No EIC for recent Flat conversion

[JohnW2]

I knew I had it some where, so where the work is done by some one not trained to do inspection and testing no EIC will be issued, all you have or need is the completion certificate. It seems the certificate issued is not called an EICR it is called a "final certificate". This is where I found it there have been some changed I think now you need to pay for the inspection.

I think that you're really only telling us what we already know - that a BC body (e.g. a LABC) will not issue an EIC (because, as we know, it cannot, since it didn't carry out the work, and therefore could not sign the declaration) - but that's nothing to do with the question of an EIC being provided (or not) by the person who did carry out the work.

Looking back to the original OP, I think I've probably been misunderstanding the situation. I had been thinking that the work was undertaken by someone who could/should have provided an EIC, but who simply had 'disappeared' before providing one. Now looking back, goodness knows who did the electrical work, because I now see that the plan had been that someone else ("the Builder's Electrician") would 'certify' the work. Given that this other person did not do the work, there was clearly no way that he could ever have provided an EIC without lying through his teeth. That "Builder's electrician" is apparently now saying that he cannot issue an EIC because the work (which he only 'vaguely recalls' being told about) was carried out more than 30 days ago (not a consideration I've ever heard about), whereas the truth is that he could not, without falsifying the declaration, issue an EIC even if the work were completed yesterday.

frank999: You asked me "Without the EIC who takes the responsibility for this ?" but, to supplement what I replied before, can't you see how the answer to that is influenced by what I've written above? It seems that you would probably have been happy (that someone 'was responsible') if, as planned, the Builder's electrician had provided an EIC yet, since he did not (as I now understand it - is this correct?) carry out, inspect or test the work, that EICX would have contained a totally falsified declaration - and hence would be meaningless in law. I wonder if you (frank999) have actually seen the declarations which someone who provides an EIC has to sign? ...

,

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That "Builder's electrician" is apparently now saying that he cannot issue an EIC because the work (which he only 'vaguely recalls' being told about) was carried out more than 30 days ago (not a consideration I've ever heard about),

Registered electricians must inform the scheme within 30 days of completion.

Although, hardly the most difficult obstacle to overcome.

 

[ericmark]

There are very few time when some one died due to a faulty installation and a court case results, but when it does the court does look at who signed the paper work and what their skill was, and if it is found the person in charge knew the person signing the paperwork did not have the skill required then the paperwork does not stop the person in charge going to jail.

I am thinking about the Emma Shaw case.

So even if the builders electrician did issue an EIC since you know the electrician did not do the work, and the builder was not qualified if some thing did go wrong, the certificate would be worthless.

If you employ some one to inspect and test, and you think he has the ability, even if it turns out he hasn't, the the court is less likely to blame you.

They talk about reasonable steps, and an EICR is a reasonable step, so it would likely work as a get out of jail free card.

 

[JohnW2]

Registered electricians must inform the scheme within 30 days of completion.

Fair enough.

I've never really had reason to think about this, but does such self-notification of electrical work (to a 'Scheme') happen in the context of work which is part of a larger notifiable project (as in building an extension)? I suppose I had thought that such a project, in its entirety, would culminate in just the LABC (or whoever) issuing a Completion Certificate which covered the whole project (including electrical work), but are you saying that there would also be a Compliance Cert, from the 'Scheme', in relation to the electrical work?

In any event, I would have thought that the "30-day rule" would be the least of the worries for the "Builder's electrician", if he was contemplating self-notifying work which he "vaguely recalled having been told about" and which he presumably did not design and/or construct and/or inspect/test

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

There are very few time when some one died due to a faulty installation and a court case results, but when it does the court does look at who signed the paper work and what their skill was, and if it is found the person in charge knew the person signing the paperwork did not have the skill required then the paperwork does not stop the person in charge going to jail.

It sounds as if, had things gone 'as planned' with the OP's work, the situation would have been rather different from that ... it sounds as if it was planned that the person who would sign the paperwork ("the Builder's electrician") probably did have the 'skill required' but would have been 'signing for' work that he hadn't actually carried out (and, it sounds, also which he had not designed).

Who, then, do you think would/should 'go to jail'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

It sounds as if, had things gone 'as planned' with the OP's work, the situation would have been rather different from that ... it sounds as if it was planned that the person who would sign the paperwork ("the Builder's electrician") probably did have the 'skill required' but would have been 'signing for' work that he hadn't actually carried out (and, it sounds, also which he had not designed).

Who, then, do you think would/should 'go to jail'?

Kind Regards, John

As it stands the owner would go to jail, as he knew the work had been done by a non skilled person. I was told in no uncertain terms when we took over a job from a builder who ran off, unless the electrician doing the work turns up in a sign written van, or presents paperwork to show he is a scheme member, it is the owner who must ensure the LABC is informed about the work, although a builder will often do it for the owner it is the owner who must insure it is done.

