   8. Results of Disciplinary Hearings
Derek Brian Hall (E 5052)
A complaint was laid against Mr Hall, an Electrician of no fixed abode, by a homeowner from Auckland. The complaint alleged Mr Hall worked without a practising licence and was tardy in
supplying the Certificate of Compliance for his work, which included installing a new stove by reusing the existing permanent connection and installing socket-outlets. The homeowner also alleged Mr Hall did not test his own work.
The Board considered the complaint and found Mr Hall guilty of disciplinary offences in that he:
- Contravened regulation 78 by installing a single phase low voltage fixed electric range by means other than a socket outlet; and
- Contravened section 95 of the Electricity Act by working while not being the holder of a current practising licence.
However, the Board found Mr Hall not guilty of offences relating to failure to test as the Board found there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges.
The Board censured Mr Hall for the way he connected the stove and fined him $750 for working without a practising licence. The Board also ordered Mr Hall to pay costs of $1,250.
Comment
The connecting of the electric range in question was carried out in October 2002 and regulation 78 was revoked by the Electricity Amendment Regulations which came into force in January 2003.
Electrician
A complaint was laid against an Electrician from Wellington arising from a regulation 50 notification to the Secretary. The complaint alleged that the Electrician: livened an unsafe
installation by failing to install an earth electrode and failed to connect the main earth conductor to that electrode; failed to ensure that the mains were adequately protected and installed;
failed to have the relocation of the meter box inspected; and he failed to furnish a Certificate of Compliance for the work carried out, which was the relocation of the mains, and the installation
of a new earthing system and a new switchboard.
The Board considered the complaint and found the Electrician guilty of disciplinary offences in that he:
- Negligently created a risk to life and limb and contravened regulation 69 by failing to ensure the installation was electrically safe. An MEN electrical installation that does not have an earth electrode presents a significant risk of injury or death to persons, and of damage to property, as a result of the use of the installation – it is not electrically safe; and
- Carried out work in a negligent and unsatisfactory manner and contravened regulation 86 and section 5 of AS/NZS 3000:2000 by failing to ensure the earthing system of an MEN electrical
installation included an earth electrode; and
- Contravened regulation 37(2) by failing to test his work before connected it to the supply; and
- Contravened the regulations by reconnecting the supply to an installation, which had been worked upon, without having that work inspected as required under regulation 41(1)(c)(iv)
However the Board found the Electrician not guilty of:
- Failing to adequately protect the mains cables; and
- Contravening regulation 50; and
- Neglecting to furnish a Certificate of Compliance prior to connecting an installation to the supply. (Not guilty because of inappropriate wording of the charge).
The Board restricted the Electrician’s registration with the condition that he must submit all Certificates of Compliance to the Registrar at the end of each month for a period of twelve months for the purpose of audit. The Board also fined the Electrician $2,000 and ordered that
he pay costs of $1,500. The Board directed that the Electrician’s name not be published.
Electrician and Inspector
Complaints were laid against an Electrician and an Inspector from Christchurch by an Engineering Officer from a supply company. The complaint alleged the Electrician transposed the neutral and one of the phases in the supply for a light industrial premise and, while inspecting and connecting the supply, the Inspector failed to identify the transposition.
The Board considered the complaints and found the Electrician not guilty of a disciplinary offence because he did not personally make the connection causing the transposition and he had carried out all the tests he could have prior to that connection, which was made by a person working under an employer licence.
However, the Board found the Inspector guilty of disciplinary offences in that he:
- Contravened regulation 41(3) by failing to inspect in accordance with NZS 3019; and
- Contravened regulation 43A by failing to ensure, upon connection, that the polarity and phase rotation of the supply was correct; and
6
- Contravened regulation 69 and 69A by livening an installation with transposed supply conductors (one of three phases with the neutral), which creates a significant risk of injury or death or damage to property as a result of the use of the installation; and consequently
- Furnished a false return.
The Board fined the Inspector $750 and ordered him to pay costs of $1,500. The Board made an Order suppressing publication of the Inspector’s name.
Comment
A significant contributing factor to the transposition was the number of workers involved with laying and connecting the supply cable. This case demonstrates the importance of all workers
carrying out their own tests and not falling into the trap of presuming everyone who has worked on a job before them has done the right thing.
|
Return
to Top