Unqualified sparkie charged over female fatality

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by Smokey, Mar 19, 2014.

  1. propper spark

    propper spark Member

    This type of thing really annoys me because the book always seems to stop at the electrician. Why is it never anyone else to blame? Couldn't possibly be the plasterers fault for screwing through the cable could it? This must have been downstairs since she went to turn the water off. I would have therefore thought the sockets would have had rcd protection and so the cable that was screwed must have been a lighting cable further along the wall or a boiler supply radial that was on the unprotected side. This wouldn't have rcd protection to the old regs and the wall wouldn't have been earthed as there’s no requirement too. I wouldn't have thought there ever will be since everything metal would then have to be, which is just not practical. Plasterboard screws are very pointy and will easily screw into a cable. Very unlucky that it had screwed into the side of the cable and not the middle though. This really proves how important running cables in zones is and although we don't know if this was done or not at least the electrician could use it in his defence. If an insulation test was carried out between live and earth on that circuit it would have showed up. That was probably never done. No doubt the 18th edition with require such cables to have an earth sheath
     
  2. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    Hi Proper Spark

    I understand you frustration, but the facts as presented up to now show that

    a) the circuit was made live prior to testing
    and
    b) the testing documentation was inaccurate.

    Judgement can only be made on fact, not personal opinion and as Sean says, until we find out the true facts we can only go on what is presented.

    Kind regards

    BS
     
  3. Sean_ork

    Sean_ork Screwfix Select

    are you sure of that ? - a section of U channel in contact with a dry slab acting as a really good insulator
     
  4. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    Hi Sean

    From my post #96, if an IR test had been carried out prior to making the circuit live then yes, it may have found it due to the screw causing the short. Hoowever poering up the circuit with no testing blew the screw clear so it is unlikely that an IR test would have found it after.

    Kind regards

    BS
     
  5. Sean_ork

    Sean_ork Screwfix Select

    I was just pondering the scenario whereby a conductor is nicked, by the threads of a screw, just enough to make a contact, not damaging the conductor - thus making the U channel live - so the channel floats live waiting for something or someone to complete the circuit

    how would that be found during normal testing

    this case just shows how sluggish the system is - event occurred during the time covered by the 16th Ed and now we are fast approaching the end of the 17th
     
  6. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    Morning Sean.

    It wouldnt. There are scenarios like this that cant be found during routine testing, but if the correct test methods are followed you minimise the likelihood.

    Kind regards

    BS
     
  7. unphased

    unphased Screwfix Select

    I met John Peckham at a recent NAPIT trade association meeting and he was indeed privy to the case as he was there and involved with it.

    It takes one case like this to get everyone debating yet today there will be probably 100 people killed through a road accident, the same tomorrow, the next day and the day after. ONE fatality in the scope of things leaves me to consider that this case is a genuine accident and nobody should have been prosecuted. Like the comment from proper spark has mentioned, more than one event contributed to the fatality. Plasterers installing the board on to the metal frame and screwing through the cable caused the fatality, not lack of testing. That is a failure to discover the damage to the cable caused by the person who screwed through it. He probably even knew he'd done it but the who cares attitude by workers on site means accidents are always going to occur. The plasterer caused it. It is "who touched it last" syndrome and it is totally unfair to prosecute a guy just because he signed a piece of paper. Electricians reading the case will know that insulation testing is rarely carried out on new installations.
     
  8. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    Thanks UP for clarifying John Peckhams involvement.

    As for the rest of your statement I am surprised. Our discussion was whether testing would have found the fault, not whether or not anyone was guilty. Also I am amazed that with your knowledge and experience you can say "Electricians reading the case will know that insulation testing is rarely carried out on new installations." I would never dream of not carrying out IR tests even in an industrial environment where the SWA is visible throughout its length.

    What do you record on your EIC for insulation resistance values or do you record it as a departure?

    When you sign that document you are certifying that you have tested it in accordance with 7671 and if you have missed the tests you are comitting fraud by entering false values and then signing the document.

    Not having a go UP as I have too much respect for your knowledge and experience, but I am surprised at the comments.

    Kind regards

    BS
     
  9. Sean_ork

    Sean_ork Screwfix Select

    do you know exactly what is involvement was ? - what he's posted online so far could have been the interpretation or opinion of someone taking notes from the public gallery
     
  10. MGW

    MGW Screwfix Select

    I would agree that:-
    1) Plaster must be partly to blame.
    2) Plumber who failed to glue pipe must be partly to blame.
    3) Design where thermostat did not have over heat protection must be partly to blame.

