Electrician and QS on trial for death of woman

[silver surfer]

Because the QS (the assessed competent and trained electrical supervisor) is discharging his duties for him, checking all the work has been done correctly and signing all relevent paperwork to this effect! The bosses shoulders have sloped .......[Usually the Managing director or owner of the company is the Duty holder for the business, i"m surprised that he isn't in the dock, he still could be the trial is in its infancy.]

 

[barneybhoy]

The niceic lead you to believe that the qs is not responsible for how the inspector obtained the readings in the report, only that the report is compiled correctly and any issues that should be flagged up by the readings are recorded appropriately. If the eicr was filled in correctly and there were no readings recorded that would show any sort of issue, surely the qs wouldnt be held responsible for someone elses work?

 

[Plonker 3]

So why do all the scams only asses the QS annually then?

 

[Badged01]

Who actually gets prosecuted is usually down to H&S. I think they take the view that the 'electrician' doing the work is responsible along with the supervisor (QS) who is the companies delegated technical/competant authority. The "duty holder" has exercise his duty of care in appointing a QS under the govt endorsed scheme which is there to ensure safety standards etc...!

I think the logic is the electrician shouldn't be doing the work unless he is "competent", so he is clearly culpable, and the QS shouldn't be signing off work he 1) hasn't checked and 2) is done by someone who isn't "competent". Hence he is equally culpable.

 

[Plonker 3]

So surely if it's done via a scam, then the scam is liable too. As they have said the QS is competent, like the QS has said the person carrying out the work is?

 

[Badged01]

So surely if it's done via a scam, then the scam is liable too. As they have said the QS is competent, like the QS has said the person carrying out the work is?

He probably is "competent" and has all the quals, experience, knowledge etc ... required to meet the govts assessment std for being a QS. He just hasn't behaved in a competent way in this case!!

 

[barneybhoy]

Who actually gets prosecuted is usually down to H&S. I think they take the view that the 'electrician' doing the work is responsible along with the supervisor (QS) who is the companies delegated technical/competant authority. The "duty holder" has exercise his duty of care in appointing a QS under the govt endorsed scheme which is there to ensure safety standards etc...!

I think the logic is the electrician shouldn't be doing the work unless he is "competent", so he is clearly culpable, and the QS shouldn't be signing off work he 1) hasn't checked and 2) is done by someone who isn't "competent". Hence he is equally culpable.

how far can the QS reasonably go to ensure the work is being carried out correctly? If you've got 10 guys working under you, you cant be with all 10 of them at every stage of the inspection/testing, how can you protect yourself? Even with regular supervision checks you still have to take the inspector at face value that they have carried out the job correctly, apart from going through all results with a fine tooth comb and implementing regular checks (keeping a record of checks) what else can the QS realistically do

 

[The_Wanderer]

To say someone was tragically killed and i quote "because" of the guy who did the inspection is madness is it not? He didn't cause anyone death, might have failed to spot a fault maybe, but even that is impossible to know or prove.

I once had a nightmare fault finding a tripping RCD, that after several hours we found only happened when a large pile of books (or similar) was placed on the hallway desk, without the books all circuits had clean IR results and no errors could be found. But put the books on the desk and viola IR readings of dead short L-E.

So who's to say this fella didn't do his testing when the screw wasn't quite making a short, but it later did short and killed the poor woman..?

Amazed it got to court, surely a lawyer would destroy the claim as totally unprovable, and it wouldn't even see the light of day? Very worrying precedent for our work if you can be accountable after an EICR for tragic incidents out of your control. Sure it sounds like he wasn't confident and thats bad, but still. I shall watch this case with interest.

And for the media to jump on the "unqualified" tagline, Pretty certain the laws and regs on qualified or not is very muddy area, i.e. doesn't it state a "competent person"..

 

[silver surfer]

Who actually gets prosecuted is usually down to H&S. I think they take the view that the 'electrician' doing the work is responsible along with the supervisor (QS) who is the companies delegated technical/competant authority. The "duty holder" has exercise his duty of care in appointing a QS under the govt endorsed scheme which is there to ensure safety standards etc...!

