Inspection report

[skatingsparks]

But I being the person responsible for the inspection and testing of the electrical installation, particulars of which are described in section 3 of the form, certify that inspection and testing were done in a accordance with this part of SANS 10142, that the results obtained and reflected on the report are correct.

The extent of my liability is limited to the installation described in section 3.

If I add a lighting point in a house I don't sign off the whole house.

[ians]

This why it gets complicated.

If I don't do the inspection report but I do the " repairs only" I only need to sign over the repair work I do as I did not do the inspection report. I would need charge the customer the full inspection report if I have to repair as per the list and sign over the entire installation.

As in the case I am busy with, there are indications that the inspection in incomplete, therefore the initial report should be declared not valid and incomplete so the inspector should not be paid.

[Leecatt]

But I being the person responsible for the inspection and testing of the electrical installation, particulars of which are described in section 3 of the form, certify that inspection and testing were done in a accordance with this part of SANS 10142, that the results obtained and reflected on the report are correct.

The extent of my liability is limited to the installation described in section 3.

If I add a lighting point in a house I don't sign off the whole house.

In fact, you do take responsibility for the whole house! Read section 9 of the electrical regulations. It's all there!

[ians]

No comments from Andy or Dave?

Leecat what you saying is customers who get an electrician to install 1 x additional plug socket can in fact use the COC when they sell their house according to section 9.

Just imagine that I fit a plug at the main DB at Kings park stadium and suddenly I am responsible for the entire stadium electrics, but there are only. 15 electrical contractors, not including aircon techs, plumbers doing geysers, council electricians doing stadium lights, and list just goes on.


I will try read section 9 today.

[ians]

Leecat please post section 9 on this thread or a page number with reference to the book etc.

Something else which makes signing over COC's a mine field and why i try do it as little as possible.

Companies which do this for a living would have an interesting challenge on their hands as sparks indicated by his comment " but i am only responsible for what i write in section 3"

Now here's the thing, a customer calls you to carry out an "inspection report on his/her property" they dont give you a list of items to be tested, you get in your vehicle and head to site.

You find a main DB with a load of circuit breakers you walk around do a visual inspection, take photos, carry out tests and make a fault list. The customer gives you the go ahead to fix some minor repairs and everyone is happy.
The new customer moves in and decided he wants some minor changes to the electrical installation.
I get called out and find that parts of the electrical installation are not safe:
A pool pump which is hidden under a pile of bricks, garden lights which have exposed wires etc etc etc (just using this as an example)
The Buyer decided to take the seller to court, which means you are called in to explain, but you indicate that you didnt see the pool pump and the owner didnt tell you about it.
What do you think would happen and who would be responsible for the repair cost and legal fees?

Taking into consideration that section 3 doesnt have a pool pump mentioned, nor the lights etc etc. Do think that would stand in court.

The lawyer would take you to the cleaners. Just because you didnt do your inspection properly doesnt clear you of liabilty.

What are your thoughts?

Another interesting point which i have noted recently, " i couldnt test certain areas because of restricted access". I wonder how a lawyer would take you the cleaners for this comment on your COC?

[ians]

Here is another example of not having access.

A stove point left exposed: (an incident which actually killed a new owners 2 year old child)

Customer buys a gas stove so they move the new gas stove to a new position. but when they disconnect and remove the old stove the wires are left exposed a big double door fridge is positioned in front of the old stove point so you cant see it.

the inspector is called out to carry out an inspection doesnt pull the big fridge out the way to see what is behind it. does the test, takes his pics etc. Wires are exposed and not touching, so no faults are detected.

The seller moves out, the removal company loads everything and their stuff is shipped to another country.

The new owner arrives at the house, the 2 year old runs into the kitchen.

Now you have a situation. Who was responsible for isolating that exposed wire and why did the inspector not test and make it safe. Part of the test is to check the operation of every single switch.

[Leecatt]

Leecat please post section 9 on this thread or a page number with reference to the book etc.

Something else which makes signing over COC's a mine field and why i try do it as little as possible.

Companies which do this for a living would have an interesting challenge on their hands as sparks indicated by his comment " but i am only responsible for what i write in section 3"

Now here's the thing, a customer calls you to carry out an "inspection report on his/her property" they dont give you a list of items to be tested, you get in your vehicle and head to site.

You find a main DB with a load of circuit breakers you walk around do a visual inspection, take photos, carry out tests and make a fault list. The customer gives you the go ahead to fix some minor repairs and everyone is happy.
The new customer moves in and decided he wants some minor changes to the electrical installation.
I get called out and find that parts of the electrical installation are not safe:
A pool pump which is hidden under a pile of bricks, garden lights which have exposed wires etc etc etc (just using this as an example)
The Buyer decided to take the seller to court, which means you are called in to explain, but you indicate that you didnt see the pool pump and the owner didnt tell you about it.
What do you think would happen and who would be responsible for the repair cost and legal fees?

Taking into consideration that section 3 doesnt have a pool pump mentioned, nor the lights etc etc. Do think that would stand in court.

The lawyer would take you to the cleaners. Just because you didnt do your inspection properly doesnt clear you of liabilty.

What are your thoughts?

