- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 27,408
- Reaction score
- 3,309
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
I think dangerous and could present a danger if something else happens is very different. Even a car with no brakes is not dangerous parked in the drive while you go to local motorist shop for brake fluid. It only becomes dangerous when your wife nips out to do the shopping while you are away.
It is the same with electrical installations, there is no danger at all with no RCD protection, the danger is only present when some thing else happens as well, for example the immersion heater thermostat fails, and the header tank over flows, and the tun dish for the over flow is not glued, and the walls have metal inside them, and the plaster has put a nail through a cable, and in spite of sparks the lady decides to turn off the water before the electric, and the guy testing fudged the results, and the foreman who had not been on site trusted a semi-skilled guy to press a button and record results. OK at the time RCD protection was not required, and the court found the foreman guilty. But as with most fatalities it needed a whole list of things to go wrong before the lady was killed.
Had I been judging I am sure I would have not selected the foreman, to my mind plugging in a meter, pressing the button, and recording what the meter said is not a job requiring a high level of skill, I would have been happy sending an electricians mate to do the job. However what matters is what the court says. So in the case in question the real question is if a series of events happened which resulted in a death who would the court find guilty?
So installation in question, low IR between Line and Neutral how would this cause injury, it could simply be due to USB sockets being fitted, and if USB sockets are fitted should one really even measure line - neutral and even if you do likely at 250 volt not 500 volt, OK line or neutral to earth then very different, but as long as you can see why the reading should be low, be it a neon, or USB socket then the reading could be accepted. Yes one would expect RCD protection, but we have done without it for years, why should not having it be considered a danger?
However nitty gritty bit, if you are aware of a danger, now it does not matter who did the work, or who he told at the time, or any other mitigating circumstances. You know it is not right, does not matter if you refuse the work, you know it is wrong, so you should insist on disconnecting the circuits before leaving. It is the same with first electrician, does not matter if you refuse the work having tested before you start, once you know something is wrong you must act.
Same as the MOT garage phoning Police, they can't stop some one driving the car home, but they can call the Police.
I thought about this, the local authority building control are responsible for policing Part P. So you would have to write a report and present them with it. Remember heath and safety it must be in writing. So freedom of information request the home owner can find out you reported them, how long do you expect to trade for if people find out if they don't let you do the job, you will report them? Not that I think the LABC inspector will clip on his yellow light and go racing to see a Part P breach. But sucking air through the teeth unless you do, should some one get killed, and lets face it unless a death no one is interested, you as a professional who know the danger would be the one in court not the house holder as you should have known better.
So in real terms we are between a rock and a hard place. We can't win, all we can do is strive to leave a job as safe or safer than when we arrived. Saying I will not connect the underfloor heating, or new socket, or any other new circuit until all faults have been rectified is OK, but where what we have been asked to do leaves the system safer than before can we really refuse to do the work.
If some one says my socket is cracked do we refuse to change it because no RCD on the circuit, or do we advise no RCD but still change it as reducing the danger? Be it a consumer unit, a socket or a light fitting as long as not something new and safer after we leave to refuse to do the work does not protect us. That foreman did not even go to the job, all he did was trust a semi-skilled worker, we were always told if we see an oil spill and send a text to our boss saying when and what we have seen OK, but if we fail to tell anyone even if it is nothing to do with us, we can still end up in court for not reporting it, in writing.
There was a problem in one place I worked, the worker phoned the electrician, the electrician claimed he could not hear what the fault was, but did hear unit 5, so went to unit 5 foreman and asked what was wrong, he replied nothing that I know of, then some one was injured, it was a broken guard actually not an electrical problem as such, the worker who had phoned approached the HSE guy and told him how she had phoned the electricians to report the problem the day before, so then the HSE guy wanted to see the written report, on admitting she had not put it in writing she was fined for a breach of health and safety practice. Think she wished she had kept her mouth shut.
It is the same with electrical installations, there is no danger at all with no RCD protection, the danger is only present when some thing else happens as well, for example the immersion heater thermostat fails, and the header tank over flows, and the tun dish for the over flow is not glued, and the walls have metal inside them, and the plaster has put a nail through a cable, and in spite of sparks the lady decides to turn off the water before the electric, and the guy testing fudged the results, and the foreman who had not been on site trusted a semi-skilled guy to press a button and record results. OK at the time RCD protection was not required, and the court found the foreman guilty. But as with most fatalities it needed a whole list of things to go wrong before the lady was killed.
Had I been judging I am sure I would have not selected the foreman, to my mind plugging in a meter, pressing the button, and recording what the meter said is not a job requiring a high level of skill, I would have been happy sending an electricians mate to do the job. However what matters is what the court says. So in the case in question the real question is if a series of events happened which resulted in a death who would the court find guilty?
So installation in question, low IR between Line and Neutral how would this cause injury, it could simply be due to USB sockets being fitted, and if USB sockets are fitted should one really even measure line - neutral and even if you do likely at 250 volt not 500 volt, OK line or neutral to earth then very different, but as long as you can see why the reading should be low, be it a neon, or USB socket then the reading could be accepted. Yes one would expect RCD protection, but we have done without it for years, why should not having it be considered a danger?
However nitty gritty bit, if you are aware of a danger, now it does not matter who did the work, or who he told at the time, or any other mitigating circumstances. You know it is not right, does not matter if you refuse the work, you know it is wrong, so you should insist on disconnecting the circuits before leaving. It is the same with first electrician, does not matter if you refuse the work having tested before you start, once you know something is wrong you must act.
Same as the MOT garage phoning Police, they can't stop some one driving the car home, but they can call the Police.
I thought about this, the local authority building control are responsible for policing Part P. So you would have to write a report and present them with it. Remember heath and safety it must be in writing. So freedom of information request the home owner can find out you reported them, how long do you expect to trade for if people find out if they don't let you do the job, you will report them? Not that I think the LABC inspector will clip on his yellow light and go racing to see a Part P breach. But sucking air through the teeth unless you do, should some one get killed, and lets face it unless a death no one is interested, you as a professional who know the danger would be the one in court not the house holder as you should have known better.
So in real terms we are between a rock and a hard place. We can't win, all we can do is strive to leave a job as safe or safer than when we arrived. Saying I will not connect the underfloor heating, or new socket, or any other new circuit until all faults have been rectified is OK, but where what we have been asked to do leaves the system safer than before can we really refuse to do the work.
If some one says my socket is cracked do we refuse to change it because no RCD on the circuit, or do we advise no RCD but still change it as reducing the danger? Be it a consumer unit, a socket or a light fitting as long as not something new and safer after we leave to refuse to do the work does not protect us. That foreman did not even go to the job, all he did was trust a semi-skilled worker, we were always told if we see an oil spill and send a text to our boss saying when and what we have seen OK, but if we fail to tell anyone even if it is nothing to do with us, we can still end up in court for not reporting it, in writing.
There was a problem in one place I worked, the worker phoned the electrician, the electrician claimed he could not hear what the fault was, but did hear unit 5, so went to unit 5 foreman and asked what was wrong, he replied nothing that I know of, then some one was injured, it was a broken guard actually not an electrical problem as such, the worker who had phoned approached the HSE guy and told him how she had phoned the electricians to report the problem the day before, so then the HSE guy wanted to see the written report, on admitting she had not put it in writing she was fined for a breach of health and safety practice. Think she wished she had kept her mouth shut.