I think the logic is the electrician shouldn't be doing the work unless he is "competent", so he is clearly culpable, and the QS shouldn't be signing off work he 1) hasn't checked and 2) is done by someone who isn't "competent". Hence he is equally culpable.

I agree that the duty holder is fulfilling his responsibilities regarding appointing a suitable QS. But the DH should be held to account for sending a clearly unsuitable person to carry out the testing. Im unsure whether the QS actually fabricated the results or was he handed a set of bogus results by the adult mate.

 

[Badged01]

... Amazed it got to court, surely a lawyer would destroy the claim as totally unprovable, and it wouldn't even see the light of day? Very worrying precedent for our work if you can be accountable after an EICR for tragic incidents out of your control. Sure it sounds like he wasn't confident and thats bad, but still. I shall watch this case with interest....

Very worrying case for anyone who is a QS! You are signing the paperwork to say you're happy that everything meets all the regs etc...... as far as you can reasonably expect it to. If you weren't doing that what exactly are you signing for?

How you ensure everything is 'correct' before you sign is upto you -- standing over their shoulder watching them all the time, dip checking samples of their work once completed, suprise visits on the job to see how they are doing, or whatever your supervision method is. However you do it as a QS you will have documented it in your works diary(?) so can use that in your defence to show how you exercise your duty as a QS for all the work you do supervise to ensure as far as you possible can it meets regs etc .....

I'm assuming in this case the QS has signed off work completed by someone 'unqualified' to conduct an EICR, so he will have a hard time defending his supervison actions! The fact that the boss send him to do the work is immaterial .... he should never have signed it!

 

[Badged01]

.... the DH should be held to account for sending a clearly unsuitable person to carry out the testing....

An employee also has a duty of care also to only complete work he is "competent" to do ..... maybe he had convinced the boss he was competent? Only the HSE will know why the boss wasn't actioned but I think they take the view the buck stops with the QS --- that's his job to supervise and authorise work.

 

[D Skelton]

Why are we talking about this? The case is sub judice and just talking about it on a public forum could potentially be contempt of court.

I for one want to see the two defendants receive a fair trial! The more we speculate about things which are completely unknown to us the less chance there is of this happening!

I would suggest the mods either close or remove this thread altogether!

Edit: Please bear in mind that if at any point the court decides that a fair trial is unlikely, the two guys will walk!

 

[silver surfer]

There is an obvious flaw in the QS system as he or she can not be expected to supervise every activity on numerous sites.
As others have already said, the fault in this case may not have been picked up anyway, the reason they are all in court is due to the admission by the mate that he did not really know how to test properly. The QS admitting he had not been to the job but is in a position to sign off the work (endorsed by the scheme provider) is a concept that the CPS would have trouble digesting.

 

[pepparz]

Did the circuit in question require rcd at the time of installation as it looks like it was less than 50mm deep, if so the installer is primarily to blame. Incidents like this are exactly why rcd protection is required.

 

[MDJ]

Why are we talking about this? The case is sub judice and just talking about it on a public forum could potentially be contempt of court.

I for one want to see the two defendants receive a fair trial! The more we speculate about things which are completely unknown to us the less chance there is of this happening!

I would suggest the mods either close or remove this thread altogether!

Edit: Please bear in mind that if at any point the court decides that a fair trial is unlikely, the two guys will walk!

I think your right actually and thought something similar after my post earlier, I was going to remove it but someone used it as a quote so it seemed pointless, your right though too much attention with regard to this case from sparks may make it over discussed and the media may see this thread and others and jump on the bandwagon which could lead to a unfair trial, the contempt of court bit is a bit ott though lol.

 

[Badged01]

..... The case is sub judice and just talking about it on a public forum could potentially be contempt of court. ...

Best tell that to the Daily Mail, they've convicted them in their absence!

In the land of the free speech, provided you are offering your "opinion" and not interfering with the legal process then contemp will not be an issue ....... anyway im hidden behind a screen so no-one knows who I am

 

[Plonker 3]

Too many variables to say what might have caused it. When was the screw put in, when was the cable installed, why didn't we listen to Cockburn.

 

[Badged01]

I think your right actually and thought something similar after my post earlier, I was going to remove it but someone used it as a quote so it seemed pointless

You are entitled to air your opinion, so dont worry the police wont be around for you tonight! Well not for what you've posted on this thread ......

