Blimey, wasn't this a diy job?

[scousespark]

There have been a number of threads recently relating to Part-P and this just makes a mockery of all of us who post because we care about what we do.

Whether professional, or DIYER, we have all shown that we regard safety as paramount in what we do.

In this case, a young lad has lost his life and the state response is basically 'Oh well, somebody cocked up but it's too much hassle to find the culprit'.

IF the job has been notified, the QS is the person responsible for signing the job off. If not, responsibilty falls on to the shoulders of the company's managing director (and folding the company doesn't absolve this responsibility - or at least shouldn't) When we have a rail crash, the prosecutions tend to go up the chain of command. It should in this case.

This is really sad for the lad and his family and their anger is completely justifiable IMO.

 

[westie101]

At the end of the day it is not up to an inquest to find or apportion blame. It is now up to the HSE to do that!

 

[JohnW2]

This should not stop the HSE/police (or whoever the responsible body is) investigating further. It is not the result of a prosecution of the four which is still possible.

Agreed, but the authorities (police/HSE) would still have to find enough evidence to make the CPS feel that a jury could be convinced that one or more of the prosecuted individuals were guilty.

Remember one of the last men hanged in England was an accomplice and didn't pull the trigger.

Very true, but very different. In that case there was no dispute that he was involved in the criminal activity of which the shooting was part (probably enough in itself for a murder conviction) - and, in particular, the main basis of his conviction was the (subsequently very controversial and much debated) belief that he had 'instructed' the lad with the gun to pull the trigger (The infamous "give it to him" - did that mean, as the jury was persuaded, 'shoot him' - or did it perhaps mean 'hand the gun to the policeman'?)

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

'Oh well, somebody cocked up but it's too much hassle to find the culprit'.

No it isn't.

The culprit is easily identified.

The culprit is [the four electricians].

 

[JohnW2]

IF the job has been notified, the QS is the person responsible for signing the job off.

Indeed, but if it was notified (and the fact that four electricians were involved suggests that it probably was notifiable work), that notification may have facilitated punishing the right person, but it clearly didn't prevent the incident/tragedy occurring, and obviously won't bring the lad back.

Maybe if it had been notified DIY work, inspected by a third party, rather than (one guesses) self-certified by an electrician, the victim would still be alive?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Space cat]

Remember one of the last men hanged in England was an accomplice and didn't pull the trigger.

That's only because the police were determined that somebody should hang, but the one who actually committed the murder was too young.

But I digress. As has already been stated, an inquest is not a criminal trial and prosecutions could still follow. I don't think the law of joint enterprise really works here unless all four electricians worked together on the faulty socket - which is unlikely - but scousespark is correct. Even if no individual electrician can be identified, their employer can be charged with corporate manslaughter.

Edit:

Maybe if it had been notified DIY work, inspected by a third party, rather than (one guesses) self-certified by an electrician, the victim would still be alive?

(My italics.) How very true.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe if it had been notified DIY work, inspected by a third party, rather than (one guesses) self-certified by an electrician, the victim would still be alive?

(My italics.) How very true.

I do understand that it's not workable or affordable in relation to everyday electrical work, and I know it's not going to happen but, it's been long accepted in safety-critical areas that, no matter how well trained, qualified and assessed people are, 'assured safety' is facilitated by independent inspection.

There tends to be paranoia exhibited by some here, reacting to the concept that their work should be inspected (even if only occasionally, at random) as if it was a slur on their training, abilities and assessment - but when safety is really a concern, not even the most qualified and competent people should really object to such 'checks'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

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.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

On the contrary.

If the directors of a firm thought they might end up in chokey because of what one of their incompetent employees did they might take more care not to employ incompetent ones.

And they might take more care to ensure that their QS's did more than rubber-stamp test results.

And they themselves might put in place their own more rigorous regime of random checks.

 

[sparkwright]

I'm not sure how relevent it is who wired the socket up wrongly.

Lets, for the moment, assume the second fixing of sockets was done before the consumer unit was completed.

The person who fitted the socket cannot plug in his plug-in tester if there is no power.

If he wired the socket wrong, testing should identify this. The point of testing is to check things are safe. To check your work and each others.

Testing should be done as soon as circuits are ready to be energised.

Usually it's more common to get the L and N reversed, as often the E terminal is a big brass terminal that looks different. On some newer sockets it's not as obvious. Obviously the terminals are labelled.

Maybe a standard arrangement of terminals on all accessories could have helped prevent this error.

 

[JohnW2]

If the directors of a firm thought they might end up in chokey because of what one of their incompetent employees did they might take more care not to employ incompetent ones.

It's not really for them to question 'the system'. 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. If having the right qualifications and passing the right assessments is not an adequate indication of competence (and I'm not saying it necessarily is), then the fault is that of 'the system', not the employers.

And they themselves might put in place their own more rigorous regime of random checks.

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?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure how relevent it is who wired the socket up wrongly.

I think we're probably all agreed on that - but have been talking about 'who wired the socket' because the journalists used such language. Everyone, no matter how well trained, qualified, experienced and assessed is capable of making mistakes, and that is not usually, in itself, criminal. The finger here points firmly at whoever did (or did not do, but pretended that (s)he had) the testing - who may, or may not, be the same person as the one who wired it.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

My opinion is that TWO errors were made. The first was the mis-wiring of the socket and the second was not verifying that the earth was effective.

My idea of verifying is to use a wander lead from the MET and measuring the resistance of the earth from MET to the earth at the front of EVERY socket.

Or to a lesser standard measuring the resistance of tjhe earth between groups pf sockets AFTER verifying there is a connection to the MET from at least one socket of each group.

 

[JohnW2]

My opinion is that TWO errors were made. The first was the mis-wiring of the socket and the second was not verifying that the earth was effective.

The first error was obviously the wiring one - and, I've said, human error does happen, even amongst the most highly trained and competent.

As for 'the second' error, it was, in fact, surely many errors - since, in addition to the failure to detect lack of earth continuity, the socket circuit was almost certainly not subjected to any live tests - since with L and E transposed, it would probably not pass any (if tested via its socket).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Inky Pete]

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?

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. It must have been obvious that it was a newly fitted socket, and that the property had recently undergone extensive work.

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