ELECTRICIAN GIVEN TWO YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE

liveandnetural

ELECTRICIAN GIVEN TWO YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE
http://www.bsafeatwork.ie/electrician-given-two-year-suspended-sentence/

Mech1

Not the brightest spark.

Irish Steve

And these are the people that a householder is legally obliged to use for work in the home!

I really wonder if it should be a legal requirement under freedom of information for ECSSA and RECI to publish the number of inspections they carry out per year, and the number of disciplinaries etc they carry out as a result of those inspections, as well as the number of consumer complaints they receive.

As things stand now, the general public has no way of knowing if electricians are being correctly and adequately supervised.

chrismon

Was he registered/working for some one or a nixer?

tomdempsey200

Irish Steve wrote: »

And these are the people that a householder is legally obliged to use for work in the home!

I really wonder if it should be a legal requirement under freedom of information for ECSSA and RECI to publish the number of inspections they carry out per year, and the number of disciplinaries etc they carry out as a result of those inspections, as well as the number of consumer complaints they receive.

As things stand now, the general public has no way of knowing if electricians are being correctly and adequately supervised.

once a year when I was registered

oversight was always minimal in my experience(15yrs reci)

they've tightened up a bit lately

Sir Arthur Daley

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

oversight was always minimal in my experience(15yrs reci)
they've tightened up a bit lately

What do you mean here?

cerastes

Im not defending the defendant, but should I be suprised the judge thinks this?

He said, “We, the public know nothing about electricity and all hope that the trip switch will keep us safe”.

Steve

Hang on, did I read that right?

The sparks got a 2 year sentence for looping out a breaker even though it was totally unrelated to the death of the individual concerned?

Jesus f**king christ, the mind boggles.

Irish Steve

Steve wrote: »

Hang on, did I read that right?

The sparks got a 2 year sentence for looping out a breaker even though it was totally unrelated to the death of the individual concerned?

Jesus f**king christ, the mind boggles.

Sorry, can I be clear here, the mind boggles at (a) the stupidity of the spark, or (b) the severity of the sentence, and it's important to be 100% sure of the answer before commenting further

tomdempsey200

Steve wrote: »

Hang on, did I read that right?

The sparks got a 2 year sentence for looping out a breaker even though it was totally unrelated to the death of the individual concerned?

Jesus f**king christ, the mind boggles.

suspended..

i know lots of fools that did ...they were all useless cowboys

Steve

Irish Steve wrote: »

Sorry, can I be clear here, the mind boggles at (a) the stupidity of the spark, or (b) the severity of the sentence, and it's important to be 100% sure of the answer before commenting further

I'm not condoning looping out an RCD or any breaker, but, (b)

Yes it's appalling practice.

I'm nonetheless confused about how a judge found this relevant to the death of the person in the article.

If you die of natural causes (i.e. a heart attack) whilst running across the road, is it the bus drivers fault because you didn't make it and got run over?

Moonbeam

I thought that it was unrelated but that is why there were checks done which led to the electrician getting the sentence.

Irish Steve

OK, I will try not to bite too hard.

A registered spark is (supposedly) trained in electrics, so knows and understands the risks inherent in the use of electricity in different environments, and is specifically trained in the requirements of safety and related devices that are mandatory to protect users in an environment that can present severe hazard.

A RCD is installed into a panel to provide a protection that will disconnect the power from the system in the event that the circuit is not operating correctly, and in most cases, the technical requirement is to disconnect within 40 Milliseconds in the event that the current imbalance between the 2 conductors is greater than 30 Milliamps.

So, this exceedingly fast response to a very low current imbalance is required to prevent the possibility of a failed device or an accident where the supply cord has been cut from causing the death of an operative that has come into contact with electricity as a result of this accident or device failure. The very short time, and low current is because these are regarded as the maximum limits to avoid the heart being sent into ventricular fibrillation by the flow of AC current through the body.

In laymans terms, the RCD is the ONLY device in the panel that prevent electricity from killing a person that is in contact with a live supply as the result of some other failure or accident.

As such, by putting a bypass around the RCD, the spark was effectively passing a death sentence on anyone that had the misfortune to come into inappropriate contact with electricity.

