Question for electricians

[DaftPunk]

This is an anonymous poll as I'm curious to the result.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting. As the evolving results are already showing (albeit very early days), I think the outcome was always going to be totally predictable by anyone who has an ounce of awareness of 'the real world'!

There are, of course, more potentially 'contentious' questions you could have asked - maybe for a follow-up poll?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's not just the real world and I don't think the result was ever going to be in doubt.
For a start, it is a fact that SSE permit registered electricians to cut the seals and draw the fuse.

However, this is not the same as DP's admission of NOT being registered and working as he has stated which is actually against the law.
Whether this admission is regarded as 'honest' is a irrelevant as I would call it 'irresponsible' on a public forum.
We may all do things we shouldn't and/or take short cuts but advising others to do the same is not the thing to do.

Would an admission that you/he had killed your/his wife, and not yet been caught, be regarded in the same way?

 

[westie101]

SSE permit registered electricians to cut the seals and draw the fuse.

That is registered by and with SSE to do this task and I think after some training.

 

[EFLImpudence]

SSE permit registered electricians to cut the seals and draw the fuse.

That is registered by and with SSE to do this task and I think after some training.

Nope. They just allow it (if registered with CPS) and then go to reseal.

 

[westie101]

Nope. They just allow it (if registered with CPS) and then go to reseal.

Having just read the procedure it is not quite as straight forward as that.

I can't copy the URL but scroll down this page to find a document

Electrical contractors

01 May 2014

PR-PS-051 - Procedure for the removal and replacement of company cut out seals
and read it.
It only applies to cut-out seals, not meters.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It only applies to cut-out seals, not meters.

That's correct. I have never cut meter seals.

 

[JohnW2]

It's not just the real world and I don't think the result was ever going to be in doubt.

Indeed - it's a pretty 'tame' question which has been posed, presumably a least partially because the result was so predictable.

IFor a start, it is a fact that SSE permit registered electricians to cut the seals and draw the fuse.

Indeed. It would probably have been more interesting if the question had asked about seal cutting and fuse drawing by those who did not have permisssion so to do.

However, this is not the same as DP's admission of NOT being registered and working as he has stated which is actually against the law. Whether this admission is regarded as 'honest' is a irrelevant as I would call it 'irresponsible' on a public forum. We may all do things we shouldn't and/or take short cuts but advising others to do the same is not the thing to do.

I agree totally. That's why I wrote:

...I'm sure that many/most of us do know what goes on in the real world, but perhaps some things are best not actually said, particularly in a public 'DIY' forum. Although obviously not applicable to yourself, I'm also sure that there are things that some self-certifying electricians do in the real world (by virtue of being able to 'self-certify') that they would not want to talk about here.

I feel sure that DP is far from being alone in respect to these other things (other than breaking seals and pulling fuses) to which he has 'confessed', but some things are best not actually said, particularly not in 'public'. We would/should never suggest to anyone here (electrician or non-electrician) that it is acceptable to undertake notifiable work without notifying it, or that a self-certifying electrician should certify work that has not been essentially 'all their own work' - but we all know 'what goes on' in the aforementioned 'real world', and tacitly pretend that we 'do not know'.

Would an admission that you/he had killed your/his wife, and not yet been caught, be regarded in the same way?

Obviously not, but that is clearly a very different matter. We are talking about someone who appears to genuinely believe that the work has been undertaken satisfactorily and safely, that no-one has been harmed or put at risk, and that the only 'crime' is the 'bureaucratic' one of failing to notify.

Also, although we've discussed it here before, I've never been totally sure of the legal side of all this. If a householder engages an electrician to undertake notifiable work in the knowledge that the work is not going to be notified, I'm not sure who is actually breaking the law. We've certainly heard of at least one (crazy) case in which an LABC attempted to pursue a householder (not the electrician responsible) for non-notification of work which had been undertaken before the present owner had even bought the property!

KInd Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps we should have a poll on how many people break the speed limit.

Then we could discuss the inappropriateness of a courier company making speeding a mandatory practice so that they can gain a competitive advantage by being able to get more deliveries done in a day.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also, although we've discussed it here before, I've never been totally sure of the legal side of all this. If a householder engages an electrician to undertake notifiable work in the knowledge that the work is not going to be notified, I'm not sure who is actually breaking the law. We've certainly heard of at least one (crazy) case in which an LABC attempted to pursue a householder (not the electrician responsible) for non-notification of work which had been undertaken before the present owner had even bought the property!

Ah. Good point, I had overlooked that aspect of it (due to 'just' self-certifying anyway, I suppose).

So, maybe DP should inform the householder that they must notify and if they do not then DP is absolved of all responsibility and not doing anything wrong.

I know Bas disagrees with this so we could be back to square one until a judge tells us the 'truth'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If a householder engages an electrician to undertake notifiable work in the knowledge that the work is not going to be notified, I'm not sure who is actually breaking the law.

It may of course be another one of those areas where the intention of the people who wrote the legislation was different from what they actually wrote, but the Building Regulations are, IMO, completely clear that it is the person carrying out the work who is responsible for complying with them, not the person ordering the work. And that includes the giving of a notice.

[IANAL]

If it could be shown that the householder knowingly employed someone to commit a crime then might that be conspiracy?

[/IANAL]

 

[EFLImpudence]

It actually says "person intending to carry out the work"?

 

[JohnW2]

Also, although we've discussed it here before, I've never been totally sure of the legal side of all this. If a householder engages an electrician to undertake notifiable work in the knowledge that the work is not going to be notified, I'm not sure who is actually breaking the law. ...

Ah. Good point, I had overlooked that aspect of it (due to 'just' self-certifying anyway, I suppose). So, maybe DP should inform the householder that they must notify and if they do not then DP is absolved of all responsibility and not doing anything wrong.

Indeed. IF (and I really don't know) the responsibility for notifying rests with the householder, then the electrician is clearly breaking no law.

I know Bas disagrees with this so we could be back to square one until a judge tells us the 'truth'.

Indeed. ISTR that the law says that the responsibility (for notification) rests with 'the person undertaking the work', or something like that. IIRC, BAS interprets that, literally, as the person whose hands did the work - but, as you imply, I'm not at all convinced that a court would necessarily take the same view.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So, maybe DP should inform the householder that they must notify and if they do not then DP is absolved of all responsibility and not doing anything wrong.

I know Bas disagrees with this so we could be back to square one until a judge tells us the 'truth'.

I disagree with it because it is clearly wrong.

If it's your responsibility to do something you cannot shed that responsibility by asking someone else to do it. For example, the law requires that you insure your vehicle. If you ask someone else to arrange the insurance and then drive about without verifying that that someone else did actually do it, and you do actually have insurance, who do you think would face prosecution for driving whilst uninsured?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ISTR that the law says that the responsibility (for notification) rests with 'the person undertaking the work', or something like that. IIRC, BAS interprets that, literally, as the person whose hands did the work - but, as you imply, I'm not at all convinced that a court would necessarily take the same view.

One can never predict what a court might do.

But one can look at the Building Regulations, find every instance of "the person carrying out the work" (or a variation thereof), and substitute "householder" for them.

You should try that sometime, and see what complete nonsense it would be.