British Standards/IEE Regulations and the Judicial System - Letter to the Editor

There have been many responses written in from Voltimum users in regards to this letter.  A select few have been published here below Peter's letter.

Dear Editor,

A couple had purchased a property in Aberdeen from a Property Developer in 2009. This Property Developer and had carried out numerous improvements to the property including internal rewiring to accommodate the addition of recessed downlights throughout and the provision of new sockets throughout. Since they have moved in their electricity bill seemed very high and they had problems with the circuit breakers tripping all the time.

They had paid for a survey of the house, which had given the electrics a grade A1. This “Survey” of the electrics, gas and other ammenities was carried out by the Estate Agent.

With the Circuit breakers tripping all the time, and the last visit from the Property Developers department for the electrics was an actual Bus Driver, they called in an Electrical Contractor to do a Periodic Inspection of  the Electrics to give them piece of mind as to the problem.  They asked around, their mum knew my wife – and so I was called in. My name is Peter McKnight and I am the Director of Scope Electrical Engineers Ltd.

I did a quick visual inspection of the loft space to give me an idea on the spec of the wiring. God help me, this visual was enough to give cause for concerns. The cables were strewn across the beams, the connections were not enclosed, there were no earths or sleeving, and there were visible signs of copper showing out of the connections. I took photographs straight away. I am sorry to say that this was nothing compared to the rest of the electrics.

I completed the report, and my summary was that the overall condition was unsafe and required immediate attention.

I asked Mr and Mrs Flett to get in touch with Mr McKay and ask for the Certificates for the works carried out on the property over the last 3 months. He told the couple that he did not require any certificates as he had not rewired it.

We contacted a Solicitor and went through the channels to see what could be done. Due to the fact the works were not carried out by a SELECT or NICEIC member, they could not get involved. We contacted the Local Authority who told us that are only hope was a Civil Case.

I had to totally rewire the whole house from top to bottom and remove cables that had melted together in the confines of the wall. I had taken pictures and notes of all the regulations that were overlooked and broken.

We then took the case to the small claims court to claim for the monies required to rewire the house to make it safe and liveable. All the evidence was lodged with the Sherriff with all the pictures and all the BS Standards and IEE Regulations that were not adhered to.

In court, I was asked to represent the couple, mainly as a credible expert. I did not get very far, and was shaking with anger when I heard these words from the Judge:

"The British Standards and Regulations have no standing in this court"

The last 31years of what I have worked to, my Bible, has no credibility within the judicial system, I was dumb founded.

The Law requires one thing and that is Duty of Care, and would you believe it, once he has sold the house, he has NO Duty of Care to the proprietors. It is the proprietors responsibility to make sure the electrics, gas and everything else is of working and sound order.

You may say that is what the Home Report is all about, again it is not worth the paper it is written on.

At no time is the person buying the home knowing exactly what they are buying.  I cannot believe that the law would allow just anyone to carry out alterations to a house to sell on, and have no come back on them even if the works they carry out ends up killing the person they have sold it to.

And why o why can a developer carry out works on a house, with a bus driver and 2 lads doing the electrics, with no certification, no questions asked by the Estate Agent or Local Authority, with the electrics in such a state that it is ready to start a fire within the walls off the building or electrocute the dweller putting storage in his loft, and our British Standards and IEE Regulations are not enough for the courts to do anything to these COWBOYS?!

It is about time the Law was changed and the Quantity Surveyors change their attitude to the testing of the Gas and Electrics of a house when either buying or selling any property. A Qualified (Registered) Electrician should be giving an assessment of the Electrics the same with the Gas. They always have a specialist check for wood rot, and that seems to be the one and only real testing carried out. Education of the Estate Agents or the actual customers and home owners may be a possible help in a solution. How many home owners have had a Periodic Inspection done on their property?? Not enough in my view.

The Local Council are supposed to carry out a Periodic Inspection on all their properties at least once every 10 years!

When is the last time you have seen a sticker on a consumer unit for a test being carried out in rented property???

Please pass this information on, and help me if you can, to try and educate our customers that at the end of the day, without a qualified electrician either carrying out the works or carrying out an inspection before buying a property , they are putting their lives and their families lives in jeopardy, and at this moment in time, if they do not, they will have no comeback whatsoever in claiming for any damages or loss of LIFE!!!!

Sincerely,

Peter McKnight.