 

[shanky887614]

How can you become responsible for an installation after an electrical installation condition report.

its the same as blaming the garage that passed the cars mot before it blew up and killed the driver

 

[MDJ]

You are entitled to air your opinion, so dont worry the police wont be around for you tonight! Well not for what you've posted on this thread ......

you daft so and so, I know I cannot get into trouble lol, I mean too many opinions could attract media attention and the media reporting could harm the case you silly sausage.

 

[D Skelton]

the contempt of court bit is a bit ott though lol.

Damaging a trial is technically contempt of court mate.

Best tell that to the Daily Mail, they've convicted them in their absence!

In the land of the free speech, provided you are offering your "opinion" and not interfering with the legal process then contemp will not be an issue ....... anyway im hidden behind a screen so no-one knows who I am

No, read the article again!

It only revelas what exactly has been said in court, which is now public knowledge. It does not speculate and it does not offer an opinion!

Offering an opinion can potentially interfere with legal proceedings, especially when members of a jury are influenced by that opinion, and in such cases a trial will be brought to an end on that basis and there will be no sentencing.

In other words, the two fellas walk if the court find out that the jury have been influenced by anything other than facts presented in court.

We should not be discussing this

 

[Badged01]

No, read the article again!

If you can find them read some of the articles in the tabloids before the court case .....

Offering an opinion can potentially interfere with legal proceedings, especially when members of a jury are influenced by that opinion, and in such cases a trial will be brought to an end on that basis and there will be no sentencing.

Check you legal process. Your opinion is yours and if you choose to air you opinon you can as free speech. Stating facts is a different kettle of fish, hence when you state anything you are advised to caveat with "in my opinion". (i.e "in my opinion this is what happened" rather than "this is what happened"). Plus of course thats why at the trial the judge warns the jury as to being influenced by outside events ......

[/QUOTE]We should not be discussing this[/QUOTE]

If we wish to raise opinions and debate then there is no legal reason I can see why we cant? And as my caveat, all posts in this thread have been my opinion with no basis of fact as to actual event or persons!

 

[D Skelton]

If you can find them read some of the articles in the tabloids before the court case .....



Check you legal process. Your opinion is yours and if you choose to air you opinon you can as free speech. Stating facts is a different kettle of fish, hence when you state anything you are advised to caveat with "in my opinion". (i.e "in my opinion this is what happened" rather than "this is what happened"). Plus of course thats why at the trial the judge warns the jury as to being influenced by outside events ......

We should not be discussing this[/QUOTE]

If we wish to raise opinions and debate then there is no legal reason I can see why we cant? And as my caveat, all posts in this thread have been my opinion with no basis of fact as to actual event or persons![/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing with your opinion in particular, in fact I haven't even read it, but you are correct, you can air an opinon, but that doesn't stop anyone else taking that opinion from you and airing it as fact.

Some people don't know how damaging talking about trails can be.

Just last year there was a pedo on trail up north somewhere who walked free because he'd already been given trial by media!

In my opinion we should stick to discussing this after the trial has finished, until then, much of what is discussed will be heresay, potentially damaging to a fair trial and of no use to anyone whatsoever.

 

[silver surfer]

http://electrical.------.org/wiring-matters/43/unlawful-killing.cfm?type=pdf

More clarity here.

 

[southsea1201]

today's news from Wolverhamton.
Test may have found electrical fault which killed mother, court told « Express & Star

Interested to know how an IR test would have highlighted this problem.

I think we can discuss what is in the press.

 

[derek]

Interesting that the coroner was planning on writing to "NICEIC and other relevant bodies to ask them if anything can be done to curb the practice of electricians signing safety certificates based solely on information reported to them by others". I wonder if the committee that Mr Skelton went to address were aware of this particular case.

 

[D Skelton]

I wonder if the committee that Mr Skelton went to address were aware of this particular case.

Yes, they were, and that's why they told us very clearly at the beginning of the session that any ongoing court cases were not to be mentioned. They were specifically referring to this very court case.

