So the person was charged with replacing a shaver outlet on a 1mm2 cable (10A MCB) with an RCD outlet. Not compliant with 3.5.1 and table 3.3.
Of course there is no mention of the exception to that clause?
They also mention that the 1mm2 was "completely covered in thermal insulation".
Firstly, that isn't the correct language. It's either partially surrounded or completely surrounded.
And 1mm2 partially surrounded is rated at 10A in table C5, and 13A in 3008.
Also charged with failing to install a warning sign 4.5.2.3.2
This has since been amended, so it isn't required where the lights are IC-F or IC-4.
Personally, I don't see any need to fit the sign if the lights I install are correctly rated and already under the insulation.
And according to the sign, who is going to supply the instructions to an insulation installer? Can they even read?
https://www.ewrb.govt.nz/assets/documen ... cision.pdf
Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
I see that further down in the decision:
"The Board found that the Respondent had not committed a disciplinary offence with regard to installing a socket outlet using wiring of a cross sectional area less than 2.5mm2 as it noted there was appropriate protection and, as such, the socket was compliant."
But, considering all the complaints were written up by an electrical inspector who " reviewed the work and provided a technical report" that outlined the non-compliant work. It really doesn't look good when the boards technical investigators make the allegations incorrectly, and the worker has to defend them.
Additionally, the alternative charge under section 143(b)(ii) of the Act "to have intentionally or negligently created a risk of serious harm to any person, or a risk of significant property damage" was also not proven. Considering the amount of time the board takes to process complaints and correspond with the respondent, I would have thought that the provable charges would have been quite clear, before the hearing.
"The Board found that the Respondent had not committed a disciplinary offence with regard to installing a socket outlet using wiring of a cross sectional area less than 2.5mm2 as it noted there was appropriate protection and, as such, the socket was compliant."
But, considering all the complaints were written up by an electrical inspector who " reviewed the work and provided a technical report" that outlined the non-compliant work. It really doesn't look good when the boards technical investigators make the allegations incorrectly, and the worker has to defend them.
Additionally, the alternative charge under section 143(b)(ii) of the Act "to have intentionally or negligently created a risk of serious harm to any person, or a risk of significant property damage" was also not proven. Considering the amount of time the board takes to process complaints and correspond with the respondent, I would have thought that the provable charges would have been quite clear, before the hearing.
- Rating: 33.33%
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Would help if the case reference were included.
The summaries published in Electron have never included enough information to serve any educational purpose; and while i welcome the fact that the full Decisions are now made available, I haven't yet had time to read up the cases.
These comments therefore general only, not specific to this case.
Agree that too often the "Technical Advisors" (generally holders of an "Inspector" PL) provide reports that show that they are far from adequately competent. And that this causes huge waste of Board time & resources, as well as additional stress on those accused.
The degree of pre-hearing correspondence varies; and I am aware of at least one case where the TA was on site before the accused had even been informed that a complaint had been laid against him.
There's also been plenty of instances where, on the very scant info published, it's difficult to see what was / wasn't done
And where details are available, plenty to suggest that the Board takes some strange interpretations that do not appear to be soundly based in the documents. True a majority of Board members are from industry, but that means we can only expect an average level of knowledge and understanding, rather than a complete and thorough level.
But agree the terminology of the relevant requirements should be used on both the charges and the decisions.
For the sign; have to disagree with you.
True the requirement serves no useful purpose where the fittings are appropriately rated; but it's not for us to pick & choose which rules we comply with. Note the wording is that the sign must "include" the words specified. This allows for additional words to be added - which is what I've done
The summaries published in Electron have never included enough information to serve any educational purpose; and while i welcome the fact that the full Decisions are now made available, I haven't yet had time to read up the cases.
These comments therefore general only, not specific to this case.
Agree that too often the "Technical Advisors" (generally holders of an "Inspector" PL) provide reports that show that they are far from adequately competent. And that this causes huge waste of Board time & resources, as well as additional stress on those accused.
