Blimey, wasn't this a diy job?

[Alarm]

Thats a bit harsh Inky Pete, but when presented with a new "spur" or a socket I always test before I do anything.

So harsh - but true.

 

[RF Lighting]

C
R
I
P
P
E
L
D

That's what we were taught at college.

That socket would have failed the very first dead test. And the second, and the fourth, and the second of the live tests.

Personally who ever wired the socket, whilst it is there fault for connecting it up wrong is not to blame. We all make mistakes, and that is why jobs must be properly tested BEFORE they are energised. I have mis-connected L&E on a light fitting, but it was discovered and rectified as part of the tesing and commisioning process.

Whoever tested, commisioned and then livened up the installation is the person responsible for the death, and his name will be on the bottom of the EIC (or should be)

 

[Adam_151]

Its easy to see how it was missed on the I&T though rob, it sounds very much like its a behind the counter spur socket.

If appliances and stuff had begun to arrive on site before I&T, then a quick slip when counting the number of above counter spurs (its probably had all the boxes of stuff dumped on the worktop so the carpet can be layed), and it would be easy to miss 1no undercounter socket (thats providing he didn't think "Sod it, there is a washing machine in way, aint moving that")

Like many things, its a combination of things that lead to disapear

Two points:

1) Many sockets those day just have three terminals in a line where it might be easy to confuse the earth, on the older accesories it used to be very clear from positioning, I'm sure it still is if you buy the cheaper brands!

2) If the practice of linking to the K/O box earth terminal was still carried out this could never have happened

 

[JohnW2]

Question is, who plugged an appliance - especially a metal cased one - into a new circuit which had not been signed off, without first checking the socket with their own socket tester?

We obvioulsy don't know. As you go on to suggest, it quite possibly was the plumber who was killed but, in different circumstances, it could just as easily have been the householder, the person who delivered the appliance, or anyone.

I think probably the plumber who appears to have been installing the washing machine was the one who plugged it in, in which case he carries at least part of the blame himself. Everyone has a legal responsibility to safeguard their own health and safety when at work.

Everyone obviously should protect their own safety, but how many people plugging washing machines into sockets do you think actually test the socket first? ... particularly if they have reason to believe that it's recently been teststed by a professional electrician?

It must have been obvious that it was a newly fitted socket...

Not necessarily - but, as above, even if that were the case, it surely would give the added reassurance that it had very recently been tested by an electrician (as compared with an old one which may not have been tested for decades, if ever).

Plumber wouldn't be dead if he'd taken 3 seconds to stick his own tester in the socket.

No-one can argue with that (provided he didn't touch the screws and something earthed whilst 'testing') but I again have to ask how often people would actually test before plugging in an appliance, particularly if they believed the circuit had recently been tested by an electrician.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's not really for them to question 'the system'.

Of course it ******* is, unless they consider themselves to be mindless and irresponsible sheep.

If they have satisfied themselves that their employees have appropriate training, qualifications, experience, assessments etc., then I think they have done all they can reasonably be expected to do.

And if they know that it is not, and also know that they won't be blamed when something goes wrong even though they knew it might well, we all just shrug and say "it's the system"?

No.

Put their personal finances and liberty on the line, start making them pay when they are failed by the system and trust me - they will start to do things additional to the system to protect themselves.

Do you think you could walk into a job with an airline as a pilot just because you held the appropriate licence?

I suggested that as the only thing they could do - but why should an employer have to do that if the law and 'system', in general, is (rightly or wrongly) prepared to accept competence without that? Are you suggesting, by analogy, that LABC personnel (and/or scheme operators) should be at risk of going to prison if they don't have in place a rigorous regime of random checks on self-certifying electricians?

Scheme operators, yes - absolutely.

 

[westie101]

At the end of the day it is no defence to say you had checked their qualifications when staff were taken on, it can and is argued that legislation requires that audits should be done on a regular basis.

The Health & Safety at Work Act requires that employees obey any safety systems in operation by their employers (and other bodies?), the only way to do this is by regular recorded audit!

Apart from college all my training was done by my employer, I am subject to regular audit and refresher training.

 

[sparkwright]

The trouble with any kind of work is people become complacent and don't bother to check everything.

Possibly the socket was covered by the washing machine and no one could be bothered to check it.

Often in new builds electricians power up before they start testing as other trades demand power. Not recommended.

