Poor EICR report results in prosecution

[Rockingit]

I've just stumbled across the below elsewhere online, anyone aware of it?

PRESS RELEASE: ELECTRICIAN’S GUILTY PLEA OVER REPORT SIGNING OFF UNSATISFACTORY ELECTRICS
--
A Pembrokeshire electrician has pleaded guilty to supplying a report claiming the electrics in a household property were satisfactory when they were not.
The case was brought by Pembrokeshire County Council Trading Standards and heard by Judge Huw Rees at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court on Monday 20th September 2021.
Mark Cummins trading as M C Electrics from Haverfordwest was commissioned by the vendor of a Milford Haven property in November 2018 to inspect and issue a condition report of the electrics in the property.
The Court heard that Mr Cummins took less than an hour to do the inspection and issued an Electrical Installation Condition Report to the vendor the same day, containing the written statement describing the electrics in the property as “satisfactory”.
He told the vendor a light fitting in the downstairs utility and shower room needed to be replaced but his report did not list any concerns despite estimating the electrics to be 40 years old. He charged the vendor for the report.
In January 2019 the property was sold to the current owner Nia Evans.
Ms Evans later contracted local electrician John Morley to install additional wall sockets prior to moving in.
After a visual inspection and conducting some tests, Mr Morley concluded that the electrics were unsatisfactory, advising of a complete re-wire and to report the matter to STROMA, the certification body of which Mr Cummins was a member at the time.
Pembrokeshire Trading Standards arranged for Matthew Williams, a Council electrician, to carry out an inspection of the electrics at the property in July 2019.
His detailed report also concluded that the installation was unsatisfactory. Ms Evans has consequently still not moved in to the property.
Mr Cummins pleaded guilty to an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 of engaging in a commercial practice which was misleading action, by describing the general condition of the electrical installation of a property as satisfactory which was untruthful.
He was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £1000 contribution towards costs and £100 statutory surcharge payment.
The Judge also commended the local authority for the way it approached the case.
Sandra McSparron, Pembrokeshire County Council Lead Trading Standards Officer, said: “Homeowners and buyers put their faith in the services of electricians and other professionals to deliver accurate and truthful reports, in order to make important and informed decisions. Mr Cummins report was a key factor in the decision to purchase in this case.
“I am concerned that subsequent reports identified potentially serious non compliances in the property.
“I hope this prosecution sends a message out to all traders in these fields. I would like to express gratitude to all the witnesses for their assistance.”
Cllr Cris Tomos, the Council Cabinet Member for Public Protection commended everyone involved for bringing the case to court.
“When members of the public request the input of professionals they deserve to be able to rely on the information received.
“This is even more important particularly when dealing with potentially hazardous situations such as unsatisfactory electrics.
“I am pleased that the Authority was able to see this case through to a successful prosecution and would like to underline our gratitude to the witnesses.”

 

[Simon47]

I think the judgement could have a bit more punitive as a discouragement to others ...

That struck me as well. If he's charging the sort of fees that some other criminals are anecdotally charging for EICRs, then it's not going to take long to recoup his costs.
It mentions that he was a member of STROMA at the time, implying that he isn't now - so presumably he's just joined a different scam.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

That struck me as well. If he's charging the sort of fees that some other criminals are anecdotally charging for EICRs, then it's not going to take long to recoup his costs.
It mentions that he was a member of STROMA at the time, implying that he isn't now - so presumably he's just joined a different scam.

Stroma no longer exists with regards CPS.

This is a good story and a step in the right direction, but I don't think this one off prosecution will deter any of the people carrying out Dodgy EICR's. Perhaps if it gains more coverage on TV and there are a number of high profile prosecutions. Unfortunately, it may even take someone to be injured or worse following a dodgy EICR, otherwise I can't see much changing in the near future.

 

[Lister1987]

Stroma no longer exists with regards CPS.

This is a good story and a step in the right direction, but I don't think this one off prosecution will deter any of the people carrying out Dodgy EICR's. Perhaps if it gains more coverage on TV and there are a number of high profile prosecutions. Unfortunately, it may even take someone to be injured or worse following a dodgy EICR, otherwise I can't see much changing in the near future.

It may not but it's now set a precedent in law that may be able to be taken advantage of by consumers duped by drive-by EICRs, assuming other TS of tht Various council's get on board with it now thry can see it has brought prosecution.

