Question for electricians

[EFLImpudence]

 

[JohnW2]

Did you also ask them if it would be OK for you to DIY without notifying, and then get a registered electrician to tell them after the event that he did it, as long as the he was happy that he'd given you enough direction and supervision?

Nope. Worded like that, I presume that the answer would be foregone conclusion. What might be more interesting would be for someone to ask a BCO whether they would be happy for an electrician to self-certify a job if (s)he had not physically done any of the physical work, but had given what they regarded as adequate supervision throughout the job to their 'assistant' (or 'apprentice', or whatever) who had actually undertaken the physical work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Are you going to be sent to prison?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nope. Worded like that, I presume that the answer would be foregone conclusion.

It describes the same scenario you then go on to try and obfuscate.

What might be more interesting would be for someone to ask a BCO whether they would be happy for an electrician to self-certify a job if (s)he had not physically done any of the physical work, but had given what they regarded as adequate supervision throughout the job to their 'assistant' (or 'apprentice', or whatever) who had actually undertaken the physical work.

Not "assistant" or "apprentice" - those are terms which indicate a relationship between the electrician and the other which is not really there.

Try "... regarded as adequate supervision throughout the job to the homeowner who ...".

 

[JohnW2]

Not "assistant" or "apprentice" - those are terms which indicate a relationship between the electrician and the other which is not really there. ... Try "... regarded as adequate supervision throughout the job to the homeowner who ...".

I can't try it with the same LABC in the foreseeable future - but maybe someone else, like yourself, would like to with theirs.

In fact, as I'm sure you know, there's little point - other than as an exercise to get BCOs to say what you want them to be seen to be saying. If it is worded in anything like the ways you are suggesting, the BCOs are probably not going to believe that there will be 'adequate supervision', so their answer is pretty predictable.

As with so many things in life, things which go on and are tacitly accepted/tolerated would never be formally/officially acknowledged as an acceptable practice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it is worded in anything like the ways you are suggesting, the BCOs are probably not going to believe that there will be 'adequate supervision', so their answer is pretty predictable.

So wording it as you suggested

... whether they would be happy for an electrician to self-certify a job if (s)he had not physically done any of the physical work, but had given what they regarded as adequate supervision throughout the job to the homeowner who had actually undertaken the physical work

but changing "assistant"/"apprentice" to "homeowner" would, you think, not meet with their approval?

If you think that the only way they would go for it would be if you did not say "homeowner" but instead used "assistant" (or whatever) then what you are doing is lying to them, isn't it.

As with so many things in life, things which go on and are tacitly accepted/tolerated would never be formally/officially acknowledged as an acceptable practice.

In which case they are unacceptable.

 

[JohnW2]

If you think that the only way they would go for it would be if you did not say "homeowner" but instead used "assistant" (or whatever) then what you are doing is lying to them, isn't it.

As I'm sure your dictionary would tell you, it certainly wouldn't be a lie. I'm not at all sure that they would necessarily 'go for it' either way if it were actually 'put to them', rather than done 'tacitly' ('backsides' and all that!), the crucial question being the extent to which they believed the person doing the work had been supervised, and that could work either way - if the certifying electrician were conscientious, it's actually quite possible that a 'homeowner' would be subjected to a lot more intense supervision than would a 'true assistant', or even apprentice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I'm sure your dictionary would tell you, it certainly wouldn't be a lie.

I must have misunderstood - I thought you wanted to, or would, use the term 'apprentice' or 'assistant' rather than 'homeowner' when, or if, asking LABC if it would be OK.

I'm not at all sure that they would necessarily 'go for it' either way if it were actually 'put to them', rather than done 'tacitly' ('backsides' and all that!),

They have to go for it or it may not be done. If the reality is what is described in the question, but they don't know it and if they did know it they would not accept the electrician's self-certification, then they are being deceived. If they would not consider that the self-certification was a true declaration, i.e. if they would not consider that the electrician who said he had "done" the work really had "done" the work courtesy of his direction and supervision, then the electrician making it is lying to them.

the crucial question being the extent to which they believed the person doing the work had been supervised, and that could work either way - if the certifying electrician were conscientious, it's actually quite possible that a 'homeowner' would be subjected to a lot more intense supervision than would a 'true assistant', or even apprentice.

