Lec says, that is maintenance. We would check the PEB's and comment on them and if the job was in a bathroom and the SEB's were required and missing would comment on those too.

Only on an installation job would we insist on installing or upgrading PEB's.

Anyhow, what's the all-important comment RIGHT in the front of the regs?

I can't remind myself of it because my regs are upstairs and I can't climb stairs yet.

Anyone care to quote it?

 

[JohnW2]

Go to a house to replace a faulty light switch. All wiring is fine and tests ok. But there is no main bonding to incoming water and gas pipes. ... I think only me,RF and Lectrician would insist on it being done or walk away judging by everyone else's comments here!?

For a start, I suspect (but obviously do not know) that many electricians would not even check the main bonding if they were there only to replace a light switch.

I obviously respect the right of you and others to feel that you should 'walk away' if the bonding is not remedied. ... but what if the light switch were not just faulty, but actually in a dangerous state - would you really feel that it was more appropriate to leave the switch in a dangerous state than to replace it and leave the installation without main bonding? If it were me, I don't think I would sleep well if I took that view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Swapping a switch is maintenance. You would swap like for like. ... Not white for chrome, and not a room full. A single damaged switch. ... Why would I even look at the bonding for a maintenance job?

Where does all this talk about 'like for like' and the difference between 'maintenance' and something else ('installation'?) come from?

I thought this was all about safety, so I obviously need to be educated to understand why (assuming it's done competently) replacing a plastic switch with a chrome one is any less safe than replacing it with a plastic one (whether or not there is some 'known problem' with the circuit - other, of course from the absence of an effective CPC) - or why replacing (competently) a 'room full' of switches is less safe than replacing one.

Strictly speaking, you don't even have to carry out any testing or fill in a MWC if you are swapping like for like, carrying out maintenance.

Again, I think I must need some education - where does that come from? I thought that, strictly speaking, all 'electrical work' undertaken per BS7671 required testing and an MWC (or EIC), and confess that I hadn't noticed the exception to which you refer relating to 'like-for-like 'maintenance' replacement".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I would inform the client of the importance of this protection and that it fails to comply to the standards. If the old lady has family I would also inform them and to cover my own back, by handing written documentation of this defect, then inform my scheme provider and/or building controls of my findings. Then leave it with the old lady to consider her options.

That's all fair enough - but what if, having 'considered her options' she decided that she didn't want anything done about the bonding, but still wanted the faulty (and perhaps dangerous) switch replaced - would you replace it (with caveats all over the documentation), or leave her with the (possibly) dangerous switch?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Belboz]

Have followed this and the linked thread with interest.

Seems top me that you - as professionals - are between a rock and a hard place because of your qualifications/expertise/knowledge. Any criticism would appear to be a result of the 'you should have known better' rule.

However, from a safety and regs point of view, this is an unfair position to put you in because, AFAIK, joe public is entitled to change a faulty/broken switch/faceplate without recourse.

I am sure that non-professionals up and down the country have changed switches and sockets with no concern (usually through lack of knowledge) for wiring/bonding etc.

SO it appears that the framers of the legislation - for whom safety is paramount [allegedly] - allow joe public to carry out this work but expect a higher level of scrutiny from professionals. That cannot be right surely?

If we take an extreme case where someone unfortunately dies as a result of such work, what would HM Coroner say??

If joe public had changed the switch and, through lack of knowledge, had ignored the bigger picture, I would suggest that, at best, HM Coroner would have something to say about the law and the regs.

If it were a professional, would HM Coroner say that they were more liable because they were experts and ought to have seen the bigger picture??

Any barrister worth their salt would be able to point out the unfairness of that situation in comparison to what the law allows the public to do.

Given all that, perhaps it is time to introduce an ELECTRIC SAFE register alongs the GAS SAFE lines and prevent any electrical work being done by non-professionals.

Unpopular as it would be with joe public, it would remove this inherent unfairness of 'you should have known better'.

Of course here are other professions where similar unfairness exists.

Just my tuppence worth.

Keep calm and carry on.................

 

[JohnW2]

I am sure that non-professionals up and down the country have changed switches and sockets with no concern (usually through lack of knowledge) for wiring/bonding etc. ... SO it appears that the framers of the legislation - for whom safety is paramount [allegedly] - allow joe public to carry out this work but expect a higher level of scrutiny from professionals. That cannot be right surely? ... If we take an extreme case where someone unfortunately dies as a result of such work, what would HM Coroner say??

One thing to understand is that, in the context of this thread (well, the one which spawned it), I think everyone is agreed that the work in question (replacing light switches) could not (assuming the work was done competently) conceivably make the electrical installation any less safe than it was before the work was done. The discussion is really all about the extent to which a professional is expected (by HM Coroner or whoever) to look for problems with the installation as a whole 'while they are there' and maybe even refuse to undertake the work (which, in itself, could not make the installation less safe) if they find problems with the installation in general (which the customer is not prepared to have rectified).

