Customer don't think they have to act on do the corrections

[telectrix]

personally, i would isolate the faulty circuit. only disconnecting with the customer's agreement. in the case you have just outlined, it's a risk assessment as to which is the greater danger. if it were metal switches on the lighting circuit that were live, then i would not leave the premises until i had either disconnected the circuit or rectified the fault .

 

[malcolmsanford]

OC class I fittings on a circuit without a CPC should be a code 2 so as the potential to be dangerous. You would not isolate the circuit in that case.

A code 1 should be for example a broken socket face where someone can touch un-insulated live terminals. If I drew the attention of this to the client and he told me well it's a socket that is in a room hardly ever used. I'll stick a notice above it so no one can use it, so I don't want it replaced, then I would be telling him that I'm going to isolate that circuit, by switching off the protection device, and then informing in writing later that day.

If it was a broken light fitting on a circuit of say 6 lights, and again there were un insulated terminals that can be touched, I would be within my rights to isolate that circuit. Now I would give the customer a choice, I either turn off the entire circuit, or I disconnect that one light and leave you the other 5 working. If they told me no, they need that 1 light as it's the light that is above the store keepers desk and so it must be left on, I would simply isolate the entire circuit by turning off the protection device and tell him I was doing that and then put it in writing the same day.

 

[oxocube]

Been thinking about this and I think we have all made valid points and I reckon you would have to assess the individual situation, but it led me onto something else.

If you discover something that you have switched off is potentially dangerous, then the correct action must surely be to leave it switched off, otherwise you would be complicit if an accident ocurred. And will the p***** of customer refuse to pay you?

But if you discover something dangerous without switching off (as in my earlier scenario) then you have no right to switch it off, you just give the advice.

 

[NMc]

We appear to be talking about code 1s. I seen Tony Cable (NICEIC) video and I am sure that he states that any code 1 (requires urgent attention) have to be corrected there and then.

Comments welcome

 

[Blowcat]

I never heard of that before. Could you imaging repairing all the code 1's and at the end the customer says I never ordered that work, But thanks for doing it at your own expense. Your contract is for a pir only unless otherwise agreed.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I never heard of that before. Could you imaging repairing all the code 1's and at the end the customer says I never ordered that work, But thanks for doing it at your own expense. Your contract is for a pir only unless otherwise agreed.

Absolutely agree!

 

[wade88]

Well I don't accept the esc stance or the difference between switching off or disconnecting. For the majority of cases, something that is dangerous is no longer dangerous once you are aware of the danger.

For instance , you do a PIR and discover all class 1 light fittings outer casings are live. They are out of reach, so although potentially dangerous, they're not if you don't touch them. But some of you would scare the customer and switch off the circuit, so what happens later that night when the customer falls down the stairs or knocks over a candle and sets fire to the house. You removed one potential danger but in doing so have created others.

Thats a bit of an ambiguous statement oxo. Yes you may make one person aware, but whats to say such information will be passed on to anyone else in contact with the danger? And if it isnt, then its still hugely dangerous, because people in the vicinity of it may be totally unaware. Its like steve irwin (rest his sole) walking up to you and saying, ello bruce there is a 100ft croc over there behind that tree...thus making you fully aware of the impedning death if you were to walk over there, where as the unsuspecting septic tourist that strolls over to bleed the lizard up against the same tree has absolutely no idea.

If someone is made aware of a danger, it should be immediately and clearly highlighted and any spark who feels it within their professional scope and knowledge, necessary to turn off or isolate the issue to avoid death or injury is IMO doing his job

 

[platty1005]

The whole aim of the PIR is to give the person ordering the report, enough information to allow them to undertake any remedial action to ensure they satisfy their legal requirements with regard to their employees and members of the public.
It is a commercial building with access by members of the public it is subject to the HASAW act. It is also a place of work for employees and subject to EAWR 1989. In either case if they fail to carry out remedial work they are negligent in their duty of care and would be liable to civil action in the case of an accident. If they fail to carry out remedial work they may be guilty of a breach of HASAW and EAWR and could be prosecuted.
My approach would be to point out the likely outcomes Prosecution and or civil suit if they do not carry out the remedial work.
If they still refuse your last resort could be to threaten to report them to the local authority or HSE for breaching H&S legislation
As far as isolation disconnecting etc MAKE SAFE by removing fuses or switching off the MCB as part of the inspection and test procedure. Then refuse to re-instate as the circuit is unsafe in your opinion.
If they replace the fuse later they are liable if an accident occurs.
Your role is to carry out a competent PIR and report your EXPERT findings.
It is their legal duty to take steps to comply with the law.

 

[wade88]

I absolutely agree, i was referring more to a situation that poses immediate danger, such as a flailing live cable or extensive bare conductors in places that are easily accessible and not protected via suitable obstacles