On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:52:40 +0000, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/03/2021 18:45, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:27:47 +0000, Fredxx
wrote:

On 24/03/2021 18:00, Tim+ wrote:
Scott wrote:
On 24 Mar 2021 17:43:56 GMT, Tim+ wrote:

Adrian Caspersz wrote:


That fusebox not made for that overload on that leg, maybe it should
have been installed on the right (full picture please!)

It?s been replaced now and I don?t think there are more pictures.

By a different electrician I hope?


Nope. Same one (which concerns me!).

Did you check if he used a torque screwdriver?

If he did, and he claim to have used the correct settings, he'll
effectively be absolved from blame.

Not necessarily. He can claim what he wants but if there is evidence
to the contrary the court will look at all the facts and circumstances
and determine on the balance of probabilities what actually occurred.

You are entirely correct, I was thinking from a practical viewpoint.

Given the wire is copper and connectors are brass, they have a different
thermal expansion coefficient. Even where a terminal is loose following
a thermal failure it would still be difficult to apportion blame to the
electrician rather than some other failure.

If he says he tightened up with his magic screwdriver to the correct
torque, how would you prove otherwise.

That's the role of the expert witness. You would need to see what
his/her report says before deciding whether to proceed to proof.