New Oven delivered, refused installation

[ban-all-sheds]

All true, but I agree with stillp that it's very unlikely that HSE would have any interest - particularly if the only example is something which could be regarded as "erring on the side of safety" (even if 'incompetently').

"No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."

The installer does not seem to have sufficient knowledge or experience.

 

[JohnW2]

How could such a person successfully reprimand an installer who was genuinely competent?

I'm not sure what you would count as a "successfully reprimand" but if he told the installer that, regardless of what he thought, keeping his job required him to obey the 'letter of the instructions', then that might have some effect!

We have to remember that these 'installers' will not (usually) be electricians, so it may be necessary for them to be required to work to a strict set of inflexible rules. Being competent to attach a cable to a circuit which complies, to the letter, with a set of 'requirements' is not the same as being competent to decide whether it can/should be connected to a particular circuit.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I disagree. It seems perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to install an appliance if aspects of the fixed installation are such as to affect safety relating to the appliance. One can obviously debate how far that should go, but, for example, I think it would be reasonable to refuse to install if the fault protection of the available circuit was significantly inadequate, and certainly if there were no earth continuity at all.

1) There may be some merit in that, but there's no doubt in my mind that this particular installer would not be able to do the necessary checks to verify adequate fault protection or earth continuity, and precious little doubt that he wouldn't have the necessary equipment nor be allocated sufficient time.

2) What if it were a fixed appliance, which needed to be "installed" rather than just unpacked and placed on the floor or a worktop, but plugged into an existing socket - should the same checks on the rest of the installation be done as if it were being wired to an outlet plate?

 

[JohnW2]

"No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work."
The installer does not seem to have sufficient knowledge or experience.

As I've just written, the installer may be competent to connect a cable to a circuit which satisfies a set of requirements 'to the letter', but not be competent to make decisions about circuits which do not totally satisfy those requirements. By declining to undertake work which requires knowledge/competence he does not have, it would seem that the installer would be satisfying that legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I disagree. It seems perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to install an appliance if aspects of the fixed installation are such as to affect safety relating to the appliance. One can obviously debate how far that should go, but, for example, I think it would be reasonable to refuse to install if the fault protection of the available circuit was significantly inadequate, and certainly if there were no earth continuity at all.

1) There may be some merit in that, but there's no doubt in my mind that this particular installer would not be able to do the necessary checks to verify adequate fault protection or earth continuity, and precious little doubt that he wouldn't have the necessary equipment nor be allocated sufficient time.

That's very probably true. I was merely disagreeing with your (seemingly general) assertion...

... it is 100% irrelevant what is going on in the actual fixed installation from the POV of "am I allowed to install this?".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure what you would count as a "successfully reprimand" but if he told the installer that, regardless of what he thought, keeping his job required him to obey the 'letter of the instructions', then that might have some effect!

Can you say "unfair dismissal"?

Can you say "The EAWR requires the supervisor or manager to be competent as well"?

We have to remember that these 'installers' will not (usually) be electricians, so it may be necessary for them to be required to work to a strict set of inflexible rules.

The law requires him to be competent.

Knowing so little about installation work that he does not understand something as basic as this means that he is not competent. What's the betting that the MIs for the oven have something to say about consulting a qualified electrician?

Being competent to attach a cable to a circuit which complies, to the letter, with a set of 'requirements' is not the same as being competent to decide whether it can/should be connected to a particular circuit.

Then he is not sufficiently competent to do the work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I've just written, the installer may be competent to connect a cable to a circuit which satisfies a set of requirements 'to the letter', but not be competent to make decisions about circuits which do not totally satisfy those requirements.

Then his "competence" is inadequate.

By declining to undertake work which requires knowledge/competence he does not have, it would seem that the installer would be satisfying that legislation.

I disagree, because it shows that he does not have sufficient competence to be doing this sort of work at all.

 

[JohnW2]

Being competent to attach a cable to a circuit which complies, to the letter, with a set of 'requirements' is not the same as being competent to decide whether it can/should be connected to a particular circuit.

Then he is not sufficiently competent to do the work.

He is if the work he is employed to do is to connect cables to circuits which satisfy 'to the letter' a set of stated requirements (requirements which are very probably also part of the Ts&Cs of the 'installation agreement' with the customer).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that matters. The EAWR don't have those provisions in them.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think that matters. The EAWR don't have those provisions in them.

To the best of my knowledge, the EAWR doesn't require someone to be competent to do things which they are not employed to do and/or are not allowed by their employer to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do not believe, and I'm pretty sure you don't either (but will never admit it), that, looked at holistically, this person is genuinely competent to do electrical work.

If he was, then he would not have failed to connect the cooker on the basis of a rule which he would know was bogus.

He is supposed to be a professional, and both he, and his employer, have a duty of care to provide a competent and professional service.

 

[SimonH2]

I'm not sure what you would count as a "successfully reprimand" but if he told the installer that, regardless of what he thought, keeping his job required him to obey the 'letter of the instructions', then that might have some effect!

Can you say "unfair dismissal"?

Can you say "good luck proving that" ?

In the real world it's not that hard to find "other reasons" to let someone go. Also, bear in mind that many of the people at this level of employment are woefully ignorant of their rights. Even if the person manages to prove unfair dismissal - he's still without a job, the compensation won't pay the bills for ever, and he's got that "why did you leave the last job" question to answer at any future interviews he might actually get.

He is supposed to be a professional, and both he, and his employer, have a duty of care to provide a competent and professional service.

INdeed, and this is where we get back to "is this systematic fraud" ?
Unless the restrictions are laid out clearly, in terms that someone with no electrical knowledge (ie a typical customer) can actually understand*, then stuff buried in the small print saying he can only connect to a circuit meeting very tight criteria would be considered unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Relying on them to refuse to provide the service paid** for under such terms would then be fraud.


* Lets face it, the vast majority of customers taking up a deliver and install service would have no clue whatsoever as to what constitutes a "suitable supply". Most of them would simply assume that they have a suitable supply based on the fact that they have an existing cooker connected and working on it.

** Whether a separate charge was taken or not doesn't matter - delivery and installation was part of the package of goods and services the customer paid a consideration for.


So I say it is the duty of anyone in the OPs situation to make a fuss over it. It is the only way such practices will be curtailed.

 

[securespark]

However, although there are undoubtedly a few still in service, how common is it to come across in-service VOELCBs these days? Admittedly my exposure has been pretty limited, but I'm sure that it's well over 20, probably nearly 30, years since I last saw one in service.

I used to come across around 1 a week at least!

But then I worked all over the place: High Peak, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Birmingham Manchester and Stockport to name a few!!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Steve, what news from the front?