Hi All, tonight I received an email from Worksafe issuing me a Formal Warning for accepting a COC that was incorrectly filled out by the electrician after I inspected a Hi Risk installation.
I admit that this was my error and shouldn't have accepted the COC, unfortunately there were a few items incorrect on the COC:
1)No date range of work given
2)The ESC didn't state whether the ESC related to the whole or part installation (signed by the electrician)
3)Standards referenced on the COC didn't match my ROI reference standards
My ROI was completed satisfactory
This was also on the email, "It appears that you have not been submitting a record of the CoC to the Electricity High Risk Database within 20 days of issuing the ROI"
The ROI was logged the following day on the Hi Risk data base, so I am not sure what they are meaning here, am I meant to attached the COC to the Hi-Risk Data base?
WorkSafe have requested that "It would be appreciated if you could pass this feedback on to the electrical workers concerned."
Why is this up to the inspector (me) to do this and why is the electrician also not issued a Formal Warning?
Not sure how long this warning stands for also?
End of the day, my error, just puts you off this work, when you are jumped on like this.
Any thoughts?
Peter
Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
Re: Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
Both Worksafe & EWRB have an expectation that Inspectors should check the accuracy & completeness of CoCs for the High Risk PEW we inspect.
And if it comes to a hearing before the Board, that's the basis they'll work on.
However there's absolutely no basis for this in the ESRs.
So if they ever went beyond waving their big stick and actually tried prosecuting in the district court; the Inspector would very likely be acquitted.
Fact is that Inspection is required for HRPEW.
Issuing a CoC is PEW, as per Schedule 1
But it's not HRPEW; as it's not listed under clause (2) of ESR 6A.
And it isn't "maintenance" ; so not Low Risk either.
Therefore it can only be general PEW.
The bits of the CoC that are relevant are:
- it identifies the installation, by location
- it identifies what HRPEW was done
- it identifies whether done to CD or not (because of to a CD, then inspection must follow the CD
- if not to a CD, inspection follows Standards as specified by ESRs (not necessarily as specified on the CoC, though any difference should raise a red flag)
We need this info in order to know what to inspect and how to inspect it.
We also need to know the name & number of the issuer of the CoC, and date of issue
But only because these details are later required for the database
The rest is simply not relevant to either carrying out an inspection; or lodging req'd info to database.
ESR 74F covers database requirements
We must lodge details of the HRPEW that was done, including details of the CoC(s) for that work.
Which details is up to Worksafe to determine.
They could therefore require a copy of the CoC- but they have not included any facility for the database to accept such documentation.
Instead they ask for the date of issue and who issued it - so that's what we have to supply.
In fact it's all we can supply.
The wording of their email doesn't make clear whether they think you have failed to lodge required details, or they think you didn't lodge them within the time limit.
The only way to find out would be to ask them.
If the CoC is invalid or incomplete, in ways that don't affect our actual inspection of the actual HRPEW, there's no responsibility placed on the Inspector to even advise the issuer of their error(s).
If an audit finds problems with the certification; the proper course of action would be to take it up with the issuer of the CoC, rather than the Inspector
Asking the inspector to follow up with the issuer is simply ES & EWRB trying to make us act as unpaid policemen; without giving us any corresponding powers.
They think they are too busy to do their job; so they ask us to do it.
Administration and enforcement is their job, not ours.
They are paid generous salaries to do it.
Our job under the current regulatory regime, is to act in good faith as a specialist subcontractor
We do what we are paid - by our clients - to do; which is to carry out inspection.
If Worksafe want us to undertake enforcement / educational duties; they need to be paying for the time that takes.
The basis of inspection includes that the work was done in accordance with ESRs [ESR 70].
That includes that the work was done by someone who was authorised to do it.
However we can't know who actually did any of the work, the only info we have is who issued the CoC for it.
So while EWRB, and presumably also ES, would like is to check the register to ensure that the issuer actually has a current PL;
that relates to the PEW of issuing a CoC, and not to the High Risk PEW.
And if it comes to a hearing before the Board, that's the basis they'll work on.
However there's absolutely no basis for this in the ESRs.
So if they ever went beyond waving their big stick and actually tried prosecuting in the district court; the Inspector would very likely be acquitted.
Fact is that Inspection is required for HRPEW.
Issuing a CoC is PEW, as per Schedule 1
But it's not HRPEW; as it's not listed under clause (2) of ESR 6A.
And it isn't "maintenance" ; so not Low Risk either.
Therefore it can only be general PEW.
The bits of the CoC that are relevant are:
- it identifies the installation, by location
- it identifies what HRPEW was done
- it identifies whether done to CD or not (because of to a CD, then inspection must follow the CD
- if not to a CD, inspection follows Standards as specified by ESRs (not necessarily as specified on the CoC, though any difference should raise a red flag)
We need this info in order to know what to inspect and how to inspect it.
We also need to know the name & number of the issuer of the CoC, and date of issue
But only because these details are later required for the database
The rest is simply not relevant to either carrying out an inspection; or lodging req'd info to database.
ESR 74F covers database requirements
We must lodge details of the HRPEW that was done, including details of the CoC(s) for that work.
Which details is up to Worksafe to determine.
They could therefore require a copy of the CoC- but they have not included any facility for the database to accept such documentation.
Instead they ask for the date of issue and who issued it - so that's what we have to supply.
In fact it's all we can supply.
The wording of their email doesn't make clear whether they think you have failed to lodge required details, or they think you didn't lodge them within the time limit.