Yes, it is that cut and dried, and unlike joe public, who might not understand or realise the implications of such a bypass, a trained spark would know EXACTLY what the implications were of his actions. The fact that he did it, and left the installation in that condition was the reason that he was prosecuted, and received a suspended sentence, CONDITIONAL ON NOT WORKING AS AN ELECTRICIAN FOR 5 YEARS,

In some respects, he got off very lightly, in that he does not have the death of an innocent worker on his hands, and is not spending time inside. The fact that he was prepared to put people at risk of death to remove an inconvenience is the real mind boggler, not that he was subsequently found guilty of the offence.

I am not at all surprised by the case, or the sentence, and I am not a registered spark. I wonder what the sentence would have been if he had been responsible for the death of a worker.

Jimdagym

Moonbeam wrote: »

I thought that it was unrelated but that is why there were checks done which led to the electrician getting the sentence.

This case actually came up at a safety meeting in my job. The two events were completely unrelated. The HSA were doing an investigation due to the death of the worker and during that investigation the looped out breaker was discovered. The electrician was prosecuted as a result of the discovery, which is really bad luck, but no more than he deserves too (IMO).

Jimdagym

Sorry, meant to quote Steve there.

Steve

I know all of that, it's not the point though.

For example, (and we can't and don't know the specifics) if the guy had - say - wired the power washer to a non RCD industrial outlet as is commonplace in this country then the outcome would have been no different.

Maybe it's just bad journalism in the linked article - in fact I'm pretty sure it is, but the death had nothing to do with what the electrician did yet it is reported as if that were the case.

Again, the fact that a breaker was bypassed was criminal, I'm not disputing that, I'm just appalled at the way it was linked to the death in this case when it's a blatant lie.

seaniefr

Well let's hope my fellow sparkies will sit up and take note! It does sound like the HSA were putting down a marker in fairness.

Irish Steve

Steve wrote: »

I know all of that, it's not the point though.

For example, (and we can't and don't know the specifics) if the guy had - say - wired the power washer to a non RCD industrial outlet as is commonplace in this country then the outcome would have been no different.

The outcome for the worker in this case would have been the same, and it wasn't related to the bypass, true. If the washer had been connected to a non RCD single socket, then the washer would not have had RCD protection, which could have been a risk, but by looping out the RCD, ALL the circuits on the panel that were downstream of the RCD were effectively dangerous, so a cut power cord on a laptop computer could have killed someone

Maybe it's just bad journalism in the linked article - in fact I'm pretty sure it is, but the death had nothing to do with what the electrician did yet it is reported as if that were the case.

It is bad journalism, but that's nothing new, and in some respects, it dilutes the gravity of the case. To coin the example of the bus, the spark's actions were the equivalent of putting a block of wood under the brake pedal of the bus, the brakes would still work to some extent, but not in the way that they were designed to, which in extreme circumstances could be a big problem.

Again, the fact that a breaker was bypassed was criminal, I'm not disputing that, I'm just appalled at the way it was linked to the death in this case when it's a blatant lie.

Fair comment, we can for sure agree on that

Steve

I agree with your post except for this part:

Irish Steve wrote: »

but by looping out the RCD, ALL the circuits on the panel were effectively dangerous, so a cut power cord on a laptop computer could have killed someone

There is no way you can know what circuits were affected by bypassing an RCD so that is pure speculation.
It may have been all or it may have been a single outlet, we cannot tell.

Irish Steve

Steve wrote: »

I agree with your post except for this part:

There is no way you can know what circuits were affected by bypassing an RCD so that is pure speculation.
It may have been all or it may have been a single outlet, we cannot tell.

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal. In an industrial environment, there's no easy way to know if that's one line, or every circuit on the panel, in a domestic environment, it's a massive percentage of the outlets in the house. Edited the original post to say that,

tomdempsey200

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal. In an industrial environment, there's no easy way to know if that's one line, or every circuit on the panel, in a domestic environment, it's a massive percentage of the outlets in the house.

lethal lol?
slight exaggeration

Irish Steve

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

lethal lol?
slight exaggeration

No, in a commercial environment, which this was, and things like water from a pressure washer, and possibly other risks, a fault that was not interrupted by the RCD could very easily be fatal very rapidly. Fatal, lethal, I think the phraseology is regrettably very clear. I would suggest that is why the HSE took the case to court, as someone else commented, they were clearly putting down a marker.

tomdempsey200

i worked in in industrial maintenance for years where there were little or no rcd protection

earth wires carried fault current and mcbs provided protection against 'indirect contact' for years just fine

you think everything's lethal cos there's no rcd?

