Referring to the case of the death by electrocution of the daughter of MP
Jenny Tonge:

Does anyone know if the "builder" who carried out the installation of the
cable 10mm below the surface of the plaster, unprotected and running
diagonally, faced any kind of action from the HSE or similar? I know the HSE
are keen on taking action on building sites etc where dangerous practices
have occurred.

When I was doing my C&Gs in Electrical Installation and Electronics
Servicing in the 1980's we were told by lecturers that after our exams we
would be considered as "somewhat" qualified, and would therefore be liable
if we carried out electrical work which caused death or injury to a third
party. Does this liability extend to criminal law, or simply a way for the
family to seek redress through civil law?

To my mind, the builder who installed a cable to supply a cooker hood,
represented himself to be competent to carry out this work. Would it be any
different if a roofer installed roof tiles without fixings which slid off
the roof and killed a third party?

Another thought crossed my mind with regard to Part P. We have a utility
room with a tiled walls, worktop, sink, gas heating boiler, two freezers,
washing machine, tumble drier etc. It's not our kitchen as it has no cooker,
and no food is stored there. Why is this treated any differently to our
kitchen for the purpose of Part P, surely the same risks exist? If I move
the cooker and the food out of the kitchen, can I legally work on the
electrics until I move the cooker back in?

In article
, Doctor D
wrote:
Does anyone know if the "builder" who carried out the
installation of the cable 10mm below the surface of the
plaster, unprotected and running diagonally, faced any kind of
action from the HSE or similar?

AFAIK not. The fatality, as far as one can judge, came down to
three things: (a) the (mis)location of said cable; (b) the fact
that the towel rail was screwed into it with no check being made
for embedded cables (IIRC the restricted zone rule is fairly new
so an older cable could have been there); and (c) the fact that
various people had been getting shocks off said rail but this was
ignored.

So if you were to be prosecuted I suspect your lawyer would be
asking for the installer of the towel rail (JT's SiL) to be made
a joint defendant. Why all the reports were so reticent about
naming the firm who installed the hood I don't know.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In message ,
Doctor D writes

Another thought crossed my mind with regard to Part P. We have a utility
room with a tiled walls, worktop, sink, gas heating boiler, two freezers,
washing machine, tumble drier etc. It's not our kitchen as it has no cooker,
and no food is stored there. Why is this treated any differently to our
kitchen for the purpose of Part P, surely the same risks exist? If I move
the cooker and the food out of the kitchen, can I legally work on the
electrics until I move the cooker back in?


I understood that the sink was the primary determining factor in the
definition of a kitchen.

On a related note, I believe there are rules about the placement of
power sockets near kitchen sinks. Do the rules extend to prohibiting the
replacement of a sink which has sockets closer than the current rules
allow?
--
Joe

I understood that the sink was the primary determining factor in the
definition of a kitchen.


So I can blame the estate agent! Yippee! Two kitchens and no utility room!

In message , Joe
writes
On a related note, I believe there are rules about the placement of
power sockets near kitchen sinks. Do the rules extend to prohibiting
the replacement of a sink which has sockets closer than the current
rules allow?

There are no specific rules, though general stuff about them being
sensibly placed in relation to the sink.
--
Chris French, Leeds

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article
, Doctor D
wrote:
Does anyone know if the "builder" who carried out the
installation of the cable 10mm below the surface of the
plaster, unprotected and running diagonally, faced any kind of
action from the HSE or similar?


I would have thought the IEE might also be in the dock if the only
mechanical protection was PVC channeling. They insisted for a while that
all metallic mechanical protection must be earthed so ensuring any competant
electrician used PVC mechanical protection instead!

AFAIK not. The fatality, as far as one can judge, came down to
three things: (a) the (mis)location of said cable; (b) the fact
that the towel rail was screwed into it with no check being made
for embedded cables (IIRC the restricted zone rule is fairly new
so an older cable could have been there); and (c) the fact that
various people had been getting shocks off said rail but this was
ignored.

So if you were to be prosecuted I suspect your lawyer would be
asking for the installer of the towel rail (JT's SiL) to be made
a joint defendant. Why all the reports were so reticent about
naming the firm who installed the hood I don't know.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Doctor D" wrote in message
...
I understood that the sink was the primary determining factor in the
definition of a kitchen.


So I can blame the estate agent! Yippee! Two kitchens and no utility room!

