Hi I know that electrical work should be carried out by a "competent person" and I count myself as being competent though I am not a qualified electrician . However how would an insurance company treat work carried out in my home by myself? If there was a fire or person electrocuted even if not directly from the work that I had done but would the fact that I had done some work count against me? Would the insurance company still cover a claim?
What about doing some work for a friend - putting in an extra socket, unpaid. I would be concerned that if he had an electrical fault unrelated to the socket that I had put in his insurance company would refuse to consider a claim because I had made an alteration.
How do insurance companies treat DIY for yourself or a friend?
If it's a fire caused by an electrical fault and the fire investigator found that it was your work that had caused it, how would you feel ? Are you covered by liabilities insurance for doing this type or similar work ? If the fire investigator found that the fire started in a totally different room from where you had been working, but that the work you carried out on the circuit caused the overload because of you didn't know that the circuit couldn't take the load you applied to it, how would you feel ?
Would your friend find it in his heart to forgive you because you were trying to help out ? Would your family say "It's OK, you weren't to know" ?
Maybe that's why the government are trying to introduce new legislation to make it law that any work be certificated by a qualified fully trained person, and are trying to stop the rot of the DIYer on this type work. It is dangerous to play around with electrical, gas and building installations if you don't know what and how things work on them.
Some of this is wise but the OP didn't disagree with your final paragraph, he judges that he is competent and that he does know "what and how things work". I consider myself the same but, for reasons you state further up, I no longer do any "helping out a friend" work (not that I ever did much). You don't know what they are then going to do and you are right, you really don't want to be mixed up in that - it's just not worth it.
In addition, the OP may be, and regard himself, as competent. In the eyes of the law competency is rarely (if ever) self-judged. If you have no documentary proof that you are competent then, by definition, you are not a competent person (no matter what level of skills or knowledge you have, which may be considerable in excess of some "competent" people). That's just the way it is and the situation is directly related to the instances of completely incompetent electrical work found.
If you judge yourself to be competent, stick to your own stuff, get anything other than minor works inspected if possible, and live with it!
But that wasn't his question: the situation he asked about was where the investigator established that it wasn't related to his work.
Again, that's not the situation he was asking about -- you've premised a situation where the cause of the fire was *related* to his work. He was asking about the situation where the fire *wasn't* related to his work.
Your advice is sound, but it applies to situations which, as I read it, he was specifically trying to exclude from the discussion.
But these situations can't be ruled