Irish Steve

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i worked in in industrial maintenance for years where there were little or no rcd protection

earth wires carried fault current and mcbs provided protection against 'indirect contact' for years just fine

you think everything's lethal cos there's no rcd?

we could split this hair for a very long time, and probably the only thing that will come out of that will be to dilute the quality of the thread.

The lastest ET101's seem to mandate RCD's or RCBO's on just about everything these days, there must be a good reason for that.

No two locations are the same, some are inherently safe, others are potentially lethal, if some other unexpected scenario happens.

That was and is the issue that was being highlighted. In the absence of another fault or issue, electricity is (99.9999% of the time) safe. It can however go from safe to lethal in a microsecond, so has to be treated with that thought in mind.

If it wasn't potentially lethal, there would be no need for RECI & ECSSA, and anyone would be allowed to work on electrical circuits

foxy farmer

Remember reading this on the Examiner when case started. Reported as if electrician was totally to blame for the mans death.. Powerwasher should have been maintained better asit was causing the nuisance tripping. RCD was doing its job until it was bypassed. After that anyone using it was taking their life in their hands. I dealt with a RECI inspector back in 97 who laughed at me for putting a30mA rcd into a circuit solely supplying an old Oxford oil cooled welder. This was on a clients premises. He said it would cause nuisance tripping. Never tripped once. Peace of mind.

keithclancy

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i worked in in industrial maintenance for years where there were little or no rcd protection

earth wires carried fault current and mcbs provided protection against 'indirect contact' for years just fine

you think everything's lethal cos there's no rcd?

In the past there were also cases of electrocution or fires due to faulty earths. The RCD is an additional safety measure to prevent that from occurring.

Similarly people didn't wear seat belts 30 years ago and it was fine, however these days driving without belting up is seen as madness.

2 stroke

Are industrial powerwashers normally protected by rcd? I have memories of one place where I worked that suffered a lot from nuisance tripping. Problem was put down to natural leakage, and the solution was to give each machine its own rcd, except the diesel fired powerwasher that was given its own circuit.

2011

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal.

This suggests that multipe sockets had no RCD protection due to this action and this may not be the case.
We simply do not have all of the facts.

Many of these power washers would use a 32A single phase socket or a 3 phase socket outlet. In a commercial or industrial installation it would be normal to have a dedicated RCD & MCB (or RCBO) for each of these types of socket outlets. So "all the circuits" downstream of the RCD is likely to be a single socket outlet. However I agree that this still does not excuse the action.

Regardless of how well an installation is wired all mains voltage circuits are "potentially lethal" and should be treated as such.

Have you ever seen how houses are wired in France or Spain? Frequently sockets have no RCD protection at all.

A RCD is installed into a panel to provide a protection that will disconnect the power from the system in the event that the circuit is not operating correctly

An RCD is designed to pick up some faults, not all. This is why it is not permitted to install an RCD without a device (such as an MCB or fuse) that will detect over current conditions such as a short circuit or overload condition.

So, this exceedingly fast response to a very low current imbalance is required to prevent the possibility of a failed device or an accident where the supply cord has been cut from causing the death of an operative that has come into contact with electricity as a result of this accident or device failure.

An properly functioning RCD will not necessarily operate when a supply cable (downstream of the device) is cut. This would only happen under certain conditions.

In laymans terms, the RCD is the ONLY device in the panel that prevent electricity from killing a person that is in contact with a live supply as the result of some other failure or accident.

I think this is very misleading. The installation of RCDs is just one method employed to make an electrical installation safer. There are other safety devices installed in distibution boards, such as fuses and MCBs.

In many cases an MCB or fuse would operate when a conductive part of an appliance to becomes live, preventing a person receiving a shock in the first place.

There are many devices (both 3 phase and single phase) in industrial installations that are not required to have RCD protection. This applies in particular to fixed equipment such as motors, lights, heaters and IT equipment. Even domestic installations there are devices that do not require RCD protection, this includes cookers and lights.

In my opinion you are giving RCD's more credit than they deserve.

RCDs have many advantages, but have been known to fail for a number of reasons including "stiction".

As such, by putting a bypass around the RCD, the spark was effectively passing a death sentence on anyone that had the misfortune to come into inappropriate contact with electricity.

