Electrical Installation Condition Report. Rights to isolate DB

[Mark c]

Question which has posed an issue today and one I don't agree with.

For a number of years I have be working at a residential educational establishment as their main electrical contractor. For a number of years doing all work from maintenance to periodic testing or now EICR's. This year however my price was under cut by a big margin by a national who have never been to the college. Obviously to get a foot in the door. Now the work would of been good but I'm not prepared to drop my standards to match a price so I suggested to the site manager "let em do it" I know I have no issues on losing the regular stuff as I have 36 years knowledge of the college.

Today at 4pm I received a panicked phone call from the site services manager asking me to pop in this evening as the other company had just isolated a sub main DB serving bedroom and bathrooms etc and a summer group are arriving on Thursday who will be using all the affected bedrooms. The issue being heat damage to the DB. Obviously I had to go look.

The affected board is an old style Dorma Smith board approximately 50 year old. A central bus bar system board (like the Crabtree C50) but with a plastic bus bar shield (unlike the C50's of old). The plastic bus bar shield has slight signs of heat damage around the slots where the bus bar exits to mount the MCB on. Very slight although I agree heat damage. The MCB's have not been affected in anyway. The bus bar isn't heat damaged only the bus bar shield. The inspector has taken it upon himself to isolate the entire DB by pulling and blocking the incoming three phase supply. Leaving the entire floor out of action even though it is currently unoccupied as there are no students there currently. It also affects lighting to a main and emergency stairs on two other floors. One floor also has staff accommodation which is occupied. Obviously the emergency lighting will now be running down also.

This has left the college in a predicament on having remedial works conducted as a matter of urgency with out the ability to investigate or suggest a cause of action for themselves. Now my question is this,

What LEGAL right has an electrical inspector conducting a Periodic (sorry old school!) to isolate a supply in such circumstances or under what circumstances such action is justified? Is this justified?

I accept heat damage is a serious issue and I hope I would of noticed what is evident in the DB (I must stress it is slight) however I feel a more appropriate cause of action would of been in ask the site manager to view the issue as a college representative and discuss options and format their own risk assessment before isolating the entire system, or failing that to remove the plastic bulbar shield from within the board and so remove any possible risk of the problem escalating, label clearly on the outside of the DB that the protective shield has been removed and so exposing live bus bars and leave the board energised until such time remedial works can be undertaken in a reasonable time frame. I would not of had an issue removing the shield myself, after all C50's are no different. There would of been no risk to any occupants or users as the DB isn't accessible due to it being locked away in a cleaners cupboard and the exposed bus bar would not be accessible without removing the cover, as is the same with all boards?

What are our legal rights to take such action if there is a more amenable course open?

Your thoughts please.....................

 

[Manator]

I think you are totally right. The amount of heat damage is to the shield only and if none of the bus bars are effected I can see little issue. The main point here is they have no right under any law to isolate the board, for what could be a simple loose connection. The proper course of action would have been to issue an electrical danger notice, but even then some more investigations should have been carried out.

With the information provided and the amount of testing done, or should I say lack of, there is no way they should have isolated the board.

If the heat damage is caused by any overloading it can easily be rectified without any undue loss of power.

The C50's should if possible be replaced, but this could be done on a routine proactive maintenance schedule.

 

[Sidewinder]

You have no legal right to isolate without the clients OK.

 

[Andy™]

you have no legal right to isolate a supply, however, if you have switched it off for I&T, then you could refuse to re-energise if its dangerous. although the customer could then switch it back on if they wanted to

if the heat damage is minor, it may only be a C2 anyway, so could be left for replacement / repair in a few weeks time when more convenient

of course, if they had got someone who knew in installation instead of trying to get it done cheap...

 

[Mark c]

[quote name='Andy

 

[M107]

I would have said common sense should prevail, only slight signs of heating maybe at a push isolate the circuits adjoining the heated area/ check tightness of terminals....do the usual checks & note it on the report. but unless there is a definate potential of harm to life or property then no right to isolate at all unless the site manager gives the thumbs up to do so.

I've only isolated one installation during a EICR (the stables pictures posted on the forum), but not locked off, my view is it's the customers problem if they turn it back on.... after all I'm only there to report on the installations condition. What the customer decides on once I've given my advice & left is up to them.

 

[Andy™]

The incoming SWA has be physically removed and capped from the main switch.

if they didnt have permission to do that, it could be argued its criminal damage

 

[NozSpark]

Couldn't it be deemed as criminal damage?? :C

 

[M107]

What if somebody takes a tumble down the stairs due to no lighting...........could be costly for the sparks if he cant back up his reasoning for locking off the supply to the DB

 

[Mark c]

What if somebody takes a tumble down the stairs due to no lighting...........could be costly for the sparks if he cant back up his reasoning for locking off the supply to the DB

I fully agree.

 

[Bacon]

Did they carryout any thermal imaging to back up the decision to remove the supply to the DB in question.

The heat damage may be over 40 years old.

On a side note i have followed up a previous report carried out by a large national inspection and testing company and it basically condemed the whole installation.

Saying all rewireable boards must be change as they don't comply to current regs and so on.

I basically said to the site services guy to have them back and justify there findings and come up with a proper report.

 

[Sidewinder]

ANY observation in an EICR (PIR) to be valid must be backed up by the relevant Reg. No. if the report Author cannot do that then the report is worthless.

IMHO of course, however, how else would you be able to reference non-compliance with BS7671 in relation to the observation?

This cross reference should be included on the EICR (PIR) for it to be valid, again IMHO, however, how else can an independet person verify this?...

 

[M107]

On a side note i have followed up a previous report carried out by a large national inspection and testing company and it basically condemed the whole installation.

Same here the reason given ..... lack of RCD's.

I'm still trying to get my hands on the report from the site manager

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was made at 22:09 ----------

I also find putting down the relivant reg numbers that have been Contravened also show the customer you actually know what you are on about.

 

[kerching]

As Electricians, Electrical Engineers, Ice Cream Salesmen or whatever else we choose to call ourselves we have NO legal right/remit to disconnect anything without the 'owners consent'. I feel a little uneasy with the proliferation of EDNs...I have seen them issued by the 'power hungry' in the style of Parking Charge Notices by Wheel Clampers...if you see where I am coming from.

I would think there are legal implications regarding loss of emergency lighting etc.

if it was me I would have taken pics, shown site manager in person, formulated a course of action between us that was acceptable to both parties, then jogged on to the next fuseboard.

My opinions only ... :coat

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

ANY observation in an EICR (PIR) to be valid must be backed up by the relevant Reg. No. if the report Author cannot do that then the report is worthless.IMHO of course, however, how else would you be able to reference non-compliance with BS7671 in relation to the observation?

This cross reference should be included on the EICR (PIR) for it to be valid, again IMHO, however, how else can an independet person verify this?...

You do not have to quote any regulation numbers. This question was also addressed by the NICEIC a while back who stated no regulation numbers have to be given. I dont ever quote numbers on the original reports, but would be prepared to if later asked as it can be very time consuming.

 

[Sidewinder]

Slips,

I realise that, however, I disagree with the NIC and will continue to do so, & be VERY vocal in this.

All I can say is, that I stand by my comments and, that I feel that this is the ONLY way an EICR can be valid, end of.

 

[kerching]

You do not have to quote any regulation numbers. This question was also addressed by the NICEIC a while back who stated no regulation numbers have to be given. I dont ever quote numbers on the original reports, but would be prepared to if later asked as it can be very time consuming.

I think the listing of the Reg numbers on the NEW EICRs is the only plus on an ill conceived bit of paper...as you quite rightly say; unless you know the reg number it can be quite time consuming to look them up, so I don't bother unless it is something that I consider worthy of notation... :coat

 

[Sidewinder]

Kerch,

The report is not for your benefit though!...

 

[Mark c]

Well it seems we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I have read nothing disagreeing with my opinion. There are also some very good points made. Thermal imaging and the wheel clamping comment as just two. Thank you.

I am visiting the college again in the morning to address my findings directly to the site services manage and vice principal. I personally don't want to be face to face with the inspector as it could be perceived as sour grapes and could affect the price for remedial works if they think they are pricing against someone else. Knowing how the establishment works and my long standing with them know the maximum price I can submit without the need for the college to get two further quotations. Having lived within a 3 mile radius of the college for the past 36 years, my grandfather, both parents, myself, my sister having worked there and now my wife as a lecturer I feel in a very strong position.

On a side note my price for inspecting and test the areas in question slightly exceeded

 

[Mark c]

Today brought an interesting outcome. After a meeting this morning I left it for the college to decide what their course of action should be. I provided a price to change the board. Later in the morning they called me asking if my price was right. After a quick think I was certain I had provided the best price I could. Strangely enough I was considerably cheaper then the testing company who surprise surprise was banking on remedial works by the looks of it! I'm replacing the board next week.

After all this the test company insisted to the college the new board must have RCD protection to all circuits including lighting? It's a surface and flush steel conduit and trunking system. Isn't this earth mechanical protection under the current regs neglecting the need for 30mA RCD protection. All this and they don't even know the reg's. goes to show you get what you pay for.

They still insist they are within their rights to disconnect by the way.