 

[tazz]

This was a good debate, earlier today skipping around the case, and getting into preventive measures. I think Mr Skeltons comments need to be taken on board, as speculation and hearsay can be a dangerous game

 

[southsea1201]

As news becomes available we should discuss this. It will be interesting to hear the defence when they have their turn

 

[Gavin A]

Damaging a trial is technically contempt of court mate.



No, read the article again!

It only revelas what exactly has been said in court, which is now public knowledge. It does not speculate and it does not offer an opinion!

Offering an opinion can potentially interfere with legal proceedings, especially when members of a jury are influenced by that opinion, and in such cases a trial will be brought to an end on that basis and there will be no sentencing.

In other words, the two fellas walk if the court find out that the jury have been influenced by anything other than facts presented in court.

We should not be discussing this

the counter argument to this being that for a juror to see this thread they'd have to have search for the case on google, which itself would be illegal and they'd be the ones being prosecuted for contempt.

This isn't a newspaper, it's a specialist forum that these jurors would be extremely unlikely to stumble across accidentally, which is where the sub judice laws come from.

 

[D Skelton]

the counter argument to this being that for a juror to see this thread they'd have to have search for the case on google, which itself would be illegal and they'd be the ones being prosecuted for contempt.

This isn't a newspaper, it's a specialist forum that these jurors would be extremely unlikely to stumble across accidentally, which is where the sub judice laws come from.

What about one of the juror's family members?

"Oh, guess what, you know that court case you're on, look what I found today!"

Ok, it's unlikely, but I still stand by what I say, and that is that speculation is best reserved for when the jury have reached a verdict.

 

[Gavin A]

What about one of the juror's family members?

"Oh, guess what, you know that court case you're on, look what I found today!"

Ok, it's unlikely, but I still stand by what I say, and that is that speculation is best reserved for when the jury have reached a verdict.

Then the relative would be guilty of attempting to influence a juror.

This fear of subjudice on the web really acts to prevent vital discussions from taking place on the wider issues that the case has brought up, mainly due to a lack of real legal precedent on the specifics of internet forums as opposed to national newspapers.

You can't expect a juror not to watch the news, listen to the radio, read a newspaper. You can reasonably expect them not to directly search for information about the case on google, or for anyone else to directly tell them about a discussion they've read about the case, as both of these actions would themselves be illegal.

That's my take on it anyway. Better to discuss it now, rather than not discuss it at all because it's out of the news by the time the trial eventually ends. Best not to make any assumptions about guilt mind, as that could result in lible action if it turned out they were found not guilty.

 

[Badged01]

I'm no legal eagle and its been a while since I delved into this subject but as I understood it you can voice your "opinion" under free speech on just about anything in the UK --- some areas pertaining to gender, sexuality and race you may want to tread carefully around, although feel free to saying anything about a white, male, hetrosexual!. If its not your "opinion" and you are claiming it as "fact", then beware of the potential of libel laws. (Don't even think it becomes contemp of court unless you are attempting to effect/alter the judicial proceedings in some way.)

The issue raised by Mr Skelton I believe is that if lots of "opinions" are aired (normally thro' newspapers, TV and the like) and the judge believes this has effected the defendent getting a fair trial then he can dismiss, order a re-trial, advise the jury etc. Nothing happens to those with their "opinions" but the case can be brought to a premature close and the defendant 'released'!

All the above of course is purely my own opinion of things .....

 

[D Skelton]

The issue raised by Mr Skelton I believe is that if lots of "opinions" are aired (normally thro' newspapers, TV and the like) and the judge believes this has effected the defendent getting a fair trial then he can dismiss, order a re-trial, advise the jury etc. Nothing happens to those with their "opinions" but the case can be brought to a premature close and the defendant 'released'!

Precisely my point!

It ain't about what the jurors hear, it's about what the judge thinks they might have heard.

The main thing is that these two guys need to get a fair trial, wild speculation, guesswork and fact manipulation does not help anyone. No one on here knows the full extent of what happened, so why talk about it. All will be concluded by then end of next week, why not wait till then to fill yer boots with gossip.

 

[NickD]

This isn't a newspaper, it's a specialist forum that these jurors would be extremely unlikely to stumble across accidentally, which is where the sub judice laws come from.

Is it even a jury trial?