As I've asked before, if you take your car to a garage to have it's brake pads replaced, does the mechanic have a responsibility to look for potential problems throughout the hydraulic system, ABS electronics etc. (and maybe even refuse to change the pads if they find potential problems in those areas and the customer is not prepared to have them rectified) ... and if they did not detect those hydraulic/ABS problems (but changed the pads) would HM Coroner regard them as responsible if subsequent failure of hydraulics/ABS led to a death? [and that's as much a 'real question' as a rhetorical one]

Given all that, perhaps it is time to introduce an ELECTRIC SAFE register alongs the GAS SAFE lines and prevent any electrical work being done by non-professionals. ... Unpopular as it would be with joe public, it would remove this inherent unfairness of 'you should have known better'.

As I've been saying, one problem with that is, if the 'jobsworth' issues being discussed persisted, that would cause at least some people to have work undertaken illegally (by unregistered 'electricians' or themeselves), or maybe leave dangerous problems completely unaddressed (because no registered electrician would do the work without also doing other things which they couldn't afford).

I personally think that many/most of these issues could be addressed simply by the application of good-old-fashioned common sense, including, where appropriate, sensible risk/benefit assessments/judgements - rather than attempts to just 'play by the book'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Belboz]

John,

I agree with what you say. Couple of matters arising:

The car mechanic example is fair but there is a difference here. What everyone appears to be saying on this and the other thread is that the changing of the switch has thrown up an obvious issue with the wiring. In other words, a competent electrician would have noticed the obvious wiring issue when removing the switch plate. What happens after that is debatable. If a car mechanic, whilst removing the wheel to replace pads, noticed a worn tyre, a faulty disc or any other issue, what would he do about it and, more to the point, what would he be expected to do about it?

It is the obvious issue which is found whilst trying to resolve the initial problem which is under discussion here and how far a professional must take things [as opposed to joe public] to avoid potential liability.

It is, IMHO, manifestly unfair to criticise a professional whilst permitting joe public to do whatever he/she wants with little or no critcism. However, that is what happens on a daily basis in all manner of professions (regulated or not) That is part of the wider issue with the law of the land.

The answer has to be that you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either the work can only be carried out by professionals or there is some form of disclaimer law which may be applied.

Any attempt to make this sort of uber-regulation would, as I said, be unpopular with joe public but it would remove the clear inconsistency. Yes it would lead to 'illegal/unregulated' electrical work but that will remain a fact of life irrespective. DIY Gas is still alive and kicking despite the uber-regulation of that profession.

Having come from a profession where the 'you should have known better' law applies across the board, I sympathise with all those in similar circumstances.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have not commented on either of these threads because there didn't seem to be much point - differing opinions, no answer.

However, I agree with John in that common sense must be used.

Say the switch in question shows no sign of damage externally but it has just stopped working.
In view of the fact that it must be removed to discover the wiring 'problem', do the posters, who would then refuse to replace it, also refuse to replace it?
That is, refuse to screw the original switch back in position?
Leave it dangling? I suppose (hope) not.

Therefore, what is the difference in fitting a new one which would then enable the said old lady to be able to switch on her stair lights?

Also, the bonding has absolutely no relevance to the light switch whatsoever, so if she does not want to pay, perhaps, lots of money for one light switch replacement - disconnecting and reconnecting two screws and two wires - what? Leave her in the dark?

Also two, where is the regulation which states that main bonding must be fitted if missing in order that a light may work.
Is this another case of over zealous unrealistic 'guidance'?

A fault may also be noticed on her cooker; do you walk away if she refuses to have that rectified or do you enable the light so that she can at least see it?

 

[JohnW2]

The car mechanic example is fair but there is a difference here. ... If a car mechanic, whilst removing the wheel to replace pads, noticed a worn tyre, a faulty disc or any other issue, what would he do about it and, more to the point, what would he be expected to do about it?

The expectation would surely be that he should bring those defects to the attention of the owner - indicating, if appropriate, how urgent it was to address them. If he then decided not to do anything about them and, as a consequence, subsequently died, I really can't see how a Coroner (or anyone else) could really criticise the electrician in that situation, could (s)he (even if the brake pads had been replaced)? In context, the real question is whether, having detected (and reported) the worn tyre, faulty disk or whatever, the mechanic should then refuse to change the brake pads unless those other issues were also addressed. Does safety, or anything else, really benefit from leaving the vehicle with worn-out pads as well as those other defects?

It is, IMHO, manifestly unfair to criticise a professional whilst permitting joe public to do whatever he/she wants with little or no critcism.

I'm not sure that is necessarily the case, except in the minds of some of the electricians (whose main consideration may be their personal 'liability'). If electrical work undertaken by J Public result in a death, I would not expect a Coroner (or, indeed, a Judge) to remain silent about that. It could be that the problem arose because of something "a non-professional would not be expected to know", but the criticism would then presumably be that Mr Public had taken on work that he was not competent to do.