The only way to find out would be to ask them.
If the CoC is invalid or incomplete, in ways that don't affect our actual inspection of the actual HRPEW, there's no responsibility placed on the Inspector to even advise the issuer of their error(s).
If an audit finds problems with the certification; the proper course of action would be to take it up with the issuer of the CoC, rather than the Inspector
Asking the inspector to follow up with the issuer is simply ES & EWRB trying to make us act as unpaid policemen; without giving us any corresponding powers.
They think they are too busy to do their job; so they ask us to do it.
Administration and enforcement is their job, not ours.
They are paid generous salaries to do it.
Our job under the current regulatory regime, is to act in good faith as a specialist subcontractor
We do what we are paid - by our clients - to do; which is to carry out inspection.
If Worksafe want us to undertake enforcement / educational duties; they need to be paying for the time that takes.
The basis of inspection includes that the work was done in accordance with ESRs [ESR 70].
That includes that the work was done by someone who was authorised to do it.
However we can't know who actually did any of the work, the only info we have is who issued the CoC for it.
So while EWRB, and presumably also ES, would like is to check the register to ensure that the issuer actually has a current PL;
that relates to the PEW of issuing a CoC, and not to the High Risk PEW.
- Rating: 33.33%
Re: Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
Thanks so much Alec, so appreciated!
Do you think I should appeal the Formal Written Warning as this is on my record they are saying and could be used against me in the future, and they do give me the opportunity to appeal?
Another section taken from the email to me:
"At present the CoC and ESC form you have provided is incomplete and therefore not valid, as it does not comply with the ESR. As such, the ROI is invalid as well. The certificates your ROI relies on must contain all of the items listed in the ESR to make the certificates valid."
I believe I have done nothing wrong or against the ESR's, and the install is safe.
It makes me wonder why I bother doing inspections at times, when you get treated in this manner.
Thanks again, Peter
Do you think I should appeal the Formal Written Warning as this is on my record they are saying and could be used against me in the future, and they do give me the opportunity to appeal?
Another section taken from the email to me:
"At present the CoC and ESC form you have provided is incomplete and therefore not valid, as it does not comply with the ESR. As such, the ROI is invalid as well. The certificates your ROI relies on must contain all of the items listed in the ESR to make the certificates valid."
I believe I have done nothing wrong or against the ESR's, and the install is safe.
It makes me wonder why I bother doing inspections at times, when you get treated in this manner.
Thanks again, Peter
Re: Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
The claim that a RoI somehow becomes invalid if the CoC for the work inspected in incomplete or inaccurate is not supported by any of the wording in ESRs. So in my view it's simply an incorrect interpretation.
If that's how they want the system to work; then they should be changing the ESRs to clearly have that effect.
However the only way they'll give up on this interpretation is if someone appeals, successfully, to District Court.
Which takes time, effort, and money.
Plus there's still a chance that their lawyer might be more persuasive than yours.
Might be worth appealing if they had prosecuted you; but as it is they haven't done that.
Instead they've issued a so-called "formal warning" - which there's no provision for then to do under the Electricity Act.
Disciplinary action is simply not something Worksafe can do; as that's EWRB's business.
So I believe this alleged formal warning has no basis in the relevant law.
They have not lodged a complaint to EWRB
If they did, You would certainly face more costs; and you might then suffer actual penalty because chances are EWRB would agree with them.
On the whole, probably best to suck it up.
If that's how they want the system to work; then they should be changing the ESRs to clearly have that effect.
However the only way they'll give up on this interpretation is if someone appeals, successfully, to District Court.
Which takes time, effort, and money.
Plus there's still a chance that their lawyer might be more persuasive than yours.
Might be worth appealing if they had prosecuted you; but as it is they haven't done that.
Instead they've issued a so-called "formal warning" - which there's no provision for then to do under the Electricity Act.
Disciplinary action is simply not something Worksafe can do; as that's EWRB's business.
So I believe this alleged formal warning has no basis in the relevant law.
They have not lodged a complaint to EWRB
If they did, You would certainly face more costs; and you might then suffer actual penalty because chances are EWRB would agree with them.
On the whole, probably best to suck it up.
- Rating: 33.33%
Re: Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
Hi all, I received an email last night form WorkSafe withdrawing my Formal Warning after I appealed it with the help of an Inspectors Association that I belong too and ElectroLink.
So a good result I feel and maybe WorkSafe will change the way they issue out warnings regarding COC's to inspectors.
So a good result I feel and maybe WorkSafe will change the way they issue out warnings regarding COC's to inspectors.
- Rating: 83.33%
Re: Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
An article about my warning is in this months ElectroLink, as far as I know WorkSafe have not spoken to the electrician about his COC.
Re: Formal Warning on incorrect COC information
The industry needs to do something about training electricians to correctly complete cocs, perhaps there should be some emphasis on this with the bi-annual competency training? It’s never something that’s been covered in my experience.
I waste so much time chasing electricians for their COC, and when I finally get one it’s often completed incorrectly. They just often just tick all boxes, ticking ‘certified design’ when it doesn’t apply; ticking ‘part 1’ for standard domestic installs; cocs not signed, not dated…the list goes on…
I waste so much time chasing electricians for their COC, and when I finally get one it’s often completed incorrectly. They just often just tick all boxes, ticking ‘certified design’ when it doesn’t apply; ticking ‘part 1’ for standard domestic installs; cocs not signed, not dated…the list goes on…