Follow up to the 'jobsworth' thread

[stillp]

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]

I've twice been in a tyre fitters when they've taken the wheels off a car and noticed worn-out brake pads. In both cases they tried to persuade the customer to have the pads changed, but they refused. Once the fitters just put the wheels back on and refused to do any further work on the car (thereby sending the customer out on the road with worn tyres as well as the faulty brakes). The other time they did the same but pressured the customer into signing a disclaimer before they'd refit the wheels.
I wonder what the legal situation would be if the driver had an accident that was due to the worn tyres or faulty brakes?

 

[westie101]

All very, er, interesting this and two connected threads and to me shows the huge errors of being stuck too much to a book of words and trying to interpret them to fit any situation,
Rather they should be used as guidance (think OSG = on-site GUIDE, not rigid rules)

We were in a training session today on a non-electrical aspect of our work with a Code of Practice that is worded a lot harsher than anything you guys would see and on which a significant number of successful prosecutions have been made.

But even there we were being cautioned not to look at issues too pedantically but more be guided in the more unusual situations by risk assessments that seek to provide the required level of safety.
With the understanding if done properly and with "common sense" prosecution would be unlikely to succeed.

One instance given covered the situation where staff were called to repair defects, whilst it is accepted that some form of accreditation is needed to set up the systems, if they become non-compliant due to damage it is totally acceptable for an un-accredited person to correct these defects to ensure overall safety. Though it is accepted that a judgement call may need to be taken in some instances to call someone with the appropriate knowledge for assistance.

But that is, surely, what being a professional is all about, finding a safe way to do a job rather than hiding behind the twin evils of liability and risk of prosecution because that is the easy way out.

Honestly within the bounds of what I and my colleagues have to do and achieve within strict limits such an attitude would soon see us having to explain ourselves to senior staff
Yes it must be safe, it must comply with legislation and rules but walking away is never an option, particularly if it leaves something unsafe or customers at a disadvantage

 

[JohnW2]

All very, er, interesting this and two connected threads and to me shows the huge errors of being stuck too much to a book of words and trying to interpret them to fit any situation,...

Quite so ...

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

 

[JohnW2]

I've twice been in a tyre fitters when they've taken the wheels off a car and noticed worn-out brake pads. In both cases they tried to persuade the customer to have the pads changed, but they refused. Once the fitters just put the wheels back on and refused to do any further work on the car (thereby sending the customer out on the road with worn tyres as well as the faulty brakes). The other time they did the same but pressured the customer into signing a disclaimer before they'd refit the wheels. ... I wonder what the legal situation would be if the driver had an accident that was due to the worn tyres or faulty brakes?

Quite so. I cannot comment on the legal situation (which I suspect would depend upon the Judge or jury), but, at least as far as I am concerned, the moral situation/responsibility is clear .....

... yes, one does all one can to try to persuade the customer that they need to have the additional work undertaken but, in the final analysis, if they refuse, it's better (for the customer, and probably also the mechanics) to send the car out with one hazard rather than two!

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

So where a road is dug up the company doing the work has to legally provide a safe footway. Now the reality is that often passers by will not use this but will cross or walk down the road.

The legal position is that as long as the signs and barriers are legally correct the company will not be liable for a person choosing to take an unsafe route.

 

[JohnW2]

The legal position is that as long as the signs and barriers are legally correct the company will not be liable for a person choosing to take an unsafe route.

Quite. In the same way, I don't believe that a mechanic would be 'liable' for having carried out one bit of (requested) work on a car despite the fact that the owner had declined to have additional work done that they had tried to persuade him/her was urgently required.

On the other hand, if they refused to do the work that had been requested and the owner suffered injury as a result of that not-done work before (s)he could make other arrangements for the work to be done then I would say that, at least morally, the mechanic 'had a case to answer'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I do see how requiring a customer to sign a disclaimer is a double tool one it shows the customer is really is a danger not just a tradesman trying to get extra work and too the tradesman has written proof he made the customer aware of the fault.

However to refuse to do work which will make a item safer because there is more safety work to be done just does not make sense.

One thing I am uncertain about is where a fault is found and the customer will not pay to get it corrected should one inform government agencies? Be it Police, Fire or social services if you don't could you be considered as guilty through non action?

As to electrical installations I have seen many times where at the end of the day some botch is done to give occupants power until the next morning. We all even if we don't call it risk assessment do a risk assessment on every job we do.

We see where the Electrical Safety Council details what to do in the event of finding no earths on the lights. They clearly see doing nothing is not an option.

 

[JohnW2]

I do see how requiring a customer to sign a disclaimer is a double tool one it shows the customer is really is a danger not just a tradesman trying to get extra work and too the tradesman has written proof he made the customer aware of the fault.

I don't think its necessarily as simple as that. A disreputable tradesman could use the 'threat of requiring a disclaimer to be signed' in order to make a customer think that there "really is a danger" and thereby intimidate/pressurise the customer into having unnecessary work done.

However to refuse to do work which will make a item safer because there is more safety work to be done just does not make sense.

Quite so. One encounters this quite often in medicine - if a patient declines to have treatment (or even investigation) for one, possibly serious, disease (or possible disease) it would be crazy for the doctor to then refuse to treat other diseases/conditions (which the patient was happy to have treated).

One thing I am uncertain about is where a fault is found and the customer will not pay to get it corrected should one inform government agencies? Be it Police, Fire or social services if you don't could you be considered as guilty through non action?

That's a complex question, and I believe there are far fewer situations in which there is a legal duty to do that in the UK than there is in many other countries. However, this discussion is, IMO, getting seriously 'carried away with itself'! We've been talking about single-insulated cables which have quite probably been happily buried in plaster for decades - the police, fire service and social services would obviously have no interest in that - and nor can I see that even LABC would.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

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.

But GAS SAFE does not do that. It says non registered people cannot work on someone else's installation but you are allowed to work on your own if you are competent (which is not defined).

 

[winston1]

I've twice been in a tyre fitters when they've taken the wheels off a car and noticed worn-out brake pads. In both cases they tried to persuade the customer to have the pads changed, but they refused.[/quote]

I've had this as well. Worn out to their mind meant less than 3mm left in spite of the fact that they still worked well. I didn't let them change the pads as I was able to do it myself at my leisure at less than half the cost.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And once more winston shows that he could not care less about doing a good job when he posts.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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".

Changing a damaged switch is different to swapping a load of fronts from white to fancy chrome.

Changing a damaged switch is maintenance. Swapping a load for chrome is not.

Does BS 7671 allow you to sign an EIC to say that you'd complied with the regulations when replacing a damaged switch when it would not have allowed you to do so if you had replaced it for aesthetic reasons?

 

[JohnW2]

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".

Does BS 7671 allow you to sign an EIC to say that you'd complied with the regulations when replacing a damaged switch when it would not have allowed you to do so if you had replaced it for aesthetic reasons?

Yes, we agree. I stated my understanding of the situation and you asked a rhetoric question (in the 'original' thread) - but both amount to the same thing. As you will be aware, I started a new thread about this issue yesterday.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

And once more winston shows that he could not care less about doing a good job when he posts.

Why do you have to be so rude?
All I did was state fact. Said nothing about doing a good job or not.

 

[JohnW2]

All I did was state fact. Said nothing about doing a good job or not.

I believe BAS was referring to the messy formatting of your post, not its content.

Kind Regards, John