Part of the point of jury selection is to ensure people haven't been influenced by what they may have read outside the courtroom and most certainly they should not be looking at stuff like this discussion during the trial, that's contempt. A juror got jailed not that long back for doing independent research by social media during a trial.

 

[NickD]

To say someone was tragically killed and i quote "because" of the guy who did the inspection is madness is it not? He didn't cause anyone death, might have failed to spot a fault maybe, but even that is impossible to know or prove...So who's to say this fella didn't do his testing when the screw wasn't quite making a short, but it later did short and killed the poor woman..? Amazed it got to court, surely a lawyer would destroy the claim as totally unprovable, and it wouldn't even see the light of day? Very worrying precedent for our work if you can be accountable after an EICR for tragic incidents out of your control.

Bear in mind they are not being prosecuted for causing the death, charge is not manslaughter or anything similar. They are being prosecuted for breach of the Health & Safety At Work Act, i.e. something illegal that they did whilst working.

It has been openly reported in the media that an experience inspector has described the testing the first accused did as, quote, "farcical".

 

[southsea1201]

Personally I think the HSE are going to have to go some to win this case. If the metal stud wasn't grounded surely the IR test would prove nothing. Presumably the metal was screwed to floorboards and joists and side timbers.

 

[Hawkmoon]

We should not be discussing this

If we wish to raise opinions and debate then there is no legal reason I can see why we cant? And as my caveat, all posts in this thread have been my opinion with no basis of fact as to actual event or persons![/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing with your opinion in particular, in fact I haven't even read it, but you are correct, you can air an opinon, but that doesn't stop anyone else taking that opinion from you and airing it as fact.

Some people don't know how damaging talking about trails can be.

Just last year there was a pedo on trail up north somewhere who walked free because he'd already been given trial by media!

In my opinion we should stick to discussing this after the trial has finished, until then, much of what is discussed will be heresay, potentially damaging to a fair trial and of no use to anyone whatsoever.[/QUOTE]




Agree totally on all you are saying, ironically this sentence reveals that you believed this guy to be guilty even before his trial (something you could not possibly know) - we all make assumptions based on the media and/or gossip

 

[steve.b]

The_Wanderer i.e. doesn't it state a "competent person"..

In the new reg's (2015) it states "electrically skilled persons, competent in such
work".

 

[Andrewr3]

Did the circuit in question require rcd at the time of installation as it looks like it was less than 50mm deep, if so the installer is primarily to blame. Incidents like this are exactly why rcd protection is required.

What he said above. It's a recently built flat, it could have been a dedicated circuit for the immersion, but still needs RCD because the cable was less than 50mm deep. Maybe the cable was supposed to be more than 50mm deep, or maybe it should have been protected with an earthed tube but that was left out by the installer. Anyway, rather than speculate I am also thninking about this from a wider perspective. It has made me think again before offering advise to customers on older installations (compliant to previous Regulations) without RCDs. I vaguely recall on a post in this forum where electricians were accused of simply touting for business when suggesting old cartridge or rewireable CUs ought to be replaced for CUs with RCD protection. As someone else here mentioned here RCDs may not be total mitigation of the risk, but they certainly reduce it significantly.

BTW I once noticed in a Social housing a picture hung directly above a wall thermostat. I carefully removed the picture and discovered the nail holding it up was live! No RCD either.

 

[Poult12]

Dont know if anyone has seen this or posted this up already.

http://fuseservices.co.uk/successfu...ectricians-out-there-and-those-who-dont-test/

http://www.mgselectricaltraining.co.uk/cms_files/pdf/rogue_electrician_prosecuted.pdf


http://www.yatepeople.co.uk/Builder...al-work-Yate/story-18664896-detail/story.html

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Haven't read through the whole thread, but from the first few pages there does appear to be quite a few misconceptions.
The inspection conducted was an Initial Verification.
The form used was an EIC.
The design (and perhaps also the construction) of the installation was prior to the introduction of the 17th edition, and as such there was no requirement for RCD protection for either the cable, or the circuit.

My understanding, is that despite cables being routed in prescribed zones, a dry liner managed to screw through one of the cables.
Apparently, other trades are not aware of prescribed zones, despite the fact that they have as far as I am aware, been in use since 1966.
One of the complaints that the Coroner at the inquest had, was that the prescribed zones were not shown on any drawings (don't believe I have ever seen drawings that indicated prescribed zones). The Coroner also concluded that the QS system as operated by the NICEIC is clearly open to abuse (shame that it took a death before anyone noticed this).