You don't want that. We bought a house that did have two kitchens (was once
two houses) and had to have one removed before we could complete as a
condition of the mortgage.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:12:06 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article
, Doctor D
wrote:
Does anyone know if the "builder" who carried out the
installation of the cable 10mm below the surface of the
plaster, unprotected and running diagonally, faced any kind of
action from the HSE or similar?

AFAIK not. The fatality, as far as one can judge, came down to
three things: (a) the (mis)location of said cable; (b) the fact
that the towel rail was screwed into it with no check being made
for embedded cables (IIRC the restricted zone rule is fairly new
so an older cable could have been there); and (c) the fact that
various people had been getting shocks off said rail but this was
ignored.

So if you were to be prosecuted I suspect your lawyer would be
asking for the installer of the towel rail (JT's SiL) to be made
a joint defendant. Why all the reports were so reticent about
naming the firm who installed the hood I don't know.

One guess. They were NICEIC registered........?






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:03:59 UTC, "Mike" wrote:

You don't want that. We bought a house that did have two kitchens (was once
two houses) and had to have one removed before we could complete as a
condition of the mortgage.

Our house had two kitchens (it had been in multiple occupation,
informally, no separate front door, since 1922).

We took one out a few years ago. Recently had the house revalued by the
original surveyor, who still had his notes from 10 years ago! He said
that the removal of the kitchen had DECREASED the value...!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Tony Bryer wrote:

So if you were to be prosecuted I suspect your lawyer would be
asking for the installer of the towel rail (JT's SiL) to be made
a joint defendant. Why all the reports were so reticent about
naming the firm who installed the hood I don't know.

I got the feeling from some of the bits I read that the misrouting of
the cable was only "slight" - in that it did go a little out of zone,
but was still mostly in line with the socket, rather than the 45 degree
impression that some reports have given.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:03:59 UTC, "Mike" wrote:

You don't want that. We bought a house that did have two kitchens (was
once
two houses) and had to have one removed before we could complete as a
condition of the mortgage.

Our house had two kitchens (it had been in multiple occupation,
informally, no separate front door, since 1922).

We took one out a few years ago. Recently had the house revalued by the
original surveyor, who still had his notes from 10 years ago! He said
that the removal of the kitchen had DECREASED the value...!

It does - it makes it a single occupancy which is what the mortgage company
need for security on the loan.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:34:23 UTC, "Mike" wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:03:59 UTC, "Mike" wrote:

You don't want that. We bought a house that did have two kitchens (was
once
two houses) and had to have one removed before we could complete as a
condition of the mortgage.

Our house had two kitchens (it had been in multiple occupation,
informally, no separate front door, since 1922).

We took one out a few years ago. Recently had the house revalued by the
original surveyor, who still had his notes from 10 years ago! He said
that the removal of the kitchen had DECREASED the value...!

It does - it makes it a single occupancy which is what the mortgage company
need for security on the loan.

I don't follow that....!

We took out a mortgage when we bought the house. It was valued by the
building society's surveyor.

We recently took out a second mortgage with the same building society,
and they used the same surveyor.

So they had enough security on the loan the first time, and much more
than enough the second time, this being ten years later and quite a
small loan. So it didn't bother them at all, and it was only mentioned
in passing anyway.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:34:23 UTC, "Mike" wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 00:03:59 UTC, "Mike" wrote:

You don't want that. We bought a house that did have two kitchens
(was
once
two houses) and had to have one removed before we could complete as
a
condition of the mortgage.

Our house had two kitchens (it had been in multiple occupation,
informally, no separate front door, since 1922).

We took one out a few years ago. Recently had the house revalued by
the
original surveyor, who still had his notes from 10 years ago! He said
that the removal of the kitchen had DECREASED the value...!

It does - it makes it a single occupancy which is what the mortgage
company
need for security on the loan.

I don't follow that....!


If there is a second kitchen then there is the possibility of a subletting.
It is usually a condition of mortgages that no part of the house is sublet
as this would make it difficult for them to repossess quickly if a problem
arose. Hence we had to remove the second kitchen.

Of course once one has the house one could always install five kitchens but
that's another story :-)

Tony Bryer wrote:

(IIRC the restricted zone rule is fairly new
so an older cable could have been there);

Yes, it was introduced in an amendment to the 15th Edition which took
effect from 12th June 1987.

--
Andy