Do you want to respond to Peter's letter?  If so, please email news@voltimum.co.uk with your thoughts.

Here's what some of Voltimum's users had to say about this letter:

Dear Editor,

The letter from Peter McKnight of Scope Electrical Engineers Ltd is truly amazing and I presume the comments must be something to do with the house being in Scotland.
 
I acted as an expert witness a number of years ago where a "Electrical Contractor" was rewiring houses, old terraced properties in Nottinghamshire, and a number of the residents were not happy with the results and called in the Nottinghamshire County Council Trading standards Department.
 
The Trading Standards called the NICEIC local inspector who did give the advice that he could not comment or inspect as the "Electrical Contractor" was not a member of the NICEIC, fortunately he was able to pass on my name to Trading Standards.
 
To cut a long story short the Magistrate in the local County Court did accept the IEE regulations ( they were not a BS at that time I recall ) and taking into account all my written evidence, as well as the evidence from the NICEIC that the man was not a member despite claiming to be so, found him guilty of the charges (sorry cannot remember exactly what they were) and gave him I think a 6 month custodial sentance - I do remember that the sentance was passed on Friday 13th December !!
 
Perhaps Peter went on the wrong course and did not go to the Trading Standards department - if they have them in Scotland - or is it that the law is now just too soft!!
 
John B Bray

Dear Editor,

The letter by Peter has thrown some very disturbing questions into what we all, as registered electricians have been asking all along. In England we are subject to Part P, a scheme that was only introduced after directly involving the family of a government official. Are we to wait until another member of the government is injured or killed before new legislation comes into being?

Unfortunately the practice highlighted by Peter's letter is not uncommon, within a day I could possibly get at least 50 electricians nation wide to agree this is indeed very common.
The comments by the judge in this case are based on one fact, that is that by definition the BS7671 is not law, however as part of any legal case  I would have thought that this standard is the only standard by which any comparison between right and wrong can be judged. We all know that any deviation from this standard is allowed providing that the deviation provides the same level of safety and does not effect the operation of any appliance or fitting or impare the operation of the fixed wiring characteristics. Peter's evidence would suggest that this is not the case with this particular installation.

We are very near the point of rebellion as electricians, why should we be made to do the extra paperwork pay the extra fees have the annual assessments only to be undercut by cowboy outfits who by the comparison of this case can "legally" get away with it.
There are two main losers in this, the registered electricians who already know about it and can do nothing, and the biggest losers the general public who are unaware and are often taken for a ride without any knowledge of just how dangerous their home can be or in fact is.

I am disappointed with the outcome of this case, it could have been very good for the trade if it turned out in favour of the home owner.

I think that now the floodgates will be open for all those who wish, to use this case as a tool to justify shoddy and dangerous work, in the knowledge that prosecution would be almost impossible.
 
Kind Regards,
Steven Forsyth

Dear Editor,

I am a electrical consultant who has worked in the industry since the 12th Edition of the IEE regulations, does not Scotland have the same rules as England? It is normal that a qualified electrician has to submit to and be qualified in Part P of the Building Regulations before carrying out any major repairs or new installation and will have to submit a normal test report in line with the 17th Edition of the IET recommendations (BS 7871), the Courts in England as I understand it, consider that BS 7671 is an instrument of Law, and I believe that some cowboy electricians have been prosecuted using BS 7671 as a foundation of the case against them.
It is encumbant on all competent or otherwise people carying out substantial repair or rewire to submit an application to the Local Building Control before carying out any works, so why not in Scotland? I am surprised that the Scottish Building Control do not have the same powers as their English counterparts, when I was a contractor working for the largest Scottish contractor  I often met with consultants who were very, very specific as to what they would accept, what has gone wrong or is the Judge just not with it!

The term 'Duty of Care' is a very wide subject indeed but surely within the first year after a contract, the original contractor or responsible person for placing any order for the work is culpable in seeing that dangerous work is put right? one has to think what would have been the case had the installation caused a catastrophic fire possibly resulting in death, who would have faced a manslaugther charge or is the Law so slack in Scotland that thier apparent legislation as described by Peter would allow all the participants to go free, this cannot be the case and so I would recommend an appeal.

I agree with Peter, it would seem from this case that all the progressive work that has been done to make installations safe has been made a mockery by this Judge, but then who said the Law is an a**!
 
