RCB rating

[bernardgreen]

There is a case about to go to court ( not electrical ) where the client suffered losses because the guidelines are wrong for the circumstances. The tradesman followed the guidelines even though it was obvious to people that he was having difficulty force fitting the guidelines to the work he was doing. It seems certain that he is going to be found liable for the losses incurred by the person who employed him.

Then its hardly relevant here is it and really is grasping at straws.

The defence team have been told that the charges are likely to include one of (gross) negligence that could have lead to injury as well as the known financial loss.

The prosecution case is based on evidence that the tradesman is said to have admitted he could not produce a reliable result in the circumstances if he followed the guidelines. It is claimed he said this before continuing and completing the work in compliance with the guidelines.

I repeat show me one case, just one, where someone following BS7671 has been found guilty of breaching any of the various laws, H&S, EAWR etc.

I can list ( but for reasons of confidentially will not ) several cases where people have been reprimanded or dismissed for following guidelines and creating hazards when instead they should have stopped work and formally challenged the validity of the guidelines for the task they had been given.

 

[riveralt]

There is a case about to go to court ( not electrical ) where the client suffered losses because the guidelines are wrong for the circumstances. The tradesman followed the guidelines even though it was obvious to people that he was having difficulty force fitting the guidelines to the work he was doing. It seems certain that he is going to be found liable for the losses incurred by the person who employed him.

Then its hardly relevant here is it and really is grasping at straws.

The defence team have been told that the charges are likely to include one of (gross) negligence that could have lead to injury as well as the known financial loss.

The prosecution case is based on evidence that the tradesman is said to have admitted he could not produce a reliable result in the circumstances if he followed the guidelines. It is claimed he said this before continuing and completing the work in compliance with the guidelines.

So nothing has changed since my original response - i.e. irrelevent nothing to do with BS7671 is it?

I repeat show me one case, just one, where someone following BS7671 has been found guilty of breaching any of the various laws, H&S, EAWR etc.

I can list ( but for reasons of confidentially will not ) several cases where people have been reprimanded or dismissed for following guidelines and creating hazards when instead they should have stopped work and formally challenged the validity of the guidelines for the task they had been given.

Using issues of confidentiallity is a very weak response Mr Green.
So, in reality, you cannot quote any cases where someone following BS7671 has been found guilty of breaching any of the various laws.
Its not even clear if you're talking about BS7671 since you just use the words 'following guidelines'.
I tell you what, respecting confidentially, just show me which regulation(s) from BS7671 these people are supposed to have followed and in doing so have been found guilty of? negligence?
I will pass the information to the IET.