Crossed Wires

2 July, 2010

BS7671 is now two years old and this is the key standard for electrical safety. When it came in, it both increased the safety standard required and clarified much of the detail explaining how to meet it. However, while the British Standard may be watertight, it would appear that the process of achieving compliance with it is far less straightforward.

There are several dilemmas in electrical safety. For example, the scope and specification of testing, including frequency of inspection and test, is commonly debated. Different experts recommend different approaches and getting comparable quotations for testing regimes can prove a challenge in itself. However, there is one thing that the experts appear to agree on – and that’s the danger that the faults found during testing aren’t addressed.

Putting this plainly, it could mean that a site has been tested, dangerous faults found (including those that are life-threatening) and then left untreated. For the duty holder it means stepping from ignorance into negligence. If an accident or incident subsequently occurred, then it could be clearly proven that the duty holder had been informed of the danger by the test reporting and that, through their negligence, the identified dangers or risks remained undealt with. The Corporate Manslaughter Act springs to mind.

Paul Caddick, operations and technical director of PHS Compliance, explains why this may occur: ‘Many busy facilities managers focus so intently on getting their testing done that when the reports come in they skim read them at best and then file them.’

He continues: ‘While the report may state “unsatisfactory”, it’s not immediately obvious and, in fairness to duty holders, it’s reasonably easy to miss. That means that there could be a long list of coded faults being reported, but unless the test report is read, understood and acted upon, their journey to compliance is only part complete.’

Risk assessment
Taking the compliance process step by step, the first thing that the HSE recommends is to conduct a risk assessment to establish hazards and necessary precautions. That assessment should inform what is subsequently done in terms of a test regime, and this should be conducted according to that assessment and in line with IEE recommendations by a ‘competent person’ (defined in BS7671). That testing will result in reporting, which will, in turn, inform the duty holder if there are any faults and specify whether the installation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If ‘satisfactory’, then compliance has been achieved.

More likely is the report finding of ‘unsatisfactory’, and in this case, it is necessary to appoint a qualified expert to rectify any and all code one and code two faults, as a bare minimum. A minor works certificate should be sought from the expert undertaking the remedial work for repairs completed and these certificates, when held together with the original unsatisfactory report, form the proof of compliance.

Some suppliers have started to streamline this process, but for many this somewhat awkward arrangement is the method of the moment.

From an objective point of view, this process may be sequentially logical, but it certainly isn’t user friendly. The gaps between steps in the process can be fallen into and the associated documentation appears to be far from ideal.

So could there be a better way to achieve and prove compliance? Two experts from different sectors of the industry give their views (see boxes), while over the page the HSE describes some of the more dangerous lapses in electrical safety it has encountered, including an entire building full of residents that had no earth connection provided...

Compliance expert’s comment
Tim Beardsmore, commercial director, PHS Compliance
The electrical safety compliance process can be fraught with failure and the current paper trail isn’t helpful to duty holders. Many, many people mistake their test report for a pass certificate and think that they’re compliant. It’s not and they’re not – in electrical safety there is currently no such thing as a certificate.

The test report is a thorough technical document that sets out details of the testing conducted and the results found. Faults are reported and coded one to four, code one indicating ‘requires urgent attention’ and code two indicating ‘requires improvement’.

All faults reported in either of these categories now mean that a periodic test report would be recorded as ‘unsatisfactory’. The overall assessment of the installation would only be found by scrutinising page two in section G of the test report, where a box states either ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’ – suggesting that the site isn’t electrically safe. This single-word entry is a crucial piece of information that isn’t immediately obvious, and countless people miss it altogether, sometimes with fatal implications.

The test report format that we use is the industry standard one provided by the NICEIC and derived from the model forms of the British Standard. This is the one that most professionals use. And so we’re all somewhat bound and hampered by this current system. To mitigate, we supplement the test report by sending specific notification to those organisations we have tested for, alerting them if there’s an unsatisfactory rating and suggesting options for rectification. But it would be better if there was a clearer and more sensible set of documentation to help guide duty holders through the process.

In my opinion, the IET [formerly the IEE] needs to address this issue and provide documentation that creates a simple and robust process. This could be as simple as the introduction of a pass certificate for electrical safety for the site after remedials have been done, just like an MOT certificate. Insurers could then be encouraged to ask for proof of this document before they issue cover – it would reduce their risk and provide the final link in the chain for safety.

Electrical contractor’s comment
Paul Roberts, deputy managing director, CF Roberts
Compliance certainly means more than just testing, but that’s the first place that many organisations would fall foul of legislative requirements. So many have inadequate maintenance plans or no plans at all to deal with their electrical safety obligations.

For instance, I can immediately think of an example of an electrocution in a venue in the licensed trade where we were subsequently called in to check the fixed wiring when it as found that tests were out of date. Even those that have up-todate testing may, whether wittingly or unwittingly, fail to achieve compliance as so many organisations halt once testing is done and either ignore necessary remedial repair requirements, or undertake this work over such an extended period of time that they are leaving themselves – and the users of their site – at significant risk.

Hidden horrors
Each year about 1000 accidents at work are reported involving electric shock or burns, and around 30 of those are fatal, according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Guilty parties in real-life cases obviously never want to be named, but one shocking true story included a public building for hundreds of residents that didn’t have an earth connected for the entire site. The potential risk of electric shock to all those using and living in the building was considerable and could have been caused by something as simple as touching parts of appliances or devices plugged in anywhere within the building. This huge and potentially lethal issue was not visible to the naked eye, and professional electrical testing was essential to expose the problem.

Another more recent case involved a national chain who had never received the test reporting from their FM supplier. The essential remedial work required went undone and the unaddressed faults caused not only an electrical fire but also a fatal electrocution. Both could have been avoided if the company in question had understood what was required to achieve electrical safety compliance.

On a smaller scale, there are reported cases of lights without an earth in the circuit, meaning that anyone reaching to change the bulb would have a high chance of touching the metal casing of the fitting with potentially fatal consequences. And, unfortunately for employers and those responsible for premises, the danger is compounded by the actions of those using their site. Examples are numerous and include multi-plug adaptors placed on radiators, causing melting and exposing live parts, and overloaded extension leads where connected portable appliances like kettles have been left without earthing, and hence a considerable danger to the user.