The degree of pre-hearing correspondence varies; and I am aware of at least one case where the TA was on site before the accused had even been informed that a complaint had been laid against him.
There's also been plenty of instances where, on the very scant info published, it's difficult to see what was / wasn't done
And where details are available, plenty to suggest that the Board takes some strange interpretations that do not appear to be soundly based in the documents. True a majority of Board members are from industry, but that means we can only expect an average level of knowledge and understanding, rather than a complete and thorough level.
But agree the terminology of the relevant requirements should be used on both the charges and the decisions.
For the sign; have to disagree with you.
True the requirement serves no useful purpose where the fittings are appropriately rated; but it's not for us to pick & choose which rules we comply with. Note the wording is that the sign must "include" the words specified. This allows for additional words to be added - which is what I've done
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Thanks for the reply Alec,
This is the link to the case.
https://www.ewrb.govt.nz/assets/documen ... cision.pdf
My point with not requiring the sign is exactly the same as amended in 3000:2018A1, they have removed the requirement for the sign where the lights are IC or IC-4 rated. 4.5.2.3.2 exception.
If you choose to provide additional details on the sign, does that include the exact location of each light you have installed? Similar to the level of detail necessary on COCs, to strictly limit it to the work performed on that occasion. (There was also a reference to that requirement in one of the recent cases I think)
This is the link to the case.
https://www.ewrb.govt.nz/assets/documen ... cision.pdf
My point with not requiring the sign is exactly the same as amended in 3000:2018A1, they have removed the requirement for the sign where the lights are IC or IC-4 rated. 4.5.2.3.2 exception.
If you choose to provide additional details on the sign, does that include the exact location of each light you have installed? Similar to the level of detail necessary on COCs, to strictly limit it to the work performed on that occasion. (There was also a reference to that requirement in one of the recent cases I think)
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Thanks.
And well done for making the effort to read these Decisions
I'm sure they will generate lots of discussion here; though may be difficult to slot them into the structure as any one Decision ranges across a number of different topic headings.
I've never gone as far as to identify which lights are and aren't rated to be covered;
just added the words "(Fittings marked as class IC or IC-F excepted)" at the bottom.
True, of all the luminaires are covered by the Exemption; the sign achieves SFA;
and I understood your point about that signage requirement having been relaxed in 2018 edition.
But we can't act on a new edition or Amendment if it brings us into non-compliance with cited edition.
All that does is give the Board another hook to hang us on.
Better to be compliant, and a sign doesn't cost much compared to cost of arguing with the Board.
It also seems very likely the original complaint was basically not about workmanship, or safety; but based on a commercial / personal dispute
- and maybe not even directly with the electrician.
Which demonstrates the huge risk of complaints laid even against peoiple who haven't really done anything badly wrong.
Once the process starts there's no stopping it.
Remember that Decisions don't need to be based on the original complaint; they are based on whatever the TA finds when investigating.
TAS are the only people with any electrical know-how who get to assess whether there's anything to take forward to the Board.
The fact that so many TAs are woefully ignorant;
coupled with the fact that very few practitioners bother to be careful about their paperwork;
means that almost every compliant laid - no matter how trivial - is likely to result in a hearing.
And in most cases there will be something not quite right that will come to light.
Even if squeaky-clean; there's still a significant cost to defending any case.
That said, I have little sympathy for this guy; as he was clearly slack in his workmanship as well as his paperwork.
Not installing the sign was arguably the least if his offences.
I'd say he got off pretty lightly, being only censured instead of fined; and only $250 costs imposed.
I suspect that putting his hands up & not bothering to defend helped avoid additinonal costs
----------------
One of the good things about the full Decisions being available is that the errors / ignorance of the TAs is exposed.
In this case, for 1 of the 4 alleged offences ; the Board has rightly found no offence committed - presumably they noted the Exception to 3.5.1.
The question is why the (named) TA ever thought there was a problem.
