Recent EWRB decisions

CE23057 Declan Hay

The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.

What happened

The offences were negligently creating a risk of serious harm in carrying out prescribed electrical work (PEW) and providing a false or misleading return.

The respondent was engaged to carry out PEW associated with the installation and connection of underground submains and streetlighting cables. The respondent failed to perform adequate visual inspection and electrical testing of PEW prior to connection to an electricity supply, resulting in an exposed live conductor. The respondent also purported to certify that the work was safe when it was not and the return was incomplete.

Outcome of the decision

A fine of $2,500 and costs of $250 were imposed.

CE23006 John Maher

The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.

What happened

The offences were negligently creating a risk of serious harm in carrying out PEW and failing to provide a return within the required time frame.

The respondent carried out PEW associated with the installation of a generator connection point at the meter box of an electrical installation.

The respondent failed to ensure that an electricity generation system was installed so that it would be prevented from supplying energy upstream of the point of connection to the installation either directly or indirectly. The Technical Advisor found that such an occurrence would pose a risk of potentially fatal electrocution to any line mechanic working on the low voltage overhead or underground service lines outside the Property boundary. The respondent failed to ensure the work was inspected by a licensed electrical inspector, as required for high-risk PEW, and failed to issue a Certificate of Compliance and/or an Electrical Safety Certificate. 

Outcome of the decision

A fine of $4,900 and costs of $250 were imposed. The respondent was also directed to undertake and pass a training course on testing run by an industry organisation, within six months of the date of the Board decision.

Case 3

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 or causing to be carried out PEW in a manner contrary to an enactment, failing to provide an Electrical Safety Certificate and providing a false or misleading return. 

The respondent was engaged to carry out PEW associated with the electrical connection and renovation of a one-bedroom flat. The respondent failed to provide RCD protection when required to do so and failed to provide adequate protection of the main earthing conductor and/ its connection to the earth electrode against mechanical damage and corrosion in breach of regulations 13, 20 and 59 of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010. The respondent also provided a false and misleading return in that the work was certified as completed lawfully when it was not, due to failure to comply with the requirements of the regulations. The respondent also failed to provide an Electrical Safety Certificate. 

Outcome of the decision

Costs of $250 were imposed.

Case 4

The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.

What happened

The offences were negligently creating a risk of serious harm in carrying out PEW and providing a false or misleading return.

The respondent was engaged to carry out PEW including supply and installation of main cabling, main earthing system, electrical switchboards, final sub-circuit wring and connection of electrical fittings.

The respondent failed to ensure measures were in place to prevent accidental direct or indirect contact with live parts of the electrical installation. The respondent also provided a Certificate of Compliance that contained incorrect information in that it did not include the names of the supervised persons who undertook some of the work. The respondent also falsely certified the PEW as having been carried out lawfully and safely because the respondent failed to carry out adequate testing and checks and because of the non-compliant nature of the PEW, it was not in fact performed lawfully or safely.

Outcome of the decision

Costs of $1,575 were imposed. The respondent was also ordered to complete a regulations course and sit and pass regulations exam within six months of the date of the decision.

Case 5

The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 143(b)(ii) and 143(f) of the Electricity Act 1992.

What happened

The offences were negligently creating a risk of serious harm in carrying out PEW and providing a false or misleading return.

The respondent was engaged to carry out PEW including the replacement and general electrical upgrade of fittings and conductors including an electricity supply pillar.

The respondent failed to undertake adequate electrical testing and visual inspection to verify the integrity and connection of the submain protective earthing conductor. The respondent also issued a Certificate of Compliance and Electrical Safety Certificate certifying compliance when the installation did not meet the required standards as elements of the work were not lawful and the installation was not electrically safe.

Outcome of the decision

A fine of $2,000 and costs of $250 were imposed.