The Emma Shaw Case

armeg
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
TaoTech_ElectricianForum
Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Evans Electric

Evans Electric

TEF LINUX ADMIN™
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
23,507
Reaction score
527
Location
Birmingham
I see the CPS has decided to charge two operatives involved with this unfortunate case from 2006  in West Bromwich . 

One is accused of failing to carry out an isulation test ,

Entering incorrect readings and details.

Recording the presence of an RCD when there was not installed.

The other for failing to supervise and failing to take reasonable care for recording the results.

As I remember , it was said there was a plasterboard screw in a metal stud... piercing a cable.... a water leak developed with fatal consequences when the lady was mopping up .    I think those were the circumstances. 

The contractors promptly went bankrupt It appears .

 
There are others around here who are more informed on the intricacies of the case, but it seems like the actual tester, & his QS are being "done"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We've discussed it on here , but this is a new development . 

I think I commented at the time that an insulation test may not have picked up that kind if fault .  If the metal stud was not earthed ...must be the same in thousands of other places ....but a screw digging into the live could remain undetected in my humble opinion .  Unless you checked every screw in every stud wall .  

Only the water leak would have brought it to light .   We had this with a kitchen wall cupboard in a council house...... screw holding the c/bd pierced the L of a socket drop and must have been like it since they were built.  

         Water leak in bathroom above soaked the wall and it became live .  No RCD s fitted ...14th edition .   We actually found it with a bell set as the Megger was not on the van ...from L in socket  to each screw head .  Council sparks couldn't find the problem so get contractors in was the scenario .  

 
Well if the drywall screw was too long, which is a good chance it was, then the dry wall installer is as much to blame.

We all do our best and sometimes things go wrong, due to wrong doing of other trades.

We have had loads of screwed and damaged cables over the years and I would hope we found them during testing.

This case highlights the importance of testing, and when I started the majority just switched on and if it worked everyone went home happy.

IMHO whoever put the screw in is as much to blame, without the screw this would not have happened.

 
The coroner apparently believed however, with the backing of his expert witnesses I would guess, it seems, that correct testing in accordance with BS7671 would have identified the fault?

 
it certainly is doubtful that testing would reveal such a fault, but falsifying legal documents is an offence in its own right. Makes you wonder what sparkies were doing there in the first place, especially if the bourd was 14th edition.

 
Steve3948 said:
Well if the drywall screw was too long, which is a good chance it was, then the dry wall installer is as much to blame.

We all do our best and sometimes things go wrong, due to wrong doing of other trades.

We have had loads of screwed and damaged cables over the years and I would hope we found them during testing.

This case highlights the importance of testing, and when I started the majority just switched on and if it worked everyone went home happy.

IMHO whoever put the screw in is as much to blame, without the screw this would not have happened.
Click to expand...
:Applaud

 
From the numerous national reports of the case, The dry lining screw was into a metal partition, the cpc had been blown away due to the numerous times the fault had tripped the MCB, a R1 R2 and other tests would have found it. Inaccuracies were found in the Certificates and the testing procedures.

The circuit had no RCD as it was pre 2008, (Dec 2007), the tester and the QS are in court not the company as it went bust.

Emma Shaw was killed in Dec 2007, no action was taken, until the Coroner and his jury after hearing the evidence which included technical evidence from a Scheme, gave a verdict of Unlawful Killing in Dec 2008. At this point the Schemes notified their members of the importance of ensuring that the certificates were accurate, unfortunately the certificates did not kill her, it was a lack of Competence.  You will notice that many Schemes do not use the words Competent, Electrician or Qualified in their Certification.

The requirements under law for Certification should be noted, it is the persons that sign the certificate that carry the responsibility, those that operate under the QS system should take particular care. Signing off work unseen and the use of unskilled and unqualified labour has large personal consequences, this  is not the only case where certification has ended with a prosecution of the individual.

This case is on going so further detailed information can not be given, shameful as it is to "The Industry", in my opinion.

 
Well thanks for that Zoro .  Its noticable in reports such as this that the technical details have to be wrung out like blood from a stone .

This is the first I've read of the earth being blown apart .

 
Steve3948 said:
Well if the drywall screw was too long, which is a good chance it was, then the dry wall installer is as much to blame.

We all do our best and sometimes things go wrong, due to wrong doing of other trades.

We have had loads of screwed and damaged cables over the years and I would hope we found them during testing.

This case highlights the importance of testing, and when I started the majority just switched on and if it worked everyone went home happy.

IMHO whoever put the screw in is as much to blame, without the screw this would not have happened.
Click to expand...
There seems to be much confusion regarding this case - I assume that the "bar-stool experts" have been busy. :innocent

I find it rather concerning that people are so ready to defend incompetent work.

I can assure you that you are NOT in full possession of the facts. 

The issue of who put the screw in the wall is pathetic to say the least. Cables should be installed in metal stud partition walls is such a manner as to avoid the possibility of such an occurrence. Do you know HOW the cables were installed and what measures WERE taken to ensure that they were protected from damage by screws - no you do not!

