Electrician and QS on trial for death of woman

[rompling]

I Know its been posted about before but it seems the trial has begun ....
Very sad
Emma Shaw electrocuted 'because electrician was UNQUALIFIED' | Mail Online

 

[NickD]

My understanding of rcds from the 80`s ....is a human body would withstand upto 50mA before fatality occurs....hence rcds where set at 30mA, so using the human body as a path to earth, a limited current would pass in only milli seconds to trip the said rcd, hence saving the life, so Part of the Ecir test, would be the rcd ms timing....

My understanding, horrible though it is, is that the limits of how many mA will kill a human were largely investigated and established in ---- concentration camps during the 1940s.

 

[pepparz]

her body was live through the live puddle but she'd have felt nothing until she tounched earth which was the potenial difference needed for electricution. had an rcd been installed it would have operated as soon as she earthed herself which is the impalance needed to operate the device, so whats bonding got to do with it?

 

[NickD]

her body was live through the live puddle but she'd have felt nothing until she tounched earth which was the potenial difference needed for electricution. had an rcd been installed it would have operated as soon as she earthed herself which is the impalance needed to operate the device, so whats bonding got to do with it?

Eggsactly.

"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"

 

[pepparz]

if anyone has problems understanding how this electricution happened and how it could have been avoided please dont do any electrical work.

 

[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.]

 

[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!