Any attempt to make this sort of uber-regulation would, as I said, be unpopular with joe public but it would remove the clear inconsistency. Yes it would lead to 'illegal/unregulated' electrical work but that will remain a fact of life irrespective. DIY Gas is still alive and kicking despite the uber-regulation of that profession.

Of course, but the sort of uber-regulation you refer to would undoubtedly result in an increase in that 'illegal' work. The extent would depend on 'how far it was taken' by the professionals. A fairly high proportion of electrical installations probably have some 'potential problems' (certainly non-compliances with current regs), and if all the 'legal' electricians refused to do even very minor work unless all those issues were rectified, it would leave many (wo)men in the street with little choice but to turn to 'illegal' solutions.

Having come from a profession where the 'you should have known better' law applies across the board, I sympathise with all those in similar circumstances.

So do I (I'm not an electrician, or anything like it!), albeit I have a number of professional hats. However, in my primary (aka first) one, the main test of one's actions is whether those actions would be supported by 'a body of' (by no means necessarily a majority of) fellow professionals.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

However, I agree with John in that common sense must be used.
...do the posters, who would then refuse to replace it, also refuse to replace it? That is, refuse to screw the original switch back in position?
Leave it dangling? I suppose (hope) not. ... Therefore, what is the difference in fitting a new one which would then enable the said old lady to be able to switch on her stair lights?
Also, the bonding has absolutely no relevance to the light switch whatsoever ... Leave her in the dark?
...A fault may also be noticed on her cooker; do you walk away if she refuses to have that rectified or do you enable the light so that she can at least see it?

Exactly. I think that common sense has gone totally out of the window - and, if I understand correctly, mainly because of some electrician's wish to 'protect themselves' (from the perceived risks of 'applying common sense').

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I will admit I did not read the other thread. As to mechanic if he finds a fault he is not empowered to stop the owner taking it away.

He can phone the Police who in turn can stop the driver as he leaves the garage and issue an immediate GV9 and stop the driver going any further.

Now with a house with a missing earth the electrician can't phone anyone who can do anything to force the owner from doing anything. It is not permitted to make a home uninhabitable without finding alternative accommodation.

With children in the house maybe the social services would intervene but unless children are involved very little can be done.

The electrician has always been between a rock and hard place where in non domestic premises we find a danger in law we should remove that danger and can in law counter the instructions of a managing director and switch off the power. In the real world this would likely mean getting the sack so in real terms he can't just switch off the power. But in law he is responsible.

The case reported not long ago when Emma Shaw died does show where the guy who caused the fault was not considered as being guilty and even the guy who tested and inspected was not found guilty it was his boss who carried the can for accepting a report from a guy he knew was not trained to do the work.

In health and safety everything must be in writing. And I can understand why. I would get a phone call "garble garble garble unit 1" not a clue what the problem was but it clearly was in unit 1 so off I would go to unit 1 see the manager and ask what the problem was. He had no idea and asking around no one seemed to know of a fault. So I left unit 1 assuming what ever it was had been solved. Next there would be a fault reported which had escalated and the question was why didn't you report the fault to which the answer was I did.

So going to a house and noting no earth must be reported in writing. Refusing to do work is not enough once you identify the fault it needs reporting. So how if you walk away does one give a written report?

Again health and safety you must insure what you have told some one is understood. So does no earth mean the floor was clean. Does lack of bonding mean no sex? Yes I know it seems silly but specially where I live I need to be sure the old lady understands English since I can't speak Welsh and although I may use Peril rather than Danger which is similar to perygl it would be hard to show a court that I did all reasonable possible to alert the occupant to the danger.

Should we carry disclaimer forms? Sucking in air and declaring jobs worth does not protect one from blame. And turning around and walking away does not either.

So to change a light switch means turning off supply we are not permitted to work live and to turn off supply we need house owners permission once turned off then we can't turn back on until safe to do so where after turning off the power we remove the light switch to find there is no earth we then have to do something about it. As to what that is the real problem.

Should we phone up council and tell them the house is not safe the occupants need re-housing? No not good enough must be in writing so email, fax, or text message as well as phone call. Once council is closed for day what then. Police, Fire, Ambulance or Coast Guard who should we inform.

I don't know the answer so lets see what the team think! On finding a danger which the home owner refuses to get corrected who should we inform and how about the danger?

 

[sparkwright]

I can just imagine the mayhem that would occur every time I went to an old lady's house to change a faulty light switch, but first demand to look under her sink and through her cupboards to look for the gas and water bonding.

By that nature, wouldn't it also be an idea to do a Ze and Zs test before changing the switch, otherwise looking at the bonding could be a waste of time.

Would certainly want to look at the bonding before a consumer unit change, but this?

Lectrician, why is replacing one broken light switch for a PLASTIC one so very different to changing three for chrome ones?

If I have to replace a faulty light switch where the wiring may be done a bit rough, why is it such a crime to fit a chrome one, if there's a decent earth?