  
3. Results of Disciplinary HearingsJames Lee Reid (E 17076) A complaint was lodged by a homeowner about the workmanship of Mr James Lee Reid from Auckland. The Board considered the complaint and Mr Reid was found guilty of working without a current Practising Licence. Mr Reid was fined $1000 and ordered to pay costs of $750. The Board did not order the suppression of Mr Reid's name. Electrician A complaint was received from a homeowner in Timaru who was complaining about commercial aspects of an electrician's work and also that the electrician had allegedly failed to complete a certificate of compliance. The Board considered the complaint and found the electrician from Timaru not guilty of a disciplinary offence due to the commercial issues being outside the scope of a disciplinary hearing and the case regarding the certificate of compliance not being proven to the Board's satisfaction (because of discrepancies with the facts). No further action was taken against the electrician in relation to the complaint. Electrician A complaint was received from a property owner alleging that an electrician from Christchurch had failed to label a newly installed switchboard and had failed to issue a certificate of compliance. The Board considered the complaint and the electrician was found guilty of failing to provide a certificate of compliance to the property owner [regulation 40(2)] and not guilty on all other matters. The electrician was censured and ordered to pay costs of $250. Electrician A homeowner complained about an electrician from Christchurch who allegedly poorly installed halogen downlights (excessively long and untidy cables). The Board considered the complaint and found the electrician not guilty of a disciplinary offence, as the cabling was extra-low voltage cabling. It was not prescribed electrical work that the electrician could be disciplined for. No further action was taken against the electrician in relation to the complaint. Electrician A complaint was made against an electrician from Auckland for failing to issue a certificate of compliance, not having an inspection by inspector, switchboard problems and poor installation of fittings. The Board considered the complaint and found the electrician not guilty of a disciplinary offence because a sub-contractor, who is a registered electrician, had actually carried out the work. No further action was taken against the electrician in relation to the complaint however the sub-contractor has been referred to the Secretary for investigation. Electrician A homeowner in Albany lodged a complaint about an electrician from Auckland who had no practising licence while working for the homeowner, withheld a certificate of compliance and installed an incorrect dimmer with halogen downlights. The electrician was found guilty of working without a current practising licence and of failing to provide a certificate of compliance but not guilty of any charges relating to the
halogen lights. The electrician was fined $900 and ordered to pay costs of $750. Inspector A complaint was received from a Government Department concerning an incident at a school in Porirua where a pupil received an electric shock. An electrical inspector had certified work but had allegedly failed to test and therefore failed to discover non-compliant work which contributed to the incident. The Board found the electrical inspector guilty of failing to test in accordance with regulation 37 but not of contributing to the incident. The Board restricted the electrical inspector's registration for a period of twelve months and required the electrical inspector to submit copies of certificates of compliance completed during that period to the Registrar for potential audit. The Board also ordered costs of $500. Electrician A complaint was received after a homeowner repeatedly requested a copy of a certificate of compliance, from an electrician from Auckland. The electrician promised to supply the certificate but never did. The electrician was found guilty by the Board of failing to issue a certificate of compliance after carrying out prescribed electrical work. The electrician was fined $350 and ordered to pay costs of $450. Electrician An apartment owner laid a complaint about an electrician from Auckland who allegedly had not completed his work in accordance with the regulations. The Board did not find that the electrician's work was non-compliant. However, the electrician was found guilty of carrying out prescribed electrical work without having a current practising licence. The Board restricted the electrician's registration for a period of six months requiring the electrician to submit copies of certificates of compliance completed during that period, to the Registrar for potential audit. The Board also ordered costs of $300. Brian Scurry (E 81090) A homeowner in Milford complained about Mr Scurry after low voltage halogen downlights, which Mr Scurry had installed, caused a fire. Mr Scurry also had no practising licence while working and he failed to certify his work on a certificate of compliance. Mr Scurry was found guilty of carrying out prescribed electrical work without having a current practising licence and of failing to issue a certificate of compliance for the prescribed electrical work he had carried out. However, Mr Scurry was found not guilty of installing the downlights in a negligent and incompetent manner. Mr Scurry was fined $350 and ordered to pay costs of $750. The Board did not order the suppression of Mr Scurry's name. Electrician A complaint was received from a Government Department concerning an electrician from Palmerston North depicted on television as breaching the safety provisions of the regulations The electrician was found guilty of failing to carry out insulation resistance tests on an electrical appliance that had just