Best of luck Peter,
 
Barry Baldock
Cowes Isle of Wight

Peter,

With regards to your comments re. the dangerous and thus incompetent works carried out in this Aberdeen property.  I am not certain who Mr.McKay is, however I would comment as  follows:-

The property developer as “the owner of the property” prior to selling have a responsibility to ensure that all electrical works are compliant to the minimum requirements of the current BS 7671.  Though, as an “owner” of the property, I would agree that there is no specified statement stating that the owner occupier requires to “certify” the works, the need for competent certification is in part to  provide proof that the installation is Safe or “Satisfactory” for service.  It also provides, as indicated by the Signature(s) (Designer, Constructor, Inspection and Testing) an audit trail of who was responsible for what element(s) of the works.  This, by implication, also provides an means to identify accountability.

Peter is absolutely right in stating “Duty of Care”.  This could have had synonymous expressions such as moral responsibility, professional pride, Competence etc.  Electricity being a tremendous servant AND, equally, a demanding master, which clearly, when things go wrong, can impinge upon various other issues resulting other risks such as electric shock, fire, explosion etc.

Insurance companies I would suggest be unwilling to pay for works that were “designed” (which would include “Constructed” And “Inspection and Tested”) and non-compliant as a minimum (site conditional requirements which would include considerations of building/fabric construction concerns, operational needs etc. may add additional design considerations as part of the “minimum requirements”).  If, as is assumed that this developer insured the property during his/her ownership prior to the new owner taking possession, it is a conditional requirement of the insurance as stated above to ensure all works comply.  Since Peter found many defects (Code 1 and Code 2) aside from other defects, such implied claims (even though certification may not have been issued) would be potentially not in harmony with the facts.  If the certification had been issued, then the signatory(s) by the very wording would have been contradicting the statement i.e.

“I /we being the person(s) responsible for the design, construction, inspection and testing of the electrical installation…….having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design, construction, inspection and testing, hereby CERTIFY that the  said works for which I/we have been responsible, to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, ….except for the departures, if any detailed as follows:-…”

Such contradictory statements of proven facts may result in the courts determining that the certification misrepresented the works and may be deemed as potentially fraudulent

The above is unfortunately not an uncommon experience.  IF, the works were part of a Building Warrant requirement, then the Electrical Completion Certificate as demanded by the Verifier also demands requirements to comply with BS 7671 (current edition).  Also, if and when applicable, (I note not comment was made in this area), a domestic fire alarm system was required, then this too would be required to be certified in accordance with current standards of BS 5839 PT.1 2004

I would again support Peter’s view that the quality (or otherwise) of the Surveyor’s report is meaningless.  They usually do not have the necessary skill, knowledge and experience to undertake the what will be come known as the Electrical Condition Report (Periodic Inspection Report).  Even if these surveyors do possess these skills, they (especially when instructed by a potential new owner)  would not usually be given the opportunity to carry out a PIR inspection in a property owned by someone else. A property with no previous certification or documents identifying the works and origins of the electrical  system, would in harmony with Chapter 63 of BS 7671:2008 require a significant in-depth of inspection and testing in order to  identify, “Any damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the regulations which may give rise to danger, together with any limitations of the inspection  and testing shall be recorded.” (Reg. 634.01.02)

Finally, the standards in the UK are to a high minimum standard, however, it is the application of these standards where the problem lies.  This issue unfortunately is not just, is in this case the result of some possessing a “little knowledge”, it is also recognised that those who have received the necessary training to give them the necessary skills and knowledge do not always apply the minimum recognised standards

It would be an important move forward if we in the UK adopt the requirement that it is my understanding exists in at least one country that, ANY AND ALL ELECTRICAL WORKS CAN ONLY BE CARRIED OUT BY A REGISTERED (and thus APPROVED) PERSON COMPETENT TO CARRY OUT THE INTENDED WORKS

Regards,

Corrado Szokalski, National Electrical Advisor

 Morrison Facilities Services

Dear Editor,

This is a remarkable ruling.  As this was in a Scottish court I would be interested to know from a legal person whether this can be used as precedent in the English court system.

This is caveat emptor on a very significant scale indeed where the previous developer has no legal responsibility for the work he has carried out upon sale of the property.

I fully support Peter's call for the electrical inspection by a qualified electrical inspector to be a mandated part of any property purchase arrangement.

Malcolm Bell