Who`s to blame?

[bramboy]

On a job via local athourity.

Job was periodically inspected by athourities approved spark making sure works was ok before tender.

After winning job from tender drawing and starting work looked at existing installations electrics. Installation looked high quality, good first impressions.

Tried to find stop tap for water (copper installation) nobody new where it was!

Step 2 then. Dig out old test sheets.

First test sheet was an installation completion cert. 3 years old. main protective conductors n/a to oil and water...
P.i.r report has a code 4 for missing main protective conductors instead of a code 2.

Should installer 3 years ago take the consequences or periodic tester who inserted the wrong code (major one to). Cheers..

 

[Darkwood]

Would have thought missing equipotential bonding is code 1 as you cant do any additional work without rectifying this issue but if the local authority has a passed inspection report with dubiuos results than you need to speak with them and get the local clark of works on site with the architect and address this issue and give your case that you need an A.I. for the additional work, i cant see why they should argue this one.

 

[bramboy]

Would have thought missing equipotential bonding is code 1 as you cant do any additional work without rectifying this issue but if the local authority has a passed inspection report with dubiuos results than you need to speak with them and get the local clark of works on site with the architect and address this issue and give your case that you need an A.I. for the additional work, i cant see why they should argue this one.

I`d put it a code 1 but electrial safety council downloads only gives it a code 2.

Strange how 2 seperate approved contractors can `miss` this serious deffect

 

[sparks1234]

Yes I would put it down as a code 2

 

[Guest123]

Sounds like one of them "drive by" PIR's!!!!!