Any competent practitioner , let alone an Inspector, should be able to work through the parts where clear exceptions are provided.
And well done for making the effort to read these Decisions
I'm sure they will generate lots of discussion here; though may be difficult to slot them into the structure as any one Decision ranges across a number of different topic headings.
I've never gone as far as to identify which lights are and aren't rated to be covered;
just added the words "(Fittings marked as class IC or IC-F excepted)" at the bottom.
True, of all the luminaires are covered by the Exemption; the sign achieves SFA;
and I understood your point about that signage requirement having been relaxed in 2018 edition.
But we can't act on a new edition or Amendment if it brings us into non-compliance with cited edition.
All that does is give the Board another hook to hang us on.
Better to be compliant, and a sign doesn't cost much compared to cost of arguing with the Board.
It also seems very likely the original complaint was basically not about workmanship, or safety; but based on a commercial / personal dispute
- and maybe not even directly with the electrician.
Which demonstrates the huge risk of complaints laid even against peoiple who haven't really done anything badly wrong.
Once the process starts there's no stopping it.
Remember that Decisions don't need to be based on the original complaint; they are based on whatever the TA finds when investigating.
TAS are the only people with any electrical know-how who get to assess whether there's anything to take forward to the Board.
The fact that so many TAs are woefully ignorant;
coupled with the fact that very few practitioners bother to be careful about their paperwork;
means that almost every compliant laid - no matter how trivial - is likely to result in a hearing.
And in most cases there will be something not quite right that will come to light.
Even if squeaky-clean; there's still a significant cost to defending any case.
That said, I have little sympathy for this guy; as he was clearly slack in his workmanship as well as his paperwork.
Not installing the sign was arguably the least if his offences.
I'd say he got off pretty lightly, being only censured instead of fined; and only $250 costs imposed.
I suspect that putting his hands up & not bothering to defend helped avoid additinonal costs
----------------
One of the good things about the full Decisions being available is that the errors / ignorance of the TAs is exposed.
In this case, for 1 of the 4 alleged offences ; the Board has rightly found no offence committed - presumably they noted the Exception to 3.5.1.
The question is why the (named) TA ever thought there was a problem.
Any competent practitioner , let alone an Inspector, should be able to work through the parts where clear exceptions are provided.
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Agreed.
I'm not sure why there seemed to be so many hearing decisions released at once, or why the change to link the full document. Maybe it was always there, and I never looked.
And yes, if someone had time to analyse every investigation and decision, I'm sure that there would be many shortcomings.
And yes, the original complaint was obviously not about the sign. It would be interesting to know why it was made, and there's the additional complication of the trainee in this case.
Just another reason to concentrate carefully on the paperwork for every job. I've been ensuring that sufficient time is charged on each job to cover the completion of the COC.
I'm not sure why there seemed to be so many hearing decisions released at once, or why the change to link the full document. Maybe it was always there, and I never looked.
And yes, if someone had time to analyse every investigation and decision, I'm sure that there would be many shortcomings.
And yes, the original complaint was obviously not about the sign. It would be interesting to know why it was made, and there's the additional complication of the trainee in this case.
Just another reason to concentrate carefully on the paperwork for every job. I've been ensuring that sufficient time is charged on each job to cover the completion of the COC.
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
I note that some data (relating to the customer) was redacted; and hope my comment doesn't lead to the ID of the TA being redacted in future.
Those of us who operate as Inspectors have a duty to be better than merely average; even for just normal third-party inspection of high-risk work.
If you're not better than average, you shouldn't hold an "Inspector" PL.
Those acting as TAs have a special duty to ensure their reports are both accurate & fair.
To me the idea of ordinary electrical workers being put through the wringer just because the TA isn't up-to-date and fully competent is abhorent.
Those of us who operate as Inspectors have a duty to be better than merely average; even for just normal third-party inspection of high-risk work.
If you're not better than average, you shouldn't hold an "Inspector" PL.