Indeed, but it is not for them to try and decide if the electrician exercised sufficient supervision any more than it is for them to try and decide if any electrician who had actually done the work had done it properly. They don't inspect themselves - that's the whole point of self-certification. They trust the electrician to be truthful in his declaration, so they would have to trust him that he had exercised sufficient supervision for him to say "I did that".

If LABC consider that he did not, or could not, then they consider that the electrician is lying to them if he says he did it.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed, but it is not for them to try and decide if the electrician exercised sufficient supervision any more than it is for them to try and decide if any electrician who had actually done the work had done it properly. They don't inspect themselves - that's the whole point of self-certification. They trust the electrician to be truthful in his declaration, so they would have to trust him that he had exercised sufficient supervision for him to say "I did that".

That's the point, isn't it? As you say, in the absence of any 'audit', central to the concept of self-certification is the fact that they have no alternative but to trust the electrician - and that applies as much to trusting his/her opinion that a 'third party' (whoever/whatever they may be) had been adequately supervised as it does to trusting him/her to have personally undertaken and documented the work properly.

Rationally, therefore, they should answer 'yes' to any of the questions we have been considering. IF the electrician believes that work was adequately supervised by him/her, then they should trust the electrician and accept that judgement, regardless of the identity and 'status' of the person who did much/all of the (supervised) work. However, as I've said, I suspect that they probably prefer not to be asked the question (but, rather, to allow these things to happen 'tacitly'), since their 'backsides' may (perhaps irrationally) not be totally comfortable with their giving a 'yes' answer to these questions - particularly given that, AFAIAA, the law does not say anything about work not physically undertaken by the certifying electrician (although that obviously happens).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, as I've said, I suspect that they probably prefer not to be asked the question (but, rather, to allow these things to happen 'tacitly'), since their 'backsides' may (perhaps irrationally) not be totally comfortable with their giving a 'yes' answer to these questions

Then is it moral and decent to collude in deception?

particularly given that, AFAIAA, the law does not say anything about work not physically undertaken by the certifying electrician (although that obviously happens).

Something you will continue to tell yourself is the case until you are prepared to accept that the law clearly talks about the person carrying out the work.

 

[JohnW2]

However, as I've said, I suspect that they probably prefer not to be asked the question (but, rather, to allow these things to happen 'tacitly'), since their 'backsides' may (perhaps irrationally) not be totally comfortable with their giving a 'yes' answer to these questions

Then is it moral and decent to collude in deception?

It's a common situation for both involved parties to 'tacitly' understand a situation (hence no 'deception' between them) without either wishing to actually be seen to be talking about the situation. As for the two of them deceiving others ...

particularly given that, AFAIAA, the law does not say anything about work not physically undertaken by the certifying electrician (although that obviously happens).

Something you will continue to tell yourself is the case until you are prepared to accept that the law clearly talks about the person carrying out the work.

Yes, but as I said it "obviously happens" (and everyone concerned knows that, even if they don't "talk about it"), even though the words of the law (or even guidances) do not mention it. Electricians do have assistants and apprentices, who do sometimes do some of the work which, if taken literally' the paperwork thinks is the work of the electrician.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's a common situation for both involved parties to 'tacitly' understand a situation (hence no 'deception' between them) without either wishing to actually be seen to be talking about the situation.

Officially the party that would not condone the activities of the other does not believe that the activities are taking place, and officially they believe the claim by the other party that different activities are taking place.

Therefore officially they are being deceived.

Yes, but as I said it "obviously happens" (and everyone concerned knows that, even if they don't "talk about it"), even though the words of the law (or even guidances) do not mention it. Electricians do have assistants and apprentices, who do sometimes do some of the work which, if taken literally' the paperwork thinks is the work of the electrician.