Speaking as a survivor of more than one mains voltage electric shock, that statement is a gross exaggeration. Although I certainly would not recommend being electrocuted at mains voltage it generally does not result in a fatality.

Edit: My intention is not to justify the actions of the electrician in question.
I am just trying to give some perspective.

tomdempsey200

1)you have basic protection against direct contact on equipment....this has been improved over the years irrespective of rcds

2)and protection in case of a fault(indirect contact) by earthing of exposed metal


3)and lastly 'additional' protection in some cases by rcd in case of

...carelessness by users
...failure of basic protection



simply bypassing an rcd shouldn't render an installation 'lethal' at all

Irish Steve

My first electric shock was sitting on my bed at the age of (about) 7, and unwinding the Bakelite body of an egg shaped light switch hanging from the ceiling on a 2 core cable, as a result of opening it, and not being in contact with an earth, when I touched both sides of the switch, my body became the switch that allowed current to flow to the light. It got my attention!!!!! In the scale of things, because I wasn't touching an earth, and because there was another resistance in line, it was only a very mild tickle, but nearly 60 years later, I still remember it. I learnt a lesson that night that has stood me in good stead ever since, even if I didn't fully understand the exact phraseology at the time, which was "Electricity needs to be treated with respect"

Over the years, on several occasions, I too have made other unplanned contacts with various voltages, and yes, they've got my attention, but yes, I am still here as well, so I will agree that not every electric shock is lethal or fatal. What is usually fatal is when someone that is not expecting contact with electricity makes that contact in an environment that has other risk factors present, like a good earth, or water, or both, and an industrial environment tends to have these factors to a higher degree than a home environment.

We are splitting hairs here over the exact implications of a spark bypassing a safety device, and the eventual outcome of his actions in a court of law.

The bottom line for me is that he did something that his training should have told him was unacceptable. Hopefully, there is no argument about that.

As to the exact implications of what was connected downstream of the device he disabled, we don't know.

What we do know is that HSE decided to take the case to court. That might have been because they wanted to put down a clear marker that a spark has responsibilities that cannot be lightly ignored, and from reading older threads here on boards, and other places, this spark was not the only one that sees no issue with bypassing safety devices. So, MAYBE, HSE decided that it was time to restore some standards. I don't have an issue with that either.

We don't know what was downstream from the disabled device. If the washer was the only device downstream, then the nuisance tripping was minor, but it is altogether possible that there were other circuits or devices downstream from the disabled RCD, and bypassing the RCD increased the risk of injury or worse to people working on or with equipment downstream of the disabled RCD.

The best way I can respond to the comments that are being made is to say that it was not my decision to take the case to court, the HSE inspector, who I would hope is highly qualified, made a decision based on the information that he had at his disposal that there was a case to be answered, and that the actions of the spark "placed people at risk"

I agree that we do not have ALL the facts on this case, and it HAS been distorted by tbe media in the way that it has been reported. What has not been distorted is that the spark did something very inappropriate.

After that, the degree of risk, and the level of protection provided by the RCD, is debatable, and there will be as many opinions as there are participants.

As I said earlier

The lastest ET101's seem to mandate RCD's or RCBO's on just about everything these days, there must be a good reason for that.

No two locations are the same, some are inherently safe, others are potentially lethal, if some other unexpected scenario happens.

That was and is the issue that was being highlighted. In the absence of another fault or issue, electricity is (99.9999% of the time) safe. It can however go from safe to lethal in a microsecond, so has to be treated with that thought in mind.

If it wasn't potentially lethal, there would be no need for RECI & ECSSA, and anyone would be allowed to work on electrical circuits

ET101 is the size it is because there are so many ways and places to use (and abuse) electricity. It gets updated on a regular basis because new devices become available, and because the knowledge base and experience base is growing all the time. The first house we rented has a 25 Amp main fuse, and 3 rewireable fuses, and that was it. Now, I have Fuses, MCB's RCD's RCBO's in rows on several panels, and on balance, I know that I am better protected now than I was in that rented house 40 some years ago.

The courts decided, on the basis of evidence presented, the spark was guilty of the charge, and took action
that the judge deemed appropriate.