Those acting as TAs have a special duty to ensure their reports are both accurate & fair.
To me the idea of ordinary electrical workers being put through the wringer just because the TA isn't up-to-date and fully competent is abhorent.
- Rating: 66.67%
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Following up with further board decisions.
A question came up recently regarding a light fitting having a switch installed in the installation wiring. So for example, if a fitting has a built in switch, is an additional switch required.
Similarly, I have done sensor light circuits on rental properties that have no standard wall switch, only the circuit breaker for isolation.
As we all know, a standard light switch is not an isolator, doesn't comply as an isolator, and shouldn't be relied on for isolation.
So one of the charges in this complaint is curious to say the least.
https://www.ewrb.govt.nz/complaints/pas ... -decision/
A question came up recently regarding a light fitting having a switch installed in the installation wiring. So for example, if a fitting has a built in switch, is an additional switch required.
Similarly, I have done sensor light circuits on rental properties that have no standard wall switch, only the circuit breaker for isolation.
As we all know, a standard light switch is not an isolator, doesn't comply as an isolator, and shouldn't be relied on for isolation.
So one of the charges in this complaint is curious to say the least.
https://www.ewrb.govt.nz/complaints/pas ... -decision/
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Completely agree; there is absolutely NO requirement for an isolating switch.
Or even for a functional switch..
But since the defendant accepted fault on that point, thus making the same error as the several Board members (who should all have known better), there appears to have been little if any discussion on that point.
Which appears to be typical if Board proceedings; they rely on their own perceptions / experience and routinely fail to check whether their understanding of the Rules is correct.
Most Board members must be eligible to hold a PL.
But while it would be nice to think that the ones who get appointed are all from the "cream of the crop"; there's absolutely nothing to ensure that they are.
As a result, the individuals appointed can't be expected to be any better than average in their knowledge and understanding of Act, Regs, & Standards.
And we know that the average level of the trade isn't very flash.
Or even for a functional switch..
But since the defendant accepted fault on that point, thus making the same error as the several Board members (who should all have known better), there appears to have been little if any discussion on that point.
Which appears to be typical if Board proceedings; they rely on their own perceptions / experience and routinely fail to check whether their understanding of the Rules is correct.
Most Board members must be eligible to hold a PL.
But while it would be nice to think that the ones who get appointed are all from the "cream of the crop"; there's absolutely nothing to ensure that they are.
As a result, the individuals appointed can't be expected to be any better than average in their knowledge and understanding of Act, Regs, & Standards.
And we know that the average level of the trade isn't very flash.
- Rating: 33.33%
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
They appear to rely heavily on the "experts" appointed to assist the Investigators ; but again there appears to be no process for checking that they actually are experts.
Sometimes they are not even holders of Inspector PLs.
Worth noting that while in this case such an expert prepared a report; they have not published it.
Sometimes they are not even holders of Inspector PLs.
Worth noting that while in this case such an expert prepared a report; they have not published it.
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
How does one even become an "expert" or even assist in these investigations?
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
In this case, the expert assisting the investigator was an inspector. And somehow managed to complete a report as a basis for the charges, without visiting the site.
The investigator must have taken a lot of photographs I guess.
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
The expert is usually, but not always, a holder of an Inspector PL.
However as for Board members; while we would like to think they are chosen from the 'top end"; we can't really expect that since there are no published criteria for selection.
In fact, no obvious basis for being considered to have an acceptable level of knowledge; other than their "competence" as shown by holding a PL.
In theory; that results in us being judged by our peers - at both investigator stage and later if / when a case proceeds to a hearing.
Anyone who can mount a defence should be able to argue their case.
There are some points where the relevant rule may be not completely clear; and you'd expect a reasonable interpretation to be accepted; or at least given the benefit of any doubt.
But from published data there's clearly a real problem where even when an absolutely correct interpretation can be put to a hearing; but the Board simply doesn't accept it - instead preferring their own.