I am sure you remember the Emma Shaw case where the electrical foreman went to jail as he was the person in control, even though he never even visited the house, and all the faults were caused by skilled tradesmen, he had used an untrained semi-skilled person to do the inspecting and testing, who had fudged up some results, so it was considered the foreman should never have asked him to have done the testing.

If the person in charge, in this case the owner, asks some one who should have the skill to inspect and test, and he does what ever the inspector asks, then he has transferred the blame should some thing go wrong, so he needs to get the LABC inspector to either inspect himself or you engage some one to inspect it for him, and to issue a completion certificate, if the LABC inspector wants some thing exposed then he will request it, for the owner to try to inspect is pointless in this case, as like the electricians mate in the Emma Shaw case he does not have the skill. It seems from that case skill is required to plug in an impedance meter and press the button and write down the results.

 

[JohnW2]

As it stands the owner would go to jail, as he knew the work had been done by a non skilled person.

From what the OP has told us, I'm not at all convinced that he did know that the work had been done by a 'non-skilled person'. It sounds as if he probably believed that the builder was going to ensure that the electrical work would be done (and ';certified') by an adequately 'competent'/'skilled person. As for 'going to jail' ....

I am sure you remember the Emma Shaw case where the electrical foreman went to jail as he was the person in control, even though he never even visited the house, and all the faults were caused by skilled tradesmen, he had used an untrained semi-skilled person to do the inspecting and testing, who had fudged up some results, so it was considered the foreman should never have asked him to have done the testing.

You have obviously cited this one case (from about 14 years ago) countless times over the years, and you always talk about 'gong to jail'. However. my understanding is that the supervisor ('foreman') was just fined £1,000, which the judge said was the most severe sentence he could give in this situation under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and that this 'trivial' sentence caused quite a public outcry at the time. To quote the Daily Mail at the time ...

After the case, Ms Shaw's angry mum Diane Potter, 49, described the sentence as a 'joke' outside court. She said: 'I am so very disappointed. It just does not seem right to fine someone only £1,000 for such a terrible thing. 'That is a very small price to pay for a death. It has been over six years since I lost Emma and I haven’t really been able to grieve. But now at last I have closure.'

... so what am I missing? Where did all this talk about "going to jail" come from?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

this account talked about a cathodal sentence. However my point was how the court attached the blame, I would have from the account have blamed the electricians mate, fudging up results in the mess hut was clearly wrong, and had he written OL as meter likely showed the foreman would have likely investigated.

It was an eye opener to me, as I had sent my electricians mate to do similar jobs, and thought there by grace of god go I.

There was also a case with a landlady where she had been told there was a problem and she rang up an electrician immediately to get it sorted, but it took the electrician a week to get around to the job, and in mean time the tenant used a heater from last house which was also faulty and died, again landlady only fined £1000.

When you read the accounts in different publications you realise they have put their own twist on it. So never really sure what happened, when one reads she saw sparks so rang her boy friend who said turn off water it seems crazy, but in the heat of the moment I may have done the same. Easy in hind sight.

Through the years I have seen many reports and thought well that is how I would have done it, like tightening wagon wheel bearings nuts with a blunt chisel, it was how I was taught, but clearly wrong.

And dirty tricks, my son short of work a few years back got a job inspecting and testing, he was never given enough time, and in the end quit before he ending up crashing as driving silly distances when tired and sleeping in car, but the firm would always claim when caught out, it was a rouge tester and he has now been sacked. They were pushed that much they had to miss things.

I had a Robin PAT tester top of range at time, when you plugged it in it did a self test then each test had a set time to allow reading to stabilise, we did not do much testing, but one day sent to an office/workshop to test all their gear, and thought OK I will go as fast as I can without cheating and see how many I can do. I was picked up 6 hours latter and only just finished, I had done 60 items. I really could not believe it was that slow, I expected to get double that done, so when you see some one has done 250 in a day, one starts to wonder, OK all class 2 and it is faster, I had a lot of class 1 so not impossible, but highly unlikely unless a manual machine. So as foreman with that number if some thing goes wrong would you carry the can? You must know it is unlikely anyone can do that many correctly.

 

[JohnW2]

this account talked about a cathodal sentence.

Well, no matter what was said in that discussion in a forum, I've told you what actually happened (a £1000 fine, not a custodial sentence), and that the judge said that it was the most severe sentence which he was allowed to give. ... so perhaps you should be a bit more careful when you next mention this case (as you surely will) by not talking about 'going to jail' when that did not happen?

However my point was how the court attached the blame, I would have from the account have blamed the electricians mate .....

Whilst I agree that reports of the facts of this particular case tend to differ a little, what I had always understood, and as written in the IET forum thread to which you linked was, in essence ...