It must of course be remembered that other trades like kitchen fitters and plumbers sometimes meddle with the electrical installation. I have seen sockets replaced with flex outlets or even a jb shoved in the back box, to allow space for an integrated appliance. On one occasion the neutral and earth were reversed.

 

[JohnW2]

At the end of the day it is no defence to say you had checked their qualifications when staff were taken on, it can and is argued that legislation requires that audits should be done on a regular basis. The Health & Safety at Work Act requires that employees obey any safety systems in operation by their employers (and other bodies?), the only way to do this is by regular recorded audit! Apart from college all my training was done by my employer, I am subject to regular audit and refresher training.

If you mean true audit, then I totally agree, and often say that here. However, at least some of those here feel that annual assessment of self-certifying electricians is 'adequate' - and whenever I mention true audit they seem to take it as some sort of slur on their competence, rather than as a sensible procedure.

My previous point obviously was that, even though I think they probably should, the fact that the registration procedures of the 'scheme operators' and the implementation/enforcement of Part P of the Building Regs do not involve any true audit (instead relying on qualifications, assessments etc.), seems to make it unreasonable to suggest that an employer should be expected (or be any obligation) to undertake any true audit. In fact, and ironically, I suspect that at least some employers do - whilst we know that Scheme Operators and LABC do not.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Inky Pete]

I don't get the impression that the installation in the flat as a whole - or of that socket in particular - had been tested and signed off by anyone.

From the description of 4 electricians and a plumber on site (plus who knows what other trades), and the fact that the plumber was a regular employee of a firm of property developers, I get the impression of a property renovation or conversion on which significant work was still in progress at the time of the accident.

That alone should have made the plumber ultra-cautious.

I agree that the socket should never have been wrongly wired in the first place - but mistakes do happen, and that's the whole point of the testing and comissioning process.

I agree that the circuit should never have been energised until it had been checked, and should have had further checks immediately upon being energised - but if the plumber plugged in the washing machine maybe it was also him who energised the circuit?

It's even possible that the plumber took it upon himself to fit the socket front to cabling coming down from a SFCU above the worktop if the sparkies hadn't got round to doing it for him yet and he wanted to get the washing machine in and working in a hurry. So it could have been him that wrongly wired it, and that could explain why none of the 4 electricians could remember wiring it up.

We'll never know the precise circumstances leading up to the accident. Short of insisting on the use of commercial style lockable isolators on every circuit within a domestic situation, there is always going to be scope for mis-understandings, mistakes, and down-right stupidity to cause this sort of accident on a busy site where multiple trades are all just trying to get their bit done so they can move on to the next job.

The Golden Rule is, always was, and will always need to be, NEVER ASSUME SOMETHING IS SAFE, ALWAYS CHECK IT YOURSELF!!!!

 

[Space cat]

It's even possible that the plumber took it upon himself to fit the socket front to cabling coming down from a SFCU above the worktop if the sparkies hadn't got round to doing it for him yet and he wanted to get the washing machine in and working in a hurry.

That's a theory that should not be dismissed out of hand. A check for fingerprints on the offending socket, both inside and out, could settle the matter.

 

[ericmark]

On a commercial premises I always had to follow a plan of some sort which told me exactly how many sockets we connected to each final circuit.

However it seem with domestic there is a lack of plans. I have taken over jobs in the past where because there is no continuity on the final ring I know I have missed a socket where a plaster has plastered over the socket outlet.

However with no socket count had the socket been fitted I would not have even known it was there. Where the tester are not the same guy as the installer then clearly a plan is required but sadly this is not always the case.

Using socket testers is clearly no good where there is no power so I look at what happened and think as a tester of other peoples work I could have also missed a socket hidden from view.

Clearly the guy who wired it made a mistake but again I have seen in the past where a box of sockets contained one or two of a different make which had the connections in a different order so it would be easy in poor lighting to pick up a socket of a different make and not realise the order of terminals were different and make a mistake.

So instead of blaming the two electricians and two electricians mates I would be looking at their employer for not issuing detailed plans of what should have been installed. At some point some one in the firm must have agreed as to how many sockets were to be fitted in each room. So if the tester had tested the correct amount of sockets for that room and the electricians had fitted an extra then clearly fitting an extra socket without altering the plans to show an extra socket would stop the tester being responsible. However for an electrician to fit an extra socket without telling his foreman would seem odd.