Yes, when there is an employment relationship between the person(s) who physically do the work and the legal entity certifying it.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but as I said it "obviously happens" (and everyone concerned knows that, even if they don't "talk about it"), even though the words of the law (or even guidances) do not mention it. Electricians do have assistants and apprentices, who do sometimes do some of the work which, if taken literally' the paperwork thinks is the work of the electrician.

Yes, when there is an employment relationship between the person(s) who physically do the work and the legal entity certifying it.

Yes - but you're applying your own ideas, maybe common sense ones, despite the silence of the law/guidances on the matter. Nothing in the law or guidances says anything about someone other than the certifying electrician doing any of the work, even if there is an 'employment relationship'. What you have 'made up', and are suggesting, may well be sensible (and is undoubtedly 'accepted' by everyone concerned), but I don't see anything in the law or guidances which says it.

In any event, it's naive to think that (maybe the first day of) an 'employment relationship' means anything in terms of the the knowledge or abilities of the person concerned. It's no more reasonable to be 'assisted' by a 'first day' assistant/apprentice than by a 'householder' or whatever, even if there is an 'employment relationship' with the former.

There are ways around this, anyway. Over the years/decades, I've frequently had to acquire (sometimes very temporary) 'honorary employment contracts' to enable me to 'do things' for a company/institution/whatever or to have access to their resources.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes - but you're applying your own ideas, maybe common sense ones, despite the silence of the law/guidances on the matter. Nothing in the law or guidances says anything about someone other than the certifying electrician doing any of the work, even if there is an 'employment relationship'. What you have 'made up', and are suggesting, may well be sensible (and is undoubtedly 'accepted' by everyone concerned), but I don't see anything in the law or guidances which says it.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that is exactly what the law says, because a company is a legal entity. When a company secretary signs a document, it is not him personally who is signing, it is the company. When someone in accounts signs a PO and orders a bunch of stuff from a supplier it is not them personally signing it and placing the order, it's the company they work for. And if the invoice doesn't get paid it won't be the person in accounts who the supplier goes after, it will be their employer.

It's the same with apprentices, or assistants, or wiremen, or labourers etc. If they work for XYZ then it is XYZ "who" is carrying out the work and it is XYZ "who" self-certifies compliance, via the signature of someone authorised to sign on behalf of XYZ.

In any event, it's naive to think that (maybe the first day of) an 'employment relationship' means anything in terms of the the knowledge or abilities of the person concerned.

Doesn't matter - there is a fundamental legal difference between an employee and a non-employee.

It's no more reasonable to be 'assisted' by a 'first day' assistant/apprentice than by a 'householder' or whatever, even if there is an 'employment relationship' with the former.

Wrong, because there is a fundamental legal difference between an employee and a non-employee.

There are ways around this, anyway. Over the years/decades, I've frequently had to acquire (sometimes very temporary) 'honorary employment contracts' to enable me to 'do things' for a company/institution/whatever or to have access to their resources.

I very much doubt that any electrician who says "I did the work" when what he means is "Someone else did the work but I'm saying it was mine" actually ties up the legal loose ends by making the someone an employee first.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes - but you're applying your own ideas, maybe common sense ones, despite the silence of the law/guidances on the matter. Nothing in the law or guidances says anything about someone other than the certifying electrician doing any of the work, even if there is an 'employment relationship'. What you have 'made up', and are suggesting, may well be sensible (and is undoubtedly 'accepted' by everyone concerned), but I don't see anything in the law or guidances which says it.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that is exactly what the law says, because a company is a legal entity.

You appear to be exercising common sense again, despite the actual words which you usually emphasise so much. I hate to think how many times you have quoted (with my emphasis):

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing, hereby CERTIFY that the said work ...

Are you now saying that, contrary to what you've said so many times before, the "carrying out" does not necessarily have to be undertaken by the person who declares that (s)he has "carried it out", because the person may actually be signing on behalf of a legal entity (any member or employees of which may have done the 'carrying out') and not him/herself?

The declaration (or an alternative version thereof) could have been worded to accommodate the situation in which someone was signing on behalf of a legal entity, and therefore was not necessarily the person who had done the "carrying out" .... but that is not how it is worded.

Kind Regards, John