Another interesting point which i have noted recently, " i couldnt test certain areas because of restricted access". I wonder how a lawyer would take you the cleaners for this comment on your COC?

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, 1993 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION REGULATIONS, a copy of which is freely available from here

[ians]

In the ideal world, this is how it should be done:

Every single electrical installation should have a COC. Much like servicing your car there should be re-inspections carried at specified intervals for example ever 5 years in the case of domestic and yearly in the case industry depending on to the type usage, cables vibrating loose etc.

The electrical supplier should enforce this rule or disconnect the supply if not done within a period of time and policed by them. That way every electrical installation with a legal connection will have a COC.

If you are called out to perform a task like fit an additional plug etc, you should merely add to the existing COC which should be valid for a period of time and transferred to the new owner if updated within a 2 year period.

All inspectors should have to do refresher course every 5 years at least if not more often.

If an inspector is found to have faulted on a COC or inspection report on more than 3 occasions that inspector should have to go for counselling (made to do a refresher course and pass a test) If he is found to have faulted again then his license should be suspended for a period of time.

Just imagine.

[Dave A]

The part that bugs me some when it comes to this "issuing of COC on existing installations" lark that hasn't been mentioned yet is - what standard are you supposed to apply?
The full SANS 10142-1 or just section 5 (for "reasonably safe")?

Just to stir the pot a little more...

[Leecatt]

The part that bugs me some when it comes to this "issuing of COC on existing installations" lark that hasn't been mentioned yet is - what standard are you supposed to apply?
The full SANS 10142-1 or just section 5 (for "reasonably safe")?

Just to stir the pot a little more...

Oh boy I'm gonna get nailed for this.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..Wait for it!............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................Its all there in section 9!

[ians]

Dave that is an interesting question because and old house which has old wiring would fall into certain categories (of section 9), but what about when the house being tested has a revamped kitchen for example or a new pool installed or electric fencing or an aircon or new gate motor and lights or downlights etc etc. It starts getting interesting. The rules are simple or should i say they are suppose to be, it is how the inspector interprets the rules and regulations at the time of test (a saying i hear a lot when the SANS book is discussed.)

For example you got a hang over from the night before and you have a really small roof space with piles of dirty untidy wiring or

You arrive at a a flat and the old lady who lives there has sold the flat and the money from the flat is going to pay for her survival for the rest of her life. The flat requires thousands of rands worth of repairs, in fact so much that it is going to leave her pennyless by the time you are finished, what do you do. In fact it was this flat which I made a decision to stop doing inspection reports for a living.

[Dave A]

Oh boy I'm gonna get nailed for this.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..Wait for it!............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................Its all there in section 9!

Ok. Here's a simple one for you to resolve then.

You are required to issue a COC on an existing electrical installation.

There is an open light fitting mounted on a wall in a bathroom (IP00). How far away from the bath must it be in order for you to be able to issue a sec. 9(2)(b) COC?
And please quote the relevant part of SANS 10142-1 you rely on in giving your answer.

[ians]

That one has nothing to do with section 9 Dave.

Certain factor would need to be taken into consideration, how old is the electrical installation? Has the bathroom been upgraded at any stage and if so when?

It makes no difference if it is on earth leakage or not because the fact that it is an open fitting and not enclosed in insulating material it cannot be mounted in zone 0 - 1 or 2

If it is in zone 3 so long as it complies with SANS 1042 - 1

I am busy installing a metal open chandelier in a bathroom at present

I am having a few issues with the lights fittings mounted on the wall 1.5 m above the bath tub. The light fitting company which is has supplied the light fittings for above the bath was given an instruction to supply SABS fittings as per B1 of the code for the application.
They supplied 2 fittings made of steel and glass which have no IP rating but have instructed the customer to just silicon the glass to seal to the steel frame. I am still waiting for the SABS letter and instruction in writing from the lighting company. I guess i am going to wait awhile.

[ELECT 1]

You guys are complicating things here.
My inspection fee is told upfront and payment on inspection.
I am very unlucky, as i have never found the perfect installation, always some defects, very minor, but if my name is on the
certificate, its my neck on the block, so nothing is minor.
So the inspection fee is paid, the list of defects and the price is issued to the customer.
I cant force the customer to use my services, but i give them the option. If you get some one else to do the work
then they will have to give you the COC for the whole installation. I dont do re tests. Very often its a family member that can twist two wires together and do the "job" which is seldom ok. I dont get involved.

[Dave A]

That one has nothing to do with section 9 Dave.

May I gently suggest it does. The standard required per section 9(2)(a) essentially means SANS 10142-1 has to be met in its entirety.
Section 9(2)(b) requires only that the general safety principles are met.

It makes no difference if it is on earth leakage or not because the fact that it is an open fitting and not enclosed in insulating material it cannot be mounted in zone 0 - 1 or 2

If it is in zone 3 so long as it complies with SANS 1042 - 1

If it is outside of zone 2, in terms of the bathroom specific section of SANS 10142-1 it must have ingress protection of IP21 as minimum when it is in zone 3 and beyond for as long as it is within the same room. Very clear cut.

But in a 9(2)(b) COC, I've heard it argued that the bathroom specific section is not part of the general safety principles.
So now what?