been repaired. In view of the circumstances of the case the Board made no disciplinary order under section 127 of the Electricity Act 1992 and ordered the electrician to pay costs of $500. Electrician A homeowner complained about an electrician from Wellington after a switchboard fire. An under-rated circuit breaker had failed and there were loose connections on the switchboard. The Board found the electrician guilty on the grounds that the circuit breaker selection that was carried out was not satisfactory and the terminations on the switchboard were not compliant. The electrician was fined $300 and ordered to pay costs of $750. Electrician A complaint was made by a homeowner who had not been provided with a certificate of compliance by an electrician from Wellington. The Board considered the complaint and found the electrician not guilty of a disciplinary offence due to extenuating circumstances. No further action was taken against the electrician in relation to the complaint. Electrician A homeowner complained about an electrician from Christchurch who had installed halogen downlights and their transformers under thermal insulation. The electrician had also installed a submerged pump for a water feature on a circuit without RCD protection. The electrician was found guilty of installing the downlights in a negligent and incompetent manner. The Board considered that the transformers were not designed to be installed under insulation. However, the Board considered that the pump had not been installed in a manner contrary to NZECP 2. The electrician was censured and ordered to pay costs of $750. Electrician A homeowner complained about an electrician from Taupo for not having a new switchboard inspected. New RCDs on the switchboard tripped frequently and a night store was not being connected to the ripple control. He also complained about non-functioning fixed wired appliances, the locations of outlets and that the electrician did not hold a practising licence while working. The Complaints Assessment Committee referred only one issue on to the Board: the matter of failing to have the switchboard inspected by an inspector. At a disciplinary hearing the Board found the electrician guilty of failing to have the replacement switchboard inspected and certified by a registered electrical inspector. Because an inspector did not certify the certificate of compliance provided by the electrician that certificate was incomplete and the electrician was also found guilty of failing to furnish the correct certificate. Due to extenuating circumstance the Board made no disciplinary order under section 127 of the Electricity Act 1992. However, the board ordered the electrician to pay costs of $250. Inspector A caravan owner laid a complaint against an electrical inspector from Auckland after receiving an electrical warrant of fitness for the caravan which was not valid for the usual length of time. During routine investigation it was discovered that the inspector who had warranted the caravan was not the holder of a current practising licence while inspecting the caravan. The Board found the inspector was guilty of working without a current practising licence. The inspector was fined $500 and ordered to pay costs of $750. Electrician A homeowner complained about the manner in which an electrician from Christchurch had installed a halogen downlight. The downlight had been positioned by cutting through the bottom chord of a roof truss causing structural damage and resulting in a light fitting positioned in very close proximity to timber. The Board determined that a trainee, who was supervised by the electrician, had carried out the work. Because trainees only ever assist to carry out work the work was considered to have been carried out by the electrician. The Board considered the complaint and found the electrician not guilty of a disciplinary offence. No further action was taken against the electrician in relation to the complaint. Electrician The Secretary of the Electricity Act lodged a complaint, against an electrician from Paraparaumu. A homeowner had originally complained about the installation of a light fitting that had resulted in a scorched ceiling. However, there was considerable confusion about who had carried out the work and it was found that the initial complaint had been laid against the wrong person. The Board considered the complaint and found that, irrespective of the identity issue, the electrician could not be guilty of a disciplinary offence, as the installation of the fitting in question did not contravene the regulatory requirements that were in place in 2000, when the work was done. No further action was taken against the electrician in relation to the complaint.
|
Return
to Top