    Also the use of twin and earth not Ali-tube the latter being designed for stud walls or RCD protection must also be considered although at the time it was not required.

    However if I was asked to test a circuit already energised I would assume like the semi-skilled worker that dead tests had been completed or it would not have been switched on. It does not say who switched on the supply but likely there would have been a bang and I do not believe who ever turned on the supply did not realise there was a fault.

    Where many people work on an installation isolation procedures are very important and it is so easy for some one to switch on a supply if not sealed or locked off. Permission to work in industrial insulations is common and ensures there is a record of who does what. However in domestic even with LABC there is a complete lack of documentation I was really surprised on the one I did there was no permit issued by the LABC which of course means if a owner tells one permission to start has been given then one just believes what one is told.

    Government needs to lead by example if the government does not issue permit to work why should any contractor bother? In the perfect world when the semi-skilled found the circuit energised he should have returned to find out if there was an error but once energised would there have been an error found even if tested? Although HSE says there was a high resistance how one could test to show that after the boards had been wet I don't know once wet yes even after drying a track would likely remain but would there have been a track before it got wet.

    Before her death she had commented "electricity was sparking" so first thing should of been to turn off supply. I would agree ones first thought was likely how to stop water but she was aware the danger existed.

    So likely at least 5 people had some part in her death. However from the report the other people involved all had a minor part of the blame the one who clearly broke the rules to the greatest extent was the electrical supervisor. However 2006 to 2014 I would not be able to recount what I did 8 years ago. Even the 18 months between doing the work and the accident to recount what I had done 18 months ago when at that time I was unaware of any wrong doing would be very hard.

    Non of us are perfect and I read cases like this and think there by grace of god goes I. I am sure at some time I have made mistakes and not tested as I should have. If the water heater had not failed then this fault could have remained undetected for at least 10 years to first EICR and even then not sure if it would have been found.
     
  11. PJ Wales

    PJ Wales Member

    Call me totally clueless but it seems that there been an slightly incorrect earthing methods been used? If metal stud has been used then surely they should has been earthed. A PB screw hit the cable and make the metal stud live but no complete circuit for a fuse blow out/trip so this make me wonder if the metal stud was un-earthed but fatal connection made when water leak touched the metal stud and the lady touching the stopcock and thus completing the circuit. However report don't say if metal stud was earthed but the stopcock was earthed. (unless it was and I've missed it).

    But on saying this, she has called her BF to say the electric is sparking and her Bf advised to turn off the water at the stop cock when surely it should be the main fused box 1st and then the stopcock afterwards.

    water and electric don't mix but if you see a sparking electric then common sense is turn of electric to prevent electric shock. But yes there is a series of catalogue errors from all trades.
     
    Biochef likes this.
  12. unphased

    unphased Screwfix Select

    There was nothing wrong with the way the electrical system was installed, it was the fact that it was damaged by another trade that caused all the problems. There is no requirement in the Regulations to bond metal stud framework because it does not meet the present definition of extraneous-conductive-part. Once installed and covered up it cannot be touched and it is hidden from view behind plasterboard. If a cable has a screw put through it is not the fault of the electrician. The court case was because Emma Shaw died and the inquest found that the installation had not been correctly tested which should have found a fault, that, with further investigation, could have led to the discovery of the screw in the studwork penetrating the cable. I wish people would see that the scapegoat is the electrician because when somebody dies there has to be someone convicted. Had she survived the case would never had made the news and probably wouldn't have got any court action. The failing was the testing, not the installation. As to whether the actual reason for the fault could have been found by testing is still uncertain. Her boyfriend should have advised her to shut the power off. Wtf he told her to turn the water off first is his ignorance and ultimately his instructions were the nail in her coffin. Had he told her to shut the power off she would be here today.
     
    PJ Wales likes this.
  13. Napolean

    Napolean Member

    At risk of repeating myself. The electrician isn't a scapegoat. He wasn't being prosecuted for causing the girls death. He was being prosecuted for pretending he carried out a complete test, which he didn't do. -Allegedly!
     
  14. professional

    professional Member

    I attended the court case and heard both the prosecution and defense evidence.

    Many of the posts on this thread are entertaining but wide of the mark ....
     
  15. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    Enlighten us to the facts then.
     
  16. chippie244

    chippie244 Super Member

    Just to qualify UP's post it did say the installing sparks left too long a flex which was why it kinked and got trapped but that was a minor fault.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice