Discuss Prosecuted for doing an EICR , worrying precedent....... in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Reaction score
7
Now i know the Daily Mail is known for sensationalising a story, but this is a very worrying precent for our industry and inspections..

Emma Shaw electrocuted 'because electrician was UNQUALIFIED' | Mail Online

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"..

Thoughts?
 
Agree with you mate, its the same nightmare when a carry out gas inspections. One day a chimney could be clear the next day not so - falling debris, birds nesting etc
 
And this is a prime example of why cases that are sub judice should not be spoken about in the public domain.

I don't mean to be rude Wanderer but you have absolutely no idea about the facts of this case and your wild speculation is potentially damaging to any fair trial.
 
Hi,

There are also a number of speculations on the other thread. As said I don't think we can comment until we have all of the facts,

Regards.
 
Without referring to this case itself, the principle's always been there for an electrician who signed off an installation that was actually in a dangerous state, and later killed someone to expect to be prosecuted for it - basic duty of care / negligence tort law covers it.

If they've acted in good faith then they should be ok, but anyone who faked a test sheet on an unsafe installation that later killed someone is legally responsible for their death (for example), or possibly the firm that employed them would be if they could show that it was the firms fault not theirs.
 
MODS: Sorry i didn't see the other topic as was in different section, delete or merge as needed...
This thread can stand on its own as a discussion on the legal issues and possible consequences of signing off an EICR rather than being specifically about the Emma Shaw case.
 
This was not a Periodic Inspection, but was an Initial Verification.
The form used was an EIC, not an EICR.
The initial verification was conducted about 9 or 10 years ago, in any event, before the introduction of EICRs.
Hardly subjudice, as the matter has been in the public domain for about 8 years now.
 
Agree with the OP re the bit about qualified,in law there is nothing to say you have to be qualified, merely competant,and lets be honest I've seen work done by diy'ers(not many grant you) that would put some so called "qualified electricians" to shame.
 
Agree with you mate, its the same nightmare when a carry out gas inspections. One day a chimney could be clear the next day not so - falling debris, birds nesting etc
or blocked off by an idiot roofer.A guy near me decided to replace his gas fire with an electric one as it was "faulty",I went round to give him some advice and enquired what was up with the gas fire.Apparently after it had been on for about half an hour it shut off and wouldn't light until you opened the door,A smoke test pointed to a blocked flue,a look on the roof revealed a 2x2 flag had been cemented over the "redundant" chimney by a roofer doing some repair work.
 
This is why I never read newspapers, "He stated he was an "electricians mate"" the daily mail turn that in to "he described himself as a "mate of an electrician"" it obvious to us its being sensationalised how many stories do people read about things they don't fully understand and get brainwashed.
 
Regardless of spin and blame here to sign off an installation the signer needs to be competent to do so regardless of his title, as we has seen over the last few decades - 'Electrician' no longer holds the high title it used to, all that is needed is that anyone signing off any kind of Electrical work can prove his competence under scrutiny and justify his results for the testing... the word of the law does not state title but uses the word competent - it is then down to the defense to prove s/he is otherwise not competent.

The facts aside and pushing also the tragic events that led up to this article, it comes down to someone or numerous people faked the legitimacy of the test cert' and regardless what brought this to court they have that charge to answer to, if however during this investigation it is found that in anyway through that the negligence of this 'Electricians Mate' played a key role in the death of this women and can be proved that what he was asked to do would have prevented and shown the safety issue then he can be charged in relation to the death. As we don't know the real facts and just see the media hype we can't comment except in loose talk in a public closed area.... personally i think the hype has a positive effect as it puts the dangers across to any incompetent persons out there that one day it may catch up with them.
 
I'd would say that it's a worrying precedent that there are now so many wanna be electricians out there, that either have no clue as to what their doing, or are just faking official paperwork for monetary gain....

It's about time in my opinion, that the powers that be, start prosecution procedures far more often, and far quicker than that of the present case going through judicial system....
 
just to get back to the technicalities.... if the screw had just made contact with the L conductor and the metal studding, how would an IR test have picked this up? if the cable in question was in a safe zone, and someone has screwed in within the safe zone, then why is that person not in court? finally, as i can't remember, under the 16th ed., were cables within a metal stud wall required to be RCD protected or otherwise as with 17th 522.6.103?
 
Slightly digressing the whole newspaper/media industry wants to be overhauled as here they are rearranging facts so they can gets better sales

Then you hear that someone has been prosecuted as they have revealed the name of someone who claimed they where raped and has lifetime anominity but the person they have accussed has their name spread across the papers before they have been up in court.

I personnally think that there should be a revue of the media with tougher penalties on them for things like this.
 
Talking about defence and prosecution, there are lawyers who specialise in road law others in tax and some in serious crime. Does anyone know of any lawyers who specialise in our industry? It would be good to have a lawyer (if needed) who knows his stuff on the subject rather than have any random lawyer who flicks thru books trying to sort your issue when he's already got a big workload ambulance chasing.
 
There are various specialisation solicitors but they are mainly based in company/contractual law and criminal law. All the others will always use expert witnesses as their main weapon in a court of law.
Remember, when it gets to Crown and High Court proceedings, it's Barristers that do the arguing under the briefs supplied by the defendants solicitors.
 

Reply to Prosecuted for doing an EICR , worrying precedent....... in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock