WoEF

Post Reply
Zedess
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:44 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

WoEF

Post by Zedess »

Curly one, is carrying out a WoEF, PEW.
User avatar
DougP
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:11 pm
Answers: 2
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: WoEF

Post by DougP »

No. Why do you ask?
Zedess
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:44 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: WoEF

Post by Zedess »

Well, it seems to fit into Schedule 1, inspection. Am happy to be guided elsewhere.
Nathan
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:12 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 0

Re: WoEF

Post by Nathan »

Not sure that I quite understand what is behind the question.
As per ESR78 the WoEF has to be done by an inspector apart from a exception which does include PEW, so will be done by a licensed person either way.

After reading Schedule 1 in the regs a WoEF does not appear to be part of the testing mentioned in 1 (1) (a) to (d) so I dont think its PEW
User avatar
gregmcc
Site Admin
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: WoEF

Post by gregmcc »

I don't think a WOEF is classed as an inspection, but it must be done by a person who is authorised to inspect mains work ESR 78 (1) (a).

as far as been PEW, yes., ESR 65 (6) tells us certification (which is what a WOEF is?) is PEW, but does not require a COC.
AlecK
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 1
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: WoEF

Post by AlecK »

No part of Schedule 1 Clause 1 can be properly interpreted as including assessment for issue of WoEF.
In particular, while the assessment involves inspection,testing, and issuing a certificate; the relevant items in Schedule 1 are :
"the testing of work described in paragraphs (a) to (d)", "the inspection of work described in paragraphs (a) to (d)", and "the certification of work described in paragraphs (a) to (d)"
The assessment for WoEF doesn't fit; because the inspection & testing done and the certificate issued, don't relate to any of those sorts of PEW.
In fact they don't relate to any sort of PEW at all, but to a pre-existing installation .

A WoEF is closer to a periodic assessment [ ESR 75]; or to a pre-reconnection certificate [ESR 74].
Noting that, like issuing a WoEf, an current PL is a requirement for these activities (with some exceptions);
but neither of them is "inspection of PEW" or "certification of PEW either.

Now look at ESR 19, where we only have to report immediate dangers found if we find them while undertaking listed types of activity:
- carrying out PEW
- carrying out periodic assessment, and
- examining for issue of WoEF.
If assessing for WoEF were PEW, then it wouldn't be listed here as a separate & different activity.

The only reasonable conclusion is that assessing for issue of WoEF is not PEW;
and nor is doing PAs or pre-reconnection assessments.
AlecK
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 1
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: WoEF

Post by AlecK »

Of course the only real relevance of whether these activities are PEW is that if they were PEW; the EWRB could properly take action for alleged error / non-compliant work.
But since these activities are not PEW, EWRB can't take action. Their disciplinary powers are mostly limited to people who do PEW (with or without a licence), plus people who breach a term of their PL; and nothing in Section 143 actually allows them to take disciplinary action against someone who falls short when issuing WoEFs, conducting PAs, or issuing a "CoV" cert for re-connection.
So it would have to be a prosecution in District Court by Worksafe.

However not having the legal power to take action hasn't stopped EWRB from acting anyway. They have taken action on at least one occasion where an Inspector issued a WoEF despite the unit not meeting the requirements for issue, and also having failed to undertake all the required checks & tests.
Seems that - like most practitioners - the Board just assume that it's all PEW, and that they have jurisdiction.
In those cases; if the practitioner had understood that it isn't PEW they should have got off . In fact it shouldn't have got as far as having a hearing.
On the other hand, under a District Court prosecution the penalties may well have been greater than what the Board dished out.
Post Reply