As it stands the Regulations require that a new installation, or an alteration/addition to an existing installation be inspected and tested during and after construction to ensure that the work satisfies the requirements of the Regulations.
As such, it is conceivable that the damaged cable was inspected and tested during construction, before the cable was damaged.
It is also conceivable that the damage to the cable would not necessarily have been discovered during initial verification, or any subsequent inspection and testing.

I find it rather odd, that while the 'Mate' and the QS are being prosecuted, neither the person who damaged the cable, nor the company that employed him are being prosecuted.

 

[pepparz]

how would the person know he was screwing into a cable?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Other than the cable being live, I doubt that there would be a practicable method for the person to know that they were screwing into a cable.
However not placing the screw in a prescribed zone would ensure that they would not screw into any cables routed in such a zone.

 

[NickD]

The sub judice rule and contempt of court

 

[D Skelton]

Agree totally on all you are saying, ironically this sentence reveals that you believed this guy to be guilty even before his trial (something you could not possibly know) - we all make assumptions based on the media and/or gossip

Oh he blatantly was! And I agree, I did think he was guilty, although I only read about it after the trial. But the fact that everyone 'knew' he was guilty before the trial meant that he couldn't receive a fair one and he walked!

That said, it's the very reason why I don't go blabbing on facebook like thousands of other people do about 'pedo this' and 'pedo that' when someone's been nicked, because just this very thing can lead to a guilty man walking.

 

[NickD]

That said, it's the very reason why I don't go blabbing on facebook like thousands of other people do about 'pedo this' and 'pedo that' when someone's been nicked, because just this very thing can lead to a guilty man walking.

Or an innocent person being persecuted. In Newport, S Wales a person was victimised and eventually hounded out of their home by the locals, because he/she was a paediatrician. I wish I was joking. Idiots.

 

[D Skelton]

Or an innocent person being persecuted. In Newport, S Wales a person was victimised and eventually hounded out of their home by the locals, because he/she was a paediatrician. I wish I was joking. Idiots.

I read about that one too! Haha

That's what happens when whole towns only breed with others from within it's boundaries!

 

[southsea1201]

The latest court report:
Emma Shaw begged Andrew Cross to come home after she said a pipe had fallen off and ‘the electrics were sparking’. Miss Shaw, 22, was found dead in a storage room at her Jefferson Place flat, Grafton Road, West Bromwich, by Mr Cross. Two electricians are accused of breaching health and safety regulations following her death on December 14 2007.
Christopher Tomkins, 52, from Rowley Village, Rowley Regis, and 53-year-old Neil Hoult, from Dane Terrace, also Rowley Regis, both deny one charge of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. Prosecutors allege a form filled in by Tomkins on March 8, 2006, appeared to show he had carried out insulation testing on all electrical circuits in the flat that would later become home to Miss Shaw.
During the second day of the trial, a statement was read out by Mr Cross, who works as a gas fitter for the National Grid. The court was told he had left the flat at around 7.55am and had not seen anything differentwhile getting ready. His statement read: “That morning I was working in Bushbury, Wolverhampton. I left my mobile phone in the van.
“When I returned to the van at around 11.20am I saw Emma had sent me a message saying: ‘Andy I need you to come home. There is water all over the floor and one of the electrics keeps sparking.’” Mr Cross said his mother-in-law Diane Potter had also sent him a text.
His bosses then allowed him to go home.
Mr Cross had first checked on the couple’s son and then called the emergency services.
The court has previously heard Tomkins and Hoult were both employed by Anchor Building and Electrical Services Ltd, which carried out electrical work during the development of Jefferson Place in 2006. The trial continues.

 

[jackhammerJIM]

Too right,many years ago I worked as a QS for a firm and packed in because they wanted me to make up test sheets for houses rather than test each one,basically they wanted me to test something like 1 in 5 and adjust the figures slightly for the other 4.

I was in a similar position phil at a large firm i used to work at .

Told to test 11 houses in one day , test one and make the rest up .

dumped them on the bosses desk with no signatures .