Surely the main issues of this case are:

1. Incompetent workers failed to provide a serviceable installation.

2. The inspection and testing carried out was laughable.

3. The subsequent actions of the QS were totally incompetent - you could argue fraudulent.

The fact that points 1-3 are commonplace within the industry does not make then either legal or morally acceptable.

The only defense for the QS system in the domestic arena is on financial grounds - and then only by those who profit from such blatant abuse of public confidence in what was once a trusted profession.

"Competence by proxy" is a shameful consequence of allowing commercial interests to govern an industry without any safeguards whatsoever.

The public deserve better - they should be able to make their own, informed choice regarding who they wish to employ to do their electrical work.

At present, they have a 1 in 6 chance of getting a trained and qualified electrician on the doorstep - why should they have to play the "competence lottery"?

If the public wish to employ the services of a "five day wonder" they should be able to do so - but it should be THEIR choice, not that of the conniving Scheme Operators on the EAS Committee.

 
I agree, proper testing would have identified a problem.

I'm sure most of us at some time have had another trade put a screw or nail through a cable. It's not always their fault.

But when that happens, proper testing finds it, and we identify the damaged bit and replace it.

The issue here seems not to be the lack of testing itself, but the fictitious test results, and the fact an rcd was not installed.

 
professional said:
There seems to be much confusion regarding this case - I assume that the "bar-stool experts" have been busy. :innocent

I find it rather concerning that people are so ready to defend incompetent work.

I can assure you that you are NOT in full possession of the facts.

The issue of who put the screw in the wall is pathetic to say the least. Cables should be installed in metal stud partition walls is such a manner as to avoid the possibility of such an occurrence. Do you know HOW the cables were installed and what measures WERE taken to ensure that they were protected from damage by screws - no you do not!

Surely the main issues of this case are:

1. Incompetent workers failed to provide a serviceable installation.

2. The inspection and testing carried out was laughable.

3. The subsequent actions of the QS were totally incompetent - you could argue fraudulent.

The fact that points 1-3 are commonplace within the industry does not make then either legal or morally acceptable.

The only defense for the QS system in the domestic arena is on financial grounds - and then only by those who profit from such blatant abuse of public confidence in what was once a trusted profession.

"Competence by proxy" is a shameful consequence of allowing commercial interests to govern an industry without any safeguards whatsoever.

The public deserve better - they should be able to make their own, informed choice regarding who they wish to employ to do their electrical work.

At present, they have a 1 in 6 chance of getting a trained and qualified electrician on the doorstep - why should they have to play the "competence lottery"?

If the public wish to employ the services of a "five day wonder" they should be able to do so - but it should be THEIR choice, not that of the conniving Scheme Operators on the EAS Committee.
Click to expand...
So if 12mm plasterboard is used with correct size drywall screw, 1-2mm of screw should penetrate through the stud. My comment is based on my on-site findings where I've seen drywall contractors using 50-75mm screws.You are right I have no facts on this case, but if you do then please explain how the screw penetrated the cable.

Testing was not carried out correctly and there's no excuse for that.

Until someone posts all the facts, then I'm in no position to judge anyone, but hey anyone that goes by the name of Professional must know better :) :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to chuck in a bit of experience to the afray, a few years ago I worked with a group of Polish builders on a sizable project and noted after the event that they had used 75mm screws to fix the flooring down,ceilings up and boarding on to stud work.

They were a bit upset to have to re board and plaster various sections and repair the ceiling and floor following my remedials to REWIRE 3 week old cables.

Continuity and Insulation testing proved invaluable before the full 2nd fix stage.I hate to think of the mess if I had left it until the end as per usual Trade practice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good post from Sparkytim   and lets face it ...if you were really pushed on that job you may not have got to the testing until much nearer completion .

Raises another age old question too......... some trades are constantly berated with rules , regulations, dire warnings, updates,  like ourselves and gas fitters I suppose but no one picks up on fixers using 75mm long screws through plasterboard , say.      We're talking  3 inch long screws here.   

 
Nothing surprises me these days had some idiots employed by the plasterer to tack a job I did. Now experienced professionals would not fixed boards below and above sockets and switches these idiots did under the first caught cable neutral to earth and on the other socket it went live to earth not bad in one room. This was found when testing on second fix though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right mate,   used to be full of trades who were...... "On a price" ..........  or..." So much per mtre/ yard"   This usually meant ... don't give a fig about your stuff or the job as a whole ...I'm just here to earn as much as possible .. floor screeding or whatever and you're in my way . 

On a new housing job once ... the new Clerk of Works turns up , we're at 2nd fix  stage.... asks after the bricklayers ,,, they've finished and gone  we say ..Problem? 

" Yep  Most of the bricks are upside down ...bloody bunch of of parts "!!

They were fairface bricks with  fissures horizontal across but the fissures need to face down for the rain to run off ....thousands of them were looking up and would collect water , which if frozen , would blow all the faces off.

The Clerk of Works said any decent brickie would know to check every one with a finger during laying .

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Evans Electric
Electrician Guilty Under H&s Fatality Case.
Replies
8
Views
1K
SPECIAL LOCATION
SPECIAL LOCATION

Latest posts

Top