 

[Lister1987]

An aside, do we think prosecution succeeded as STROMA now being defunct could have been a factor? No CPS complaints process to try and help the duped client, that said there are those not in a CPS that do EICRs so maybe not.

 

[littlespark]

It will come a time when you have to be a member of a cps to do an EICR, which many people are not, and are perfectly honest doing them.
The membership of a cps does not guarantee non cowboy, as this article shows.

 

[UNG]

It will come a time when you have to be a member of a cps to do an EICR, which many people are not, and are perfectly honest doing them.
The membership of a cps does not guarantee non cowboy, as this article shows.

Why, to my knowledge none of the current CPS setups actually assess any individuals competence to carry out an EICR and fill out the certs correctly. If a CPS company has 10 operatives any of those operatives could carry out an EICR under the companies registration but only one or two operatives may actually be competent to do an EICR
This is what makes a mockery of the whole CPS system and then add in the current training methods where 2391's are handed out like confetti to allcomers are no better, the I have a 2391 so I'am competent in I&T without any industry experience is laughable

 

[catdog1121]

Why, to my knowledge none of the current CPS setups actually assess any individuals competence to carry out an EICR and fill out the certs correctly. If a CPS company has 10 operatives any of those operatives could carry out an EICR under the companies registration but only one or two operatives may actually be competent to do an EICR
This is what makes a mockery of the whole CPS system and then add in the current training methods where 2391's are handed out like confetti to allcomers are no better, the I have a 2391 so I'am competent in I&T without any industry experience is laughable

It does seem strange that a one man band has to be fully up to speed and assessed yet a big company can just have one person assessed. They should pick at random an employee and assess that person.. I guess the argument is as the QS they should be checking everything but unless they are onsite how can they check inspection?

When I did my 2391 it was interesting how it seemed everyone was pretty much on par when it came to the theory side. But the practical element seemed to catch people out, the two that went in before me, one ran out of time, the other just walked out after 20mins. The guy I did it with just could not find the third fault. I found all faults without even looking for them just by the process of testing and completed it with about an hour left, I would not say that hand it out like confetti and in my experience more than half failed the practical element, although I thought it was pretty basic... More of an issue is you dont actually even require 2391 or to be part of a CPS to do EICR's, maybe start with the low hanging fruit.

The difficulty for people coming into the industry is even the industry cannot decide categorically what code to give some things like no RCD for lighting circuits. I dont think this fine is going to put many off, if the guy was doing 7 EICR's a day at £100 a pop he is still quids in compared to someone charging £200 and only doing 2 a day, even with a fine. Stroma as far as I am aware are for domestic installers, EICR's should be for EAS only with inspection assessment via the CPS.

 

[pc1966]

The difficulty for people coming into the industry is even the industry cannot decide categorically what code to give some things like no RCD for lighting circuits.

The C3/C2 sort of thing always has some judgment involved as you can't cover every possible situation, and the lack of RCD in one installation might be little risk, but another is very much higher due to the nature of building, quality of installation, etc, etc.

I dont think this fine is going to put many off, if the guy was doing 7 EICR's a day at £100 a pop he is still quids in compared to someone charging £200 and only doing 2 a day, even with a fine.

True, but if it becomes more common to deal with obviously criminal negligence (the no checks / no tests / just copy style) with fines or even jail-time if injuries occur it will help.

That really is the point here: not that a C3 should have been C2 or vice-versa aspect of judgement, but that they simply did not (or could not) do a competent inspection at all.

 

[Lister1987]

What doesn't help is that industry bodies know the industry is broken but couldn't give 2 shits about fixing it; From the start with quals (C&G, EAL - "People are passing exams so it's working"), to employers (focusing on Apprenticeships and chasing that money for the younger Apprentices and shafting the mature students) to CPSs (Taking money and not doing anything to actively oust the trash) to MPs (Not taking on the problem unless money changes hands).

