|
|
|
Query: Legality of Electrical work |
|---|
| message from Peter on 20 May 2004 |
Hi
I know that electrical work should be carried out by a "competent person"
and I count myself as being competent though I am not a qualified
electrician
.
However how would an insurance company treat work carried out in my home by
myself?
If there was a fire or person electrocuted even if not directly from the
work that I had done but would the fact that I had done some work count
against me? Would the insurance company still cover a claim?
What about doing some work for a friend - putting in an extra socket,
unpaid. I would be concerned that if he had an electrical fault unrelated to
the socket that I had put in his insurance company would refuse to consider
a claim because I had made an alteration.
How do insurance companies treat DIY for yourself or a friend?
Regards
Peter
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Peter on 20 May 2004 |
Insurance companies think they are a law in themselves, but if they
refused a legitimate claim because they found out (how?) that DIY work had
been carried out, *and that work was satisfactory*, you could sue them.
Different matter with gas where the law states you can't work on anyone
else's installation, and must be competent to work on your own. No such
laws yet with electricity.
|
| Mike Harrison replied to Dave Plowman on 20 May 2004 |
I would think that a good test in this case would be whether or not any work complied with the
wiring regs.
|
| G&M replied to Peter on 20 May 2004 |
I think the "doing work for a friend" will have to disappear, though doing
it yourself under BCO control will carry on in much the same way as has
become the case with gas now.
|
| BigWallop replied to Peter on 20 May 2004 |
If it's a fire caused by an electrical fault and the fire investigator found that it
was your work that had caused it, how would you feel ? Are you covered by liabilities
insurance for doing this type or similar work ? If the fire investigator found that
the fire started in a totally different room from where you had been working, but that
the work you carried out on the circuit caused the overload because of you didn't know
that the circuit couldn't take the load you applied to it, how would you feel ?
Would your friend find it in his heart to forgive you because you were trying to help
out ? Would your family say "It's OK, you weren't to know" ?
Maybe that's why the government are trying to introduce new legislation to make it law
that any work be certificated by a qualified fully trained person, and are trying to
stop the rot of the DIYer on this type work. It is dangerous to play around with
electrical, gas and building installations if you don't know what and how things work
on them.
|
| Bob Mannix replied to BigWallop on 20 May 2004 |
working, but that
Some of this is wise but the OP didn't disagree with your final paragraph,
he judges that he is competent and that he does know "what and how things
work". I consider myself the same but, for reasons you state further up, I
no longer do any "helping out a friend" work (not that I ever did much). You
don't know what they are then going to do and you are right, you really
don't want to be mixed up in that - it's just not worth it.
In addition, the OP may be, and regard himself, as competent. In the eyes of
the law competency is rarely (if ever) self-judged. If you have no
documentary proof that you are competent then, by definition, you are not a
competent person (no matter what level of skills or knowledge you have,
which may be considerable in excess of some "competent" people). That's just
the way it is and the situation is directly related to the instances of
completely incompetent electrical work found.
If you judge yourself to be competent, stick to your own stuff, get anything
other than minor works inspected if possible, and live with it!
|
| John replied to BigWallop on 20 May 2004 |
working, but that
How would an investigator ever prove that the work was recent? Only a fool
would say that they had just been doing electrical work!
Won't that make it a big problem for elcectricians, needing to check all
their qualifications, update courses every 5 years or so, I don't see it
ever happening for real
|
| BigWallop replied to John on 20 May 2004 |
The work doesn't have to be recent. It could have been done years before it caused a
fire. The point is that it was your work that caused the fire and the investigator
found that it was this installation that caused the break out of the fire.
It still comes back to the person who carried out the installation.
But that's what any professional tradesperson does. They never stop learning their
trade because it changes by the day sometimes. So if the current specifications say
that I can't work on certain installations because I don't have the qualifications to
do so, then I can't work on it, simple as that. If then, I did ignore the rules and
carried out work on something that caused injury or worse, and it was then found that
I had ignored the rules governing that type of installation. I could be, and probably
would if an insurance company was involved, taken to court and sued to within an inch
of my life savings.
