Recent EWRB decisions
In this edition, we provide summaries of recent Electrical Workers Registration Board decisions and the key legal duties for carrying out, inspecting, and certifying electrical work.
CE22893 Neil Tobin
The Board decided that the Respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The offences were carrying out prescribed electrical work contrary to an enactment and providing a false or misleading return.
The Respondent replaced a switchboard but did not put in the required fire protection. They also connected the installation without sighting a Record of Inspection, even though this was high risk prescribed electrical work (PEW). They then certified the PEW as lawful, even though parts of the installation did not meet mandatory requirements.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $500 and costs of $250 were imposed.
CE22925 Norman Short
The Board decided that the Respondent 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 in a negligent manner and providing a false or misleading return.
The Respondent inspected a caravan for a WoEF but did not do the required safety checks and tests. They issued the WoEF even though the caravan did not have the mandatory overload protection required by AS/NZS 3001:2008.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $1,000 and costs of $500 were imposed.
CE23039 Bhavesh Kumar
The Board decided that the Respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The offences were carrying out prescribed electrical work contrary to an enactment and providing a false or misleading return.
The respondent installed and energised a photovoltaic system (279.2V DC) that was classified as high-risk PEW. They did this without getting the required inspection. They then issued a COC that wrongly said the installation relied on a certified design.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $350 and costs of $250 were imposed.
CE22983 Elven Yuan
The Board decided that the Respondent 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 in a negligent manner and providing a false or misleading return.
The Respondent installed and connected a main earthing system that did not have proper protection against displacement or corrosion. The connections were also not accessible for visual inspection or testing. They then issued a certificate saying the work was lawful and electrically safe.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $1,000 and costs of $250 were imposed.
CE22945 Sitiveni Tabalailai
The Board decided that the Respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(a)(i), 143(d), and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.
What happened
The offences were carrying out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner, doing work the person was not authorised to do, and providing a false or misleading return.
The Respondent was licensed only as an Electrical Service Technician but carried out electrical connection work and installed wiring and fittings that did not meet several AS/NZS 3000:2007 requirements. These issues included missing RCD protection and unsafe switchboard openings. They then completed an Electrical Safety Certificate for PEW they were not authorised to do.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $2,500, and costs of $775 were imposed.