The reporting was poor, the linking to the death of the operative was unfortunate, but it was linked because it was that event that brought the inspector to the site. We don't know why the inspector looked at the electrics panel, maybe it was part of his "to do list" after the death, maybe someone told him that the spark had been in recently, maybe something else, we don't know.

I'd prefer not to derail the thread by continuing to split hairs any further.

2011

Irish Steve wrote: »

The bottom line for me is that he did something that his training should have told him was unacceptable. Hopefully, there is no argument about that.

It is very clear there is no argument on this point.

I have no interest in splitting hairs either.
However some of your statements as detailed in my previous post are misleading / sensationalist, that I why I felt it necessary to clarify.

Hitchens

ffs that's shocking

Bruthal

Irish Steve wrote: »

so a cut power cord on a laptop computer could have killed someone

Extremely unlikely though. So unlikely, that the difference between RCD and no RCD would probably not be the deciding factor in a 2 core chord when cut.

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal.

Any circuit at 230v is effectively lethal then, whether it has an rcd or not. A person can still be electrocuted with an RCD protected circuit. Its just less likely.

liveandnetural

some reading for steve
http://www.esc.org.uk/industry/policies-and-research/rcd-research/in-service-reliability-of-rcds-report/

2 stroke

We discussed this in work today and concluded that the most dangerous thing here is that someone could hit the test button, or even see the circuit tripped, and presume the circuit dead.

Bruthal

2 stroke wrote: »

We discussed this in work today and concluded that the most dangerous thing here is that someone could hit the test button, or even see the circuit tripped, and presume the circuit dead.

Bit of a vague conclusion there. Biggest danger for who?

Not many go to work on circuits simply after viewing a tripped breaker, without testing the circuit, any more than they would after switching off a breaker, and testing.

tomdempsey200

Bruthal wrote: »

Bit of a vague conclusion there. Biggest danger for who?

Not many go to work on circuits simply after viewing a tripped breaker, without testing the circuit, any more than they would after switching off a breaker, and testing.

only diy or consumers


most electricians don't like getting shocked

Bruthal

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

only diy or consumers


most electricians don't like getting shocked

Yea he is likely talking about the bypassed RCD. For a minute I thought he meant RCDs in general.

There would be a potential danger of someone tripping the RCD alright, and thinking the sockets are off.

tomdempsey200

yes the bypassed rcd


he does have a point for the unwary

but no electrician would get caught out that way

Bruthal

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

he does have a point for the unwary

but no electrician would get caught out that way

Yes, that was why I was asking who he meant was in danger. Probably meant the householder in general.

tweek84

This is very interesting as I was working on a house this weekend where I installed a socket circuit when I got to the board to terminate the socket circuit I found the exact same thing that the rcd had been by-passed I notified the owner of the house and asked who done the work and what other work they had done and they had done a chalet for them aswell, yet again the same problem.I didn't have time to solve the problems as I got a call to go to work (sometimes I hate being on call) but after reading this I am glad I didn't terminate my socket circuit and I think I will be contacting the previous contractor or Reci to see what route the house holder should go down.

I am a registered tester and certifier with Reci and as most people don't know is that only a registered approved contractor is allowed work on installing new circuits etc the only work a unregistered contractor can do is change out like for like

http://www.reci.ie/LatestNews/NewsItems/tabid/108/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/22/Restricted-Works-from-1-October-2013.aspx


I would like to add that this house is in a housing estate and there are about 60 other houses this could get interesting tomorrow....

Tuco88

I would not be surprised if that previous contractor was reci/essa covered, To show how much of a joke it is at the moment. October the 7th is another revenue collection... When i was in Canada work was inspected 1st and 2nd fix i thought it was a good idea, it helps the contractor to if he missed any new changes in rules, usually spotted at the 1st fix.

tomdempsey200

tweek84 wrote: »

This is very interesting as I was working on a house this weekend where I installed a socket circuit when I got to the board to terminate the socket circuit I found the exact same thing that the rcd had been by-passed I notified the owner of the house and asked who done the work and what other work they had done and they had done a chalet for them aswell, yet again the same problem.I didn't have time to solve the problems as I got a call to go to work (sometimes I hate being on call) but after reading this I am glad I didn't terminate my socket circuit and I think I will be contacting the previous contractor or Reci to see what route the house holder should go down.