So, if you have any doubt in your ability to carry out a certain type of work, and you
have no one to supervise and inspect the work you've carried to make sure it is done
satisfactorily, then leave it alone. Especially if it could mean other peoples lives.
|
| Steve Walker replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
While agreeing with your earlier points, this last bit is tosh. Every
trade from glaziers to car mechanics is trying to find a health & safety
or environmental pretext to ban DIY, and they're largely motivated by
greed imho.
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Steve Walker on 22 May 2004 |
In one. You've got the cigar.
|
| Jerry. replied to Dave Plowman on 22 May 2004 |
Some of it is due to the DIYer not understanding the required standards that
have to be worked to, would you accept someone making a TV programme with
VHS gear with little or no understanding of shot composition and audio
mixing IYSWIM ?
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Jerry. on 22 May 2004 |
It happens already - don't you watch TV?
I personally prefer not to watch such rubbish, but I don't want a law
against it. That's the difference.
|
| Jerry. replied to Dave Plowman on 22 May 2004 |
You would if you were forced to watch it, someone moving into a bodged house
or travelling in a bodged car [1] (for example) has to live with the
consequences of those bodges if it all goes pear shaped - and very few TV
programmes could kill you just by watching them IYSWIM.
[1] or even just passing by one
|
| Dave Plowman replied to Jerry. on 22 May 2004 |
Well, given the standard of the average garage - main dealers included -
and the prices they charge for bodging or not doing work charged for, and
that's only in my limited experience, the day they make it illegal to work
on your own car I think I'll emigrate. Of course, it would just prove my
point.
But if a trade is given a virtual monopoly through their own regulatory
body, then that body in turn should be *tightly* regulated. Fat chance.
From the medical profession through law to 'ordinary' trades they all look
after those who pay their wages first.
You've not seen Family Affairs, then?
|
| Grimly Curmudgeon replied to Jerry. on 22 May 2004 |
something like:
I've seen Changing Rooms, thanks.
|
| Jerry. replied to Grimly Curmudgeon on 22 May 2004 |
I don't call that a programme, more like an excuses for wrecking other
peoples houses (and or priceless collections) due to some idiot bimbo's ego
trip !...
|
| Grimly Curmudgeon replied to Jerry. on 23 May 2004 |
something like:
Seeing the end results, I wouldn't fancy living in some of the rooms
they've done.
|
| Harvey Van Sickle replied to BigWallop on 20 May 2004 |
On 20 May 2004, BigWallop wrote
But that wasn't his question: the situation he asked about was where
the investigator established that it wasn't related to his work.
Again, that's not the situation he was asking about -- you've premised
a situation where the cause of the fire was *related* to his work. He
was asking about the situation where the fire *wasn't* related to his
work.
Your advice is sound, but it applies to situations which, as I read it,
he was specifically trying to exclude from the discussion.
|
| Martin Angove replied to Harvey Van Sickle on 20 May 2004 |
[OT: BigW - any chance of formatting your posts to 70-ish characters
instead of 90-odd?]
That is (IME) a dangerous statement. Far too many people are perfectly
confident in their own work and yet would be judged by others to fall
short of competence. At the moment electrical work is the place where
this seems to be scariest, but it can happen anywhere. Of course,
personal safety needn't be the only problem - the small matter of the
DIY-ed conservatory at our last house (DIY-ed by a previous owner I
hasten to add) for example, where to be brutal the thing really needed
demolishing and starting again even though it was less than 10 years
old. It wasn't about to fall down, but other problems could cost
thousands to rectify.
Ideally competence should be a quantitative measurement, rather than a
qualitative judgement but in practice this is difficult. At the moment
really the only measure of electrical competence is to pass a couple of
C&G exams. Getting the NICEIC to "ok" your work is a good second best,
but think for a moment about just how many 17 year-old newly qualified
drivers are *actually* competent in all aspects of driving alone?
Not quite sure what you mean here.
Of course they would - if a major fire was investigated and a cause
found, the company would do anything it could to avoid paying :-)
Hmmm yes, but who would own up to that? Without proof, that is.