So we have 3 different possible cases
There's what's clearly wrong.
There's what's clearly right.
There's a few bits where there's more than one way of looking at the facts.
And unfortunately what the Board decides is far too often in the first group.
However the only way to challenge a decision is to take it to court.
Which is going to cost a lot of time & money;
so almost never happens.
However as for Board members; while we would like to think they are chosen from the 'top end"; we can't really expect that since there are no published criteria for selection.
In fact, no obvious basis for being considered to have an acceptable level of knowledge; other than their "competence" as shown by holding a PL.
In theory; that results in us being judged by our peers - at both investigator stage and later if / when a case proceeds to a hearing.
Anyone who can mount a defence should be able to argue their case.
There are some points where the relevant rule may be not completely clear; and you'd expect a reasonable interpretation to be accepted; or at least given the benefit of any doubt.
But from published data there's clearly a real problem where even when an absolutely correct interpretation can be put to a hearing; but the Board simply doesn't accept it - instead preferring their own.
So we have 3 different possible cases
There's what's clearly wrong.
There's what's clearly right.
There's a few bits where there's more than one way of looking at the facts.
And unfortunately what the Board decides is far too often in the first group.
However the only way to challenge a decision is to take it to court.
Which is going to cost a lot of time & money;
so almost never happens.
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
If I was wrongly disciplined through an error or misinterpretation of the rules on their part, I would certainly be appealing the decision.
I know a couple of people who would probably love to be expert witnesses
Also I would hope that all costs would be awarded if successful.
Does anyone know of any district court appeal cases?
I know a couple of people who would probably love to be expert witnesses
Also I would hope that all costs would be awarded if successful.
Does anyone know of any district court appeal cases?
Re: Socket outlet on 1mm2, and other sins.
Not aware of any case law - unfortunately.
And yes, you might get costs awarded against the Board if you win.
On the other hand you might well not; unless you could show not just error but bad intent or improper practice or negligence.
So chances are low.
You'll also have noticed that there are generally a range of 'charges', and you'd need to get all adverse decisions reversed before there would be any chance of getting costs awarded.
If any of the charges relates to a matter where there can be more than one reasonable interpretation; not a hope even if you win.
Costs would lie where they fall.
Our courts are supposed to be based on "natural justice"; but in practice there's a lot of systemic bias.
Which starts right at the beginning; eg you mount a good case, and the Board accepts all your arguments;
but you can't get your costs reimbursed because the Act simply does not allow for that.
Even if the Board doesn't proceed to a hearing, you'll have incurred costs - and there's no way of getting them reimbursed.
So appealing to District Court means you're already in a significant financial hole, and no matter how hard you dig from there you won't ever fill it back in.
That's assuming you can pay for a good lawyer who can understand the technical stuff, and can argue it against the opposition
And a judge who cares
There's being right; and there's knowing when to quit.
And yes, you might get costs awarded against the Board if you win.
On the other hand you might well not; unless you could show not just error but bad intent or improper practice or negligence.
So chances are low.
You'll also have noticed that there are generally a range of 'charges', and you'd need to get all adverse decisions reversed before there would be any chance of getting costs awarded.
If any of the charges relates to a matter where there can be more than one reasonable interpretation; not a hope even if you win.
Costs would lie where they fall.
Our courts are supposed to be based on "natural justice"; but in practice there's a lot of systemic bias.
Which starts right at the beginning; eg you mount a good case, and the Board accepts all your arguments;
but you can't get your costs reimbursed because the Act simply does not allow for that.
Even if the Board doesn't proceed to a hearing, you'll have incurred costs - and there's no way of getting them reimbursed.
So appealing to District Court means you're already in a significant financial hole, and no matter how hard you dig from there you won't ever fill it back in.
That's assuming you can pay for a good lawyer who can understand the technical stuff, and can argue it against the opposition
And a judge who cares
There's being right; and there's knowing when to quit.