I am a registered tester and certifier with Reci and as most people don't know is that only a registered approved contractor is allowed work on installing new circuits etc the only work a unregistered contractor can do is change out like for like

http://www.reci.ie/LatestNews/NewsItems/tabid/108/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/22/Restricted-Works-from-1-October-2013.aspx


I would like to add that this house is in a housing estate and there are about 60 other houses this could get interesting tomorrow....

why didn't you fit an rcbo and let him sort out his problems with reci/ecssa

tweek84

tweek84 wrote: »

I didn't have time to solve the problems as I got a call to go to work (sometimes I hate being on call) but after reading this I am glad I didn't terminate my socket circuit

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

why didn't you fit an rcbo and let him sort out his problems with reci/ecssa

The rcd is fitted but the installation electrician by passed it, I am assuming it is to do with all the neutrals being fitted to the one neutral bar and the rcd kept tripping as no neutrals were terminated in the rcd protected neutral bar. I don't think it will be a quick fix from looking at the board/rats nest

2011

tweek84 wrote: »

This is very interesting as I was working on a house this weekend where I installed a socket circuit when I got to the board to terminate the socket circuit I found the exact same thing that the rcd had been by-passed I notified the owner of the house and asked who done the work and what other work they had done and they had done a chalet for them aswell, yet again the same problem.

You should notify the owner and RECI in writing and have proof of doing so.
If there was an incident / accident at a later date you may be very glad of this.

As the last electrician to work on this board you could find yourself in a difficult position otherwise.

Irish Steve

So, Will it be possible for ESB, (or Network Electric, or whoever it is now,) to trace who certified this installation?

From the extra information now posted, which only makes the situation even more deplorable, it's sounding like the whole board will have to be stripped out and re terminated to get things correctly set up.

we don't know the age of the estate, which could have a significant bearing on the next question

At what stage would a householder have recourse to things like the home bond guarantee?

Would the householder be able to take action against the original contractor or developer?

Does the householder have any comeback against the architect (or whoever) that signed off the completion certificate on the property.

I'm not altogether surprised, makes me wonder if the whole regulatory scenario needs to be a lot more open and transparent, with potential customers able to look online and see how many jobs a specific electrician has certified over a period of time, and some sort of flagging system that would ensure that if more than so many complaints are made against an electrician, that fact is logged in the relevant database. Is there any transparency within RECI and ECSSA about inquiries into the work practices of electricians, and do they have any equivalent of the fitness to practise committees that operate for areas like doctors and nursing?

Does what we are starting to hear about mean that there is a requirement for a much higher level of inspections on completions of installation?

And before I get stamped on, there are good contractors out there, I've met and worked with some, but there are also too many "registered" electricians who really should not be on the registers, and need to be weeded back out again.

I get the uncomfortable impression that the level of inspections from RECi and ECSSA is woefully low, maybe CER is going to have to become involved in setting a standard that must be met.

Clearly, there are some issues and problems with the new structures and rules that need to be addressed to ensure that the customer can be confident that their installations are safe. Forcing people to use a registered contractor will only work if the customer can rely on the integrity of the regulatory system, and that it does weed out the members that are not performing to the standard that is demanded.
+ So, Will it be possible for ESB, (or Network Electric, or whoever it is now,) to trace who certified this installation?[/QUOTE]

- Note, I said demanded. That is the level of performance that is required, compliance with the published regulations is not optional. If an electrician either cannot or more worryingly will not conform to the requirements, their registration should be cancelled.

tomdempsey200

[quote="Irish Steve;88445051 do they have any equivalent of the fitness to practise committees that operate for areas like doctors and nursing?

[/quote]

The Common Performance Evaluation Scheme
http://www.reci.ie/ContractorServices/RECIProcedures.aspx

I doubt it's up to much though-mostly window dressing

It's not news to any ex reci members like myself that there's a problem with oversight of registered contractors and customer safety although it seems to have just dawned on you in a big way

Irish Steve

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

The Common Performance Evaluation Scheme
http://www.reci.ie/ContractorServices/RECIProcedures.aspx

I doubt it's up to much though-mostly window dressing

It's not news to any ex reci members like myself that there's a problem with oversight of registered contractors and customer safety although it seems to have just dawned on you in a big way

I've known since 1990 (when we moved in here, mentioned in recent days) that there were serious problems with oversight and quality of work, and I see examples of poor work or bad quality on a regular basis.