Absolutely. If you have no doubt though and yet the work is not to
standard...
Having said that, we must remember the statistics about deaths and
injuries caused by faulty fixed-wiring. Was it Andy who supplied these
or Peter? The electrical system in this country is very, very safe. For
most problems it takes more than one fault for something to be
dangerous.
The most common fault I've come across in my time has to be
inappropriate cable. Usually it is size: 1mm2 as a spur supplying a
potential load of 3.5kW+, or the client who wanted to install an
all-electric cooker using 2.5mm2. Occasionally it is 2-core cable where
a CPC is required or T&E with the CPC not connected.
These faults are not necessarily immediately dangerous (the 1mm2 spur
worked fine over two or three winters before I ripped it out) but will
lie in wait to "bite" at some future date. At another job recently, I
restored the earth to half the upstairs lights (it was disconnected in
one junction) only to have the fuse blow. It didn't take long to find
the culprit - a switched live which was twisted together in a junction
box rather than under a terminal and which had, over time, moved into
contact with the earth in the box.
To make matters worse, this was for the earthed, metal cased lighting in
a non-bonded bathroom, one light (normal R80 eyeball spot) about a foot
away from the shower head.
Not sure where this is going so I'll stop. Basically I agree with your
argument, but dislike the "confidence in your competence" statement.
Hwyl!
M.
|
| BigWallop replied to Harvey Van Sickle on 20 May 2004 |
But these situations can't be ruled out of this type of discussion. Peter says he
feels competent in doing this type job for himself and others, but if he is competent
enough he shouldn't be having these doubts. He'd know if the work that he carried out
was up to specifications of the current electrical installers institute codes of
practice that he studied before carrying out the work. If it happened that any
qualified person had the same doubts, then surely they shouldn't be doing this type of
job anymore.
Competency is measured in the confidence you have in yourself that the work you do is
fully compliant with safe practice. And the security of knowing that the work is done
properly shouldn't be an issue. So to ask if an insurance company would take into
consideration that the person doing the work is not competent, to me, is a stupid
question. Especially if that person is not confident in the work that they themselves
carried out.
If you have any doubt in the work that you carried out, then you should leave it well
alone. More especially where the health and safety of others is a big issue.
|
| Harvey Van Sickle replied to BigWallop on 20 May 2004 |
On 20 May 2004, Martin Angove wrote
-snip-
I do find the original question interesting, though.
As you say, insurance companies generally try to avoid paying out.
Presumably they could argue that the wiring wasn't to code -- and
therefore broke the insurance terms -- if any of the correct sleeves
and markings of wires weren't in place. (Has that argument ever been
tried? I don't think I've ever come across an installation where
*every* earth in *every* socket was sleeved, nor where all the switch
wires to all the lights were correctly marked.)
So my suspicion is that some of the companies would be more than happy
to try the argument of "well, it had absolutely nothing to do with the
fire, but as one of the spurs in one of the bedrooms wasn't cleared by
a certificate-carrying electrician with liability insurance, we ain't
payin'...."
|
| N. Thornton replied to BigWallop on 20 May 2004 |
If this advice were followed in DIY matters, most DIY would not occur.
And I think DIY is overall a very good thing. Thus I would question
the above. I do see its merits, but also I see problems with it.
As far as electrical work goes, in the great majrity of cases it
should be possible for most untrained persons to find out the details
of what is required, and do it themselves without endangering anyone.
But... there are some who are not willing to find out, some too stupid
to follow good advice, and some who just dont know what theyre doing.
Finally, competence is not a question of whether youve done an NVQ in
electrical wiring. Its somewhat more complicated than that.
Regards, NT
|
| BigWallop replied to N. Thornton on 21 May 2004 |
news:<i66rc.333$SD.3289255@news-text.cableinet.net>...
Very true in all you're saying, but a good majority of DIYers have the attitude of
"That'll do, it's only doing that" because they don't take time to find out how it
should be done safely and securely. And, as you say, competency is more than just
knowing how it's done.
|
| Woody replied to BigWallop on 21 May 2004 |
What really gets me about all of this is the way that 'regulations' define
competency - which is something no doubt that insurance companies would
hinge a claim upon.
