More specifically, a run of any length of 16mm2 PVC insulated and sheathed does not meet BS7671 when covered for overload by a 100A fuse

Other thought, is there any downstream overload protection? I'm aware that "within spitting distance" the usual arrangement is for the CU incomer to be a 63A OPD (traditionally a Neozed bottle fuse, these days more likely a DP B63 MCB) - even the nature of the loads and/or combination of downstream MCBs might provide adequate defence against overloads.

   - Andy.

No tea and no sympathy from me. An interview under caution and a prosecution. I sat in a Crown Court where a 23 year old woman died because testing had not taken place and the EIC was filled in in the site hut. I was listening to the pathologists  evidence of the injuries on the woman's body and looked at the effect it was having to the family having to listen to it. 42 new flats 42 fabricated test certificates. 

JP

What was the offence please, John? Gross negligence manslaughter? Fraud?

The charges were under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. For the electricians mate the charge "failed to comply with section 7 in that  was that he failed to carry out an insulation resistance test. For the QS Section 7 failed to comply with Section 7 in that he failed to supervise.

In a recent trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court with a young boy was killed in a pub garden the owner of the pub, an ex electrician was charged and convicted of manslaughter gross misconduct and got 9 years. The so called electrician got a not guilty on the manslaughter but got 2 years for the Health and Safety charge.

I have given expert witness in 2 cases that have gone all the way to the Crown Court for fraudulent test certificates under a Trading standards offence  of issuing documentation by way of trade that is false or misleading. That offence is much easier to prove and caries an unlimited fine an/or 2 years imprisonment. Most cases I have done usually accept a caution or plead guilty in the magistrates court.

JP

JP, am I right in saying that an IR test would not have detected the fault as it was line to the metal stud partition which then needed water to transport the potential to the apartment below? 

Lyle

Yes it would have done as the cable was sandwiched between the plasterboard and the metal stud work and for good measure a screw to secure the plasterboard passed through the cable between the line conductor and the CPC shorting them together. This would have been revealed if the required tests had been done in order. They were not done and the electricians mate confessed to this. The installation was energised and the CPC was blown away leaving the line conductor shorted to the MF studwork. The forensic science evidence was very interesting to hear. The cable and the screw were cut out of the wall intact and sent for examination. 

JP

John, thank you for sharing your expertise. Sadly, many tradesmen just want to get in and out as quickly as possible and move on to the next job. Fine for a painter and decorator, but not where safety comes into play.

Do we have any idea whether there is a similar problem with gas fitters?

Absence of 30 mA RCD additional protection?

I think the Emma Shaw case happened in 2007 - so probably pre-dated the requirement for additional protection for concealed cables.

  - Andy.

There was no RCD but the box on the EIC for presence of an RCD was ticked.

We have a very good range of standards for electrical safety but a very low level of compliance due to a lack of competency and a  lower level of integrity. 

JP

Compliance, competency and integrity can be improved in time with checks from CPS (Competent Person Scheme), Building Control and to some extent the HSE.  These onsite visits should be scheduled and unscheduled spot checks.  Experienced and competent inspectors/electricians can sometimes also see on an EICR when they have been done from the van.  A lot of EIC / EICR are done via Napit and NICEIC they could easily do spot check on the documents that are submitted.

The HSE needs to prosecute more when cases that involve infringement of electrical safety as well as fraudulent EIC/EICRs.  As an example if a sole trader is doing 4 to 6 EICRs in a day on a regular basis then something COULD be amiss if they are doing a 6 to 8 hours day.  Now if they are doing a 12 hour plus day then it May be achievable.

This is very easy to fix on paper but what needs to happen is people and finances need to be put in place for the extra staff needed to help police the bad practice that SOME (not all) contractors/companies think is OK

Compliance, competency and integrity can be improved in time with checks from CPS (Competent Person Scheme), Building Control and to some extent the HSE.  These onsite visits should be scheduled and unscheduled spot checks.  Experienced and competent inspectors/electricians can sometimes also see on an EICR when they have been done from the van.  A lot of EIC / EICR are done via Napit and NICEIC they could easily do spot check on the documents that are submitted.

The HSE needs to prosecute more when cases that involve infringement of electrical safety as well as fraudulent EIC/EICRs.  As an example if a sole trader is doing 4 to 6 EICRs in a day on a regular basis then something COULD be amiss if they are doing a 6 to 8 hours day.  Now if they are doing a 12 hour plus day then it May be achievable.

This is very easy to fix on paper but what needs to happen is people and finances need to be put in place for the extra staff needed to help police the bad practice that SOME (not all) contractors/companies think is OK