IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: EMMA SHAW CASE
Topic Summary: Result of the Court case
Created On: 31 March 2014 04:35 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 04:35 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 05:19 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 31 March 2014 05:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 31 March 2014 05:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 05:30 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - impvan - 31 March 2014 05:31 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - rocknroll - 31 March 2014 05:46 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - perspicacious - 31 March 2014 06:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - jcm256 - 31 March 2014 06:03 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 31 March 2014 08:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - jcm256 - 31 March 2014 08:53 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 31 March 2014 10:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 31 March 2014 11:54 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - antric2 - 01 April 2014 12:40 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 01 April 2014 09:23 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 01 April 2014 10:57 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 11:17 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 01 April 2014 12:41 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - antric2 - 01 April 2014 12:46 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 01 April 2014 08:07 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 09:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 01 April 2014 03:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 11:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 11:36 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 12:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 01 April 2014 01:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 01:43 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 01:22 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 01 April 2014 02:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - ennel - 01 April 2014 07:07 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 02 April 2014 10:20 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 01 April 2014 03:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 03:28 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 03:15 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 03:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 01 April 2014 03:36 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:05 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:10 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 10:16 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 02 April 2014 12:00 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 06:57 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 09:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:21 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 09:38 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 02 April 2014 10:26 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 12:06 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 12:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 02 April 2014 01:20 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 01:50 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 03:04 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 04:13 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - GeoffBlackwell - 02 April 2014 04:22 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - rocknroll - 02 April 2014 04:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 05:50 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 06:36 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zuiko - 02 April 2014 07:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - geoffsd - 02 April 2014 07:33 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 08:24 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 11:38 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mawry - 03 April 2014 02:39 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - briandoherty - 06 April 2014 06:09 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zs - 07 April 2014 07:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mawry - 08 April 2014 11:13 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mikejumper - 08 April 2014 07:46 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 09 April 2014 12:06 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 09 April 2014 10:50 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 09 April 2014 02:01 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 08:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Parsley - 02 April 2014 10:30 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - electricman - 02 April 2014 11:06 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - ericmark - 03 April 2014 02:37 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 04 April 2014 09:20 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 06 April 2014 03:53 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - electricman - 08 April 2014 11:19 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 08 April 2014 11:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mikejumper - 09 April 2014 04:42 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 09 April 2014 05:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - psychicwarrior - 10 April 2014 08:56 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 11 April 2014 05:54 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 12 April 2014 11:46 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 12:33 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 12 April 2014 01:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 12 April 2014 06:28 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 06:51 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 12 April 2014 08:11 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 10:57 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 12 April 2014 04:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Grobbyman - 12 April 2014 05:44 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 12 April 2014 06:11 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Fm - 12 April 2014 11:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 11:37 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Fm - 12 April 2014 11:40 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 13 April 2014 12:04 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 13 April 2014 09:25 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 14 April 2014 10:13 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - potential - 14 April 2014 10:32 AM  
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 01 April 2014 12:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



antric2

Posts: 1267
Joined: 20 October 2006

With ref; to the RCD box being ticked for a non present RCD,
I upgraded a consumer unit some 3 or 4 years ago at a house just after a bathroom refit that had had a small con unit fitted with no RCD protection.
The cert had ticked the RCD present box but upon my testing was getting >310ms.
Where was the RCD in question I thought that was not operating correctly\gone faulty.
Phoned the electrician (Niceic Approved) who issued cert to ask where RCD was."It is an RCBO "he said...."No it isnt" I replied at which he replied that he had told his collegue to order and fit an RCBO .
When I asked him to explain how and why the x1 and x5 test had been recorded at 18ms he replied that all Hagar RCBO,s were 18ms trip time and that was that.....I was quite surprised at his audacity and flippant manner.

The customer was fuming,complained to the bathroom company....no joy....customer complained to NICEIC and because I had done the consumer unit and integrated the bathroom circuit onto my new RCD board would not take action.

This was one the installer had been caught out with but how many more guestimated certs of his are out there!!! NIC were not interested about that.
Regards
Antric
 01 April 2014 09:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zoro

Posts: 300
Joined: 31 July 2011

Originally posted by: antric2

With ref; to the RCD box being ticked for a non present RCD,

I upgraded a consumer unit some 3 or 4 years ago at a house just after a bathroom refit that had had a small con unit fitted with no RCD protection.

The cert had ticked the RCD present box but upon my testing was getting >310ms.

Where was the RCD in question I thought that was not operating correctly\gone faulty.

Phoned the electrician (Niceic Approved) who issued cert to ask where RCD was."It is an RCBO "he said...."No it isnt" I replied at which he replied that he had told his collegue to order and fit an RCBO .

When I asked him to explain how and why the x1 and x5 test had been recorded at 18ms he replied that all Hagar RCBO,s were 18ms trip time and that was that.....I was quite surprised at his audacity and flippant manner.

The customer was fuming,complained to the bathroom company....no joy....customer complained to NICEIC and because I had done the consumer unit and integrated the bathroom circuit onto my new RCD board would not take action.


This was one the installer had been caught out with but how many more guestimated certs of his are out there!!! NIC were not interested about that.

Regards
Antric


The NICEIC and their owners the Electrical Safety Council are never interested in safety issues, when another of their members are found doing non compliant and dangerous work.

The list of cases where the NICEIC/ESC turn there backs and walk away grows day by day, so much for the propaganda about being a safety organisation.

Even in this case with the sad death of Emma Shaw (22), the NICEIC/ESC walked away, I don't know how they can pretend any more to have any interest in the safety of the public.

With the slow collapse of the Part P Schemes structure, you can see why it is happening, when it is based on the standards and policies of the NICEIC.

With the Trade having given the Schemes aver £160 million over the last nine years we are no better off, it should be scrapped.

.
 01 April 2014 10:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



davezawadi

Posts: 4259
Joined: 26 June 2002

This case has another interesting point which is worth considerng.
The use of metal studwork obviously contributed to the outcome, so should we consider if this is actually an exposed conductive part, and therefore should have been bonded to earth. It is very difficult to tell if cables are trapped when boarding this studwork as it simply distorts allowing the boards to fit flat, and the long and pointed screws are very capable of penetrating almost anything.

-------------------------
David
BSc CEng MIET
 01 April 2014 11:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22864
Joined: 23 March 2004

Personally I wouldn't want to see an approach that tries to effectively earth every metallic component within the wall structure - madness.

I'm old enough (just) to have worked on a number of system build schools that had colour coated metallic partioning systems. This was the 15th edition and everyone wanted to earth and bond everything - it was total madness. I can remember sitting there actually showing bonding points to the panels on drawings because the senior engineer had decreed it -

Hindsight I appreciate, but we now have Reg 522.6.103 and we also have RCD protection to meet the requirements of additional protection - a million little curly green and yellow pigtails isn't going to be helpful in my opinion. To be a bit regimentally insane about it, how would you inspect them post construction as a simple reson for why no to do it

If the installer actually knows what he is doing (and gives a *****) then it's difficult to see how cables are routinely being trapped between boards and studs - basically there shouldn't be enough "slack" for that to happen - and equally, penetrating the C stud and hitting the cable shouldn't happen - as the cables shouldn't be using the stud as containment.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
Statistics

New here?

  • To participate in discussions, please log in and introduce yourself.

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2022 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

 
..