I have an HNC in Electronic and Electrical Engineering, I'm a fellow of my
institute, I served a four-year formal traineship, and I've been in the
industry nearly 35 years. I have to work to IEE regs whenever I do an
equipment installation, and in my workplace I am a H&S supervisor, I work on
equipment with voltages higher than mains almost every day, but -
technically - I'm not competent to fit a 13A plug because I'm not a
'qualified' electrician.
I designed and installed my own burglar alarm system using professional
components (i.e. from an alrm specialist, not a DIY shed) but my insurer
will not accept it as (a) it was not installed by a member of the relevant
body and (b) I don't have an annual maintenance contract with a registered
company.
In both instances I would suggest that I am far better qualified than
'official' holders of such posts because I understand - as distinct from
'know' - what I'm doing, but will any commercial organisation recognise
that? Will they **********!
|
| N. Thornton replied to Woody on 21 May 2004 |
This is an ongoing problem, and one that results in much silliness.
And it is so easy to fix, thats the thing. All one has to do is
recognise the real range of relevant qualifications rather than just
one. But as ever, stupidity prevails, especially when it comes to
insurance.
Regards, NT
|
| N. Thornton replied to Peter on 21 May 2004 |
I've never heard of that: with such a clause the majority of house
insurance policies would be invalid. I dont think it would be a
tenable position.
Regards, NT
|
| Capitol replied to N. Thornton on 21 May 2004 |
What actually happens, is that the insurance company takes the business for
one year on a particular set of conditions, the next year on the renewal
invitation, some of the vital terms and conditions are changed. Unless you
are addicted to reading the small print, as I have become, the insured
frequently has moved to an uninsured state without their understanding this
to be the case. This has happened to me 3 times in the past 3 years, all
with different insurers and insurance products. It is even worse with
paying by debit card systems, as the supplier is allowed to set up a debit
for the next year without fresh authorisation from the customer. I have had
to write to my bank specifying that this is not permitted on my account or
the account will be immediately closed.
Unfortunately, the requirement for an annual check could be inserted
in the small print on a renewal invitation and with the cartels which
operate in the insurance industry, you would find that you could not get
cover without certification. What a thought!
Regards
Capitol
|
| N. Thornton replied to Capitol on 22 May 2004 |
A nice little nugget
Regards, NT
|
| Peter replied to Peter on 21 May 2004 |
Hi
Many good points.
Just to clarify - I do consider myself pretty competent and have done three
total rewires incl designing the circutry and putting in the consumer units
but had them tested and certified before going live!!
My main concern is what do insurance companies think of diy and their
attitude when something goes wrong as it inevitably must if many people
alter electrical systems.
Putting in the odd socket may be alright - or is it? what happens if there
is a problem?
It is often difficult to get an electrician to do a simple job as one
socket. Are electricians that do small jobs such as this fully certified and
have insurance? Should people ensure that they do?
Is it time to bring in a similar scheme to the gas CORGI?
regards
Peter
"Peter" <peters60@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3a5rc.85$3T.84@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Hi
Many good points, many thanks.
Just to clarify - I do consider myself pretty competent and have done three
total rewires incl designing the circutry and putting in the consumer units
but had them tested and certified before going live!!
My main concern is what do insurance companies think of diy and their
attitude when something goes wrong as it inevitably must if many people
alter electrical systems.
Putting in the odd socket may be alright - or is it? what happens if there
is a problem?
It is often difficult to get an electrician to do a simple job as one
socket. Are electricians that do small jobs such as this fully certified and
have insurance? Should people ensure that they do?
Is it time to bring in a similar scheme to the gas CORGI?
regards
Peter
|
| David W.E. Roberts replied to Peter on 21 May 2004 |
I think one reason the rules are more stringent for gas is that a duff
electrical installation can injure or kill an individual, or more rarely
cause a fire which will gut a house, but a duff gas installation can cause
an explosion which will take out a block of flats.
Granted that a fire can also take out a block of flats, but with smoke
alarms and time to spread, there is usually time to evacuate.