I suppose that what's now grinding my gears is that with the changes that have been brought in, the compulsory requirement means that if I want to remain legal, I now have to use a registered electrician to do work (on my own property) that I've been accustomed and comfortable doing myself.

If I'm going to have to provide my own quality control, and pay a high premium for the work to be done, then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the regulators to be very much more pro active in ensuring that the published standards are being met by the members of the club organisation.

I'm also a realist, and recognise that the recent changes are not a lot more than a coup by the vested interests to get Government to force people to do what they've been unable to persuade people to do, and the clubs regulators are primarily interested in maintaining their membership and fee income, so being pro active in actually really regulating is not something they are much interested in.

Yes, Electricity can be very dangerous, I'm well aware of that, and also only too well aware that there are a lot of people out there that don't have a clue, which says a lot about the present education system, I can't understand why the second level system has no "preparation for real life in the real world" content, which for me would include a "the basics of owning a home, and what to do when things go wrong" manual, which the student would get to keep for the time when they really need it.

A guide on how to turn gas, electricity and water off in an emergency, what to look for when a fault occurs, what NOT to do in an emergency, and how to get help when things go bad, and a simple how to do basic simple repairs, some of the threads in here and the plumbing section relating to very basic things are worrying in the extreme, in that it's clear that some of the people asking have no underlying knowledge, and don't even know how to ask the questions about the basic stuff that they use every day in their home, yet they have in most cases left second level ( and higher) with (in theory) good qualifications.

The fact that those same people are not sure how to change a fuse, or correctly operate their home heating system, makes me wonder if the focus of education has become too results oriented.

The other aspect of that is that I am wondering if manufacturers of things like boilers should be legally obliged to put the user manuals for their devices on the web, so that a home owner can get access to the basic information about the equipment installed in their home.

A good plumber or electrician ensures that the manuals that came with the equipment is left at the house, but that doesn't help a second owner, or the owner who is left nothing by the builder.

The scary thing about the fundamental lack of knowledge across the public is that there are some registered electricians out there that are only one rung up the ladder. I'm also well aware, and increasingly so in recent days, there are people who can and will ignore basic safety in order to get out of a situation that they either don't understand or can't diagnose.

An aircraft pilot for an airline is checked in a simulator every 6 months, and a private pilot has to regularly demonstrate their competence to an instructor or other recognised examiner. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have some form of ongoing checking for electricians, with some of that process being open to public examination, so things like proved complaints and the findings of the committee should be available under freedom of information regulations, so that the process can be seen to be transparent.

2011

Irish Steve wrote: »

So, Will it be possible for ESB, (or Network Electric, or whoever it is now,) to trace who certified this installation?

They would only see certificates for new connections.
Besides this would be outside their remit.

If RECI refused to take action (hypothetically speaking) the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) would be my next port of call.

cast_iron

Irish Steve wrote: »

So, Will it be possible for ESB, (or Network Electric, or whoever it is now,) to trace who certified this installation?

No arm of the ESB are responsible for certification.

At what stage would a householder have recourse to things like the home bond guarantee?

Homebond only cover structural defects.

Would the householder be able to take action against the original contractor or developer?

Does the householder have any comeback against the architect (or whoever) that signed off the completion certificate on the property.

I doubt he would have much recourse. Considering his standard of work, it's highly likely he went wallop in the crash.

In any case, I don't think much would happen anyway. Look at the farce that was Priory Hall - the Architect blamed the contractor, the contractor blamed the sub-contractor, etc. No one who signed off on it appeared to be held responsible. And the whole (lack of) accountability process was apparently brushed under the carpet, Irish style.

Does what we are starting to hear about mean that there is a requirement for a much higher level of inspections on completions of installation?

Inspections should be somewhat frequent, random and with little notice or they are of little use.

.G.

Saw a Reci inspection once. "inspection" consisted of inspector driving into site,having a chat with my employer through his car window for 5 minutes and driving off.

Inspections are few and far between if they happen at all,don't consist of very much and you have lads able to self certify their own work regardless of standard on every job they do. The new laws are a joke when situations like this are allowed to continue. "Safe Electric" registered contractors are no guarantee the work you pay good money for will be done an better than the lad down the road doing the nixer,and thats what the supposed premise of this law is all about,in reality though we know its to tackle the black market and has no interest in the safety of electrical work being carried out.