However the foreman must be responsible for ensuring the men under him don't do work without his authority so it would seem the foremen would be responsible. One then wonders why he was not found responsible by the court?

Of course we have not been given the exact dates and it was just as the new rules BS7671:2008 came into being and because of the changes in 2008 the same situation could not be repeated.

From the report it would seem the house was the show house and used as an office which may explain how the socket count could be exceeded and likely wired or at least designed before BS7671:2008 took over from BS7671:2001.

However it does show how important it is to design a system and draw up plans where more than one electrician is working on a system.

So what we should be asking would it be fair to convict the foremen who may have not even been in the house for manslaughter for not controlling what his workers did? Of course it does not stop there. Should the foreman's boss also be convicted for not ensuring the foreman did his job? And is it fair that all the management should be prosecuted yet the man who made the mistake gets away with it?

It is easy to say one of the four must be responsible but I would not think any of the four made the mistake intentionally so of course no one can say they guy who did it knows it was he who did it. Clearly it had been some time between wiring and accident as the filing cabinet had obscured the socket. So it could have been 6 months between wiring the socket and the death. Now be honest one a site with 4 guys fitting sockets could you really remember who did which 6 months latter?

With a show house it is even possible a non electrical guy decided he wanted an extra socket for his computer so it could have even been added or changed after the tester had finished. I have seen many a job where after the electrician has left site the builder has altered something himself.

I do not think any court would give a verdict not attributing blame if they could so I would expect there is likely more going on then we are aware of. Maybe they think there may have been some unauthorised work but can't prove it. Not unknown for plumbers to alter sockets although I would not think it is the case here. However if the court though that may be the case then would they unless there was some really concrete proof blame a dead man. I don't think so.

So all we can do is read and ask ourselves could the same possibly happen where we work. And if so how could I prevent it. To which I would answer detailed plans of work would prevent it. Also because of the RCD system used today unlikely even if it did happen today could it kill anyone.

 

[ebee]

Ericmark,

"Of course we have not been given the exact dates and it was just as the new rules BS7671:2008 came into being and because of the changes in 2008 the same situation could not be repeated."

Could you explain this a bit further please?

An interesting (but sad) thread with some very interesting views.

Perhaps if we all used a simpler tester and a pulg in RCD adaptor before using a socket it might reduce risk a bit

 

[Lectrician]

While there is no excuse for not correctly testing, this goes to show that many sparks do not carry it out fully.

Many sparks use an almost accepted practice to turn circuits on, and assuming nothing trips, then do the live tests with out doing any dead tests!

This sounds like just that type of job.

As an aside, GET changed their sockets a couple years ago and this caused problems across the board, although picked up by most during testing (I hope!). They moved the positions of the terminals on the back, and made the usually 'open and exposed' earth terminal on the earth bar part of the moulding on the back of the socket, making it look just like the live and neutral. The earth terminal was also placed close to where the live used to be! Many sparks commented on this.

 

[IJWS15]

Even if no individual electrician can be identified, their employer can be charged with corporate manslaughter.

True - but, expect in the sense of achieving some sort of 'revenge', that would achieve nothing unless it somehow resulted in qualified electricians being less likely to undertake dangerous work - and I don't really think that would result from such a prosecution.

Assuming that the individuals are appropriately trained, qualified and assessed employed electricians, there's probably not much that an employer can do to avoid such incidents (beyond implementing third-party-inspection over and above what the current systems actually require) - changes in 'the system' are probably about the only thing which could achieve that.

Kind Regards, John.

When I worked in a design office every drawing was checked three times - perhaps because if something broke many people could die.

The only reason not to have independent checking is cost and a few prosecutions would soon change the attitude. After all if I do it as a DIYer buidling control check my work, if a pro does it it is not checked at all. Yet we all make mistakes.

 

[IJWS15]

Ericmark,

"Of course we have not been given the exact dates and it was just as the new rules BS7671:2008 came into being and because of the changes in 2008 the same situation could not be repeated."

Could you explain this a bit further please?

An interesting (but sad) thread with some very interesting views.

Perhaps if we all used a simpler tester and a pulg in RCD adaptor before using a socket it might reduce risk a bit

As a consumer I would take exception to being told I should check work I had paid someone to do - I would expect the electrician to check it.