Not 1 point in the chain has anyone accepted things need to improve and actively pushed for change, and those that do, get shot down not only by organisations above but also other sparks, especially when an issue is pointed out and a person is directed to this and advised how to improve, instead of taking it constructively, you're met with knuckledragger troll abuse; case in point; e5 - Like them or not they talk a lot of sense, will actively engage in conversation and have those debates either from an engineering standpoint (dome lid Vs box lid with a stuffing gland drilled through the lid) or a professional standpoint (educational standards, short courses etc) rather than shy away from the issue

 

[telectrix]

What doesn't help is that industry bodies know the industry is broken but couldn't give 2 shits about fixing it; From the start with quals (C&G, EAL - "People are passing exams so it's working"), to employers (focusing on Apprenticeships and chasing that money for the younger Apprentices and shafting the mature students) to CPSs (Taking money and not doing anything to actively oust the trash) to MPs (Not taking on the problem unless money changes hands).

Not 1 point in the chain has anyone accepted things need to improve and actively pushed for change, and those that do, get shot down not only by organisations above but also other sparks, especially when an issue is pointed out and a person is directed to this and advised how to improve, instead of taking it constructively, you're met with knuckledragger troll abuse; case in point; e5 - Like them or not they talk a lot of sense, will actively engage in conversation and have those debates either from an engineering standpoint (dome lid Vs box lid with a stuffing gland drilled through the lid) or a professional standpoint (educational standards, short courses etc) rather than shy away from the issue

a few years ago, a couple of forum members attended elex and showed the niceic blokes some pics of a terrible install by one of their members. the response was to get the end customer to complain before any action was considered.

 

[Zlodej]

Why only 2K?
In Sheffield we have two Electricians which pass anything and one from bradford who does remote certs. As them three pass things nobody competend would they between them two do over 70 percents of certs in bad condition accomodation areas (Firth-Park, Darnal, London Road). If they take 50 pounds for half an hour job, its still worth for them paying the fine every now and then). As the rental agencies here get less dealings this way they would not provide certs to investigations which would inconveniences their landlord clients by calling their properties unsatisfactory. I am not sure whats going on with stroma as it seems like they are are keeping the existing memebers. As I still get to hear about stroma electricians even though its been bought by Napit. Plus Stroma still has ofices in sheffield in the redlight district

 

[SparkySy]

Stroma is no more, it was fully integrated into NAPIT earlier this year. I was a Stroma member for about 7 years and now Napit again! Having been with all of the governing bodies since part p was introduced at some point or another, I can honestly say that all of their technical assessments have been pretty much exactly the same. I cannot understand why and how incompetent people manage to get onto them!

 

[Vortigern]

One of the things that really strikes me about this matter thinking about it is the way the prosecution occurred. This was not a straightforward case of man does bad EICR. It was a contract/consumer law matter. i.e. The (spark?) apparently gave a false report to advantage the vendor. The purchaser acted in reliance of that false report and this is what the guy was prosecuted for. Although usually a report produced cannot be relied upon by a third party. However in this case it was manifestly done for an intended purchaser in effect. This means that he was prosecuted for false representations not negligent electrical work as such. In turn this means that so long as a third party is not involved you are ok?

 

[Grant1987]

One of the things that really strikes me about this matter thinking about it is the way the prosecution occurred. This was not a straightforward case of man does bad EICR. It was a contract/consumer law matter. i.e. The (spark?) apparently gave a false report to advantage the vendor. The purchaser acted in reliance of that false report and this is what the guy was prosecuted for. Although usually a report produced cannot be relied upon by a third party. However in this case it was manifestly done for an intended purchaser in effect. This means that he was prosecuted for false representations not negligent electrical work as such. In turn this means that so long as a third party is not involved you are ok?

I had an issue with a job I installed storage heating contract in that particular area and there were issues with the heaters 4/7 unfortunately the manufacturers made out that I was dirt and useless and case escalated before they had even visited the property. I carried out that job with my high standards as I always do and compliant with BS7671 and also building regs by installing concrete back boards to a couple of heaters which were originally mounted onto wood. The council, manufacturer and myself had all been scrutinised in depth and the fault was found out to be with the manufacturer for the heaters to being faulty and I was commended for my install, certification and professionalism throughout the process. My point is that more councils should spend the time and money to investigate certain installs. Although I knew I had done no wrong it was still an awful experience but it’s what’s needed in our industry more thorough inspections for the cases that get reported

 

[Vortigern]

My point is that more councils should spend the time and money to investigate certain installs.

Rather than the long suffering tax payer foot the bill, I vote the CPS do blitzkreig type testing on installs when notified on a rando basis all over the country. This way we are avoiding the tax burden and the schemes are earning the massive amount of wonga they are trousering from us.