A gas explosion has a more immediate (instant) impact.
Faulty gas heating appliances are also more likely to kill than faulty
electrical appliances - and CO poisoning strikes at a distance from the
appliance. There are no safety fuses for gas.
Interesting to contemplate what and how much you could do in the home if
regulation came in.
Presumably you couldn't change any switches, sockets or light fittings but
all these would have to be fitted by electricians.
Sale of adapters, extension leads and distribution boards banned because
this could result in an unsafe electrical configuration?
I think that the average householder is far more likely to want to change an
electrical configuration thatn a gas configuration.
The number of gas appliances is generally far less than the number of
electrical outlets, especially when you include lighting circuits.
I wonder if an alternative is to have an 'electrical driving test' where
householders have to attend (evening?) classes and pass a written and
practical examination which authorises them to undertake limited electrical
maintenance in the home, with any major work supervised and checked by a
qualified person.
Cheers
Dave R
|
| Stephen Dawson replied to David W.E. Roberts on 22 May 2004 |
Yes there is, it takes two years and is called a City & Guilds.
|
| Andy Hall replied to Stephen Dawson on 22 May 2004 |
For the purpose of a large number of things that are done in home
environments, something much simpler than this would be perfectly
adequate.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| David W.E. Roberts replied to Andy Hall on 22 May 2004 |
<snip>
Quite.
Isn't there a rant a bit further upstream on this very topic - people
suggesting that an average DIYer shouldn't be touching such stuff and it
should all be handled by a 'professional'?
I assume the C&G comment was serious and not 'tongue in cheek'.
You might need a C&G qualification to tackle someone elses electrics, but
that is a seperate issue.
Perhaps we should have a constitution like the US - with the right to bear
hammer drills :-)
Cheers
Dave R
|
| Jerry. replied to David W.E. Roberts on 22 May 2004 |
I don't think that is what's been said or implied, more like 'If you don't
understand get a professional to do the work, don't just carry on
regardless'. Some of the questions asked show how some really do just carry
on regardless - even to the extent of blowing fuses and leaving the system
in a worse state that it was before (we all know which thread I'm referring
to).
You might not need a C&G qualification but you DO need to understand what
such a course would teach those studying it (in relation to what you are
doing) - if you don't, how do you know you have do the work correctly ?
But they have no right to kill with their gun, just as we have no right to
kill with our hammer drills.....
|
| Andy Hall replied to Peter on 21 May 2004 |
It's already underway as Part P of the Building Regulations.
The government has presented it as being necessary because of the
number of electrically related accidents.
The reality is that virtually all of these are to do with appliances
and appliance wiring which are not covered.
The truth of the matter is that it is mainly a means to pull more
people from the construction industry into regulated organisations in
order to be able to identify and reach them for tax purposes.
Insurance companies will like this because it will present them with
yet another excuse not to pay out. Lawyers will also be pleased
because they will have many opportunites when lawsuits are issued.
The real problem is that as a society, we are risk averse to the Nth
degree, even when the risk is almost immeasurably small, as it
certainly is with competent DIY electrical work.
Legislation will do nothing to address the DIY bodger and the
consequences of his work because that will continue.
The right thing to do would be to provide for low cost education for
DIYers to cover typical work that is done in the home. This is not
rocket science and could easily be handled through evening classes
etc.
The second thing to do would be to make wiring inspection part of
normal house conveyancing so that most (but never all) risk is removed
for future purchasers.
Forcing people to use tradesmen registered with questionnable trade
organisations or the necessity to involve building control is not the
right approach in terms of helping the consumer.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Grimly Curmudgeon replied to Andy Hall on 22 May 2004 |
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
<ding!>
Watching 'Brassed off Britain' the other night, I was reminded of how,
some 20some years ago, 'The Guild of Master Craftsmen' approached me to
register with them. At the time it cost some 20 quid a year to join and
the only qualification/requirement was a cheque.
When I realised it was nothing more than a money-making scheme, I told
them to get lost.
Now I see numerous other so-called trade bodies and guilds have sprung
up, many of them at the same scam.
|
|