... Mr Hoult the QS said that he just checked the figures on the form and signed it as the QS. he did not go to site and was not involved in the testing and inspection. Mr Hoult had known Tomkins for many years and it was alleged he knew about Tomkins status as a mate and his lack of qualifications. ...

If that is correct, then I would personally say that the court's attribution of 'blame'/responsibility was probably dead right. If the QS "signed off" the I&T, that could legitimately only be on the basis that EITHER (a) he (presumably 'qualified' and competent) had undertaken the I&T himself OR (b) he had delegated the work to someone who he knew was competent (not necessarily formally 'qualified') to undertake the I&T satisfactorily. It appears that he did neither of those things, so his "signing off" of the I&T was essentially just 'fraudulent' - since he had no reason to be confident that the I&T had been undertaken satisfactorily.

In my own lines of work, I frequently 'sign off' work which I have delegated to other people, and other people sometimes 'sign off' work that they have delegated to me, but in either case that is only done when I (or they) have been totally confident in the ability of the delegatee to do the work satisfactorily. If I 'signed off' work which I had delegated to someone who I was not totally confident could do the work satisfactorily (and without completely re-checking it myself), I would expect to be held responsible if that work (which I had delegated, and then 'signed off') proved to have been unsatisfactory.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Thank you for all your replies, so much information.

I brought the builders in to deliver a project - and deliver it with all the correct paperwork, its only now I am forced to learn the intracies of certifying/testing/notifying etc etc of electrical work. I feel much wiser after the event though.

With new cricuits uncertified - i feel I should have more than a 'get out of jail free' card, ie the EICR.

I have approached my electrician, and suggested that if new cabling is run, and accessories rewired, so in essence it is a new insstallation, would be then issue an EIC ... but has said he will still only issue an EICR, I am miffed why, I have told him their are funds available to get this all done, am I faced with simply turning to yet another electrician.

 

[JohnW2]

I brought the builders in to deliver a project - and deliver it with all the correct paperwork, its only now I am forced to learn the intracies of certifying/testing/notifying etc etc of electrical work. I feel much wiser after the event though.

I suppose it depends to some extent on the details of what the contract said, but if you engaged a builder to 'do everything', then I would have thought that you would have reason to expoect that all the work was done competently (by people competent to do it) and that all the necessary paperwork and legal/bureaucratic requirements would also be dealt with. That has clearly not happens - so, as I said, the extent to which the buyiklder can be held responsible depends upon the contract.

I have approached my electrician, and suggested that if new cabling is run, and accessories rewired, so in essence it is a new insstallation, would be then issue an EIC ...

To have any of the installation work "ripped out and re-done" would, in my opinion, be ridiculous. You really shouldn't have to do that, even if you can afford to.

... but has said he will still only issue an EICR, I am miffed why, I have told him their are funds available to get this all done, am I faced with simply turning to yet another electrician.

That makes no sense. If an electrician undertakes new installation work then, per BS7671, he must issue an EIC (or equivalent). Unfortunate though it may be, it does indeed sound as if you may need "yet another electrician" - but, as above, I really don't think you should be considering getting anyone to 're-do' the work, just because of this 'paperwork issue'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Thanks for the above John,
I had a conversation today with my Electrician regarding paperwork for this install, and he advised that he issues EICR's on lots of jobs where completed installations are not issued with EICs, and advised it was common and normal practice, so whilst the lack of an EICR is not willful on my behalf and not my chosen outcome, general concencus here and with my electricians comments, is to go with the EICR, with all circuits tested - which has been done today and all passed.

I note your comment regarding the importance of a contract, knowing what I know now, the requirements and finer points of any installation should all get agreed to in writing first.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks for the above John, ... I had a conversation today with my Electrician regarding paperwork for this install, and he advised that he issues EICR's on lots of jobs where completed installations are not issued with EICs, and advised it was common and normal practice ...

Well, as discussed, if, for whatever reason, the person who did the work cannot or will not provide an EIC, then there is no alternative - inspection and testing 'by someone else' then has to be done, and that can only be an EICR (or equivalent).

... so whilst the lack of an EICR is not willful on my behalf and not my chosen outcome, general concencus here and with my electricians comments, is to go with the EICR, with all circuits tested - which has been done today and all passed....

That's great news, and I'm sure a relief to you - even though it should not have become necessary.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Thanks for your help here John ... and to a 'reasonable' conclusion.

 

[frank999]

I note on the EICR
"25% of the installation in accordance with item 3.8.4 of Guidance Note 3."
I think it was discussed above that he should test 100% of the installation, I did discuss this with him, and assumed that is what he had done, but it appears not now I have the certificate, any reason why he would have done just 25% and not the 100% ?