Recent EWRB decision

Case

The Board decided that the Respondent had committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.

What happened

The offences were carrying out prescribed electrical work (PEW) in a negligent or incompetent manner and providing a false or misleading return.

The Respondent was subcontracted to install a residential solar photo-voltaic array system. The installation was high-risk PEW.

The Respondent connected and livened the installation before sighting a Record of Inspection (ROI) from the electrical inspector. He said he believed he was authorised to liven the installation based on a conversation with the inspector.

The Board found that a verbal conversation was not enough. Before high-risk PEW can be livened, an electrical worker must sight a signed ROI. The ROI is the inspector's written confirmation that the work has been inspected and is electrically safe. This requirement is an important safety check and must be followed.

Furthermore, the Respondent’s Certificate of Compliance (CoC) certified the installation as lawful and complete. However, without a ROI for the high-risk PEW, the installation could not be considered electrically safe.

The CoC also did not include the name of the apprentice who carried out the work under supervision. The Respondent accepted this. He explained that he omitted the name because he was concerned for the apprentice’s safety due to the property owner’s behaviour.

The Board found that recording who carried out the work and who supervised it is a basic requirement of the CoC. This information helps show who was involved in the PEW and who was responsible for supervising it. Any concerns about the apprentice's welfare should have been managed in a way that still met the record-keeping requirements.

Outcome of the decision

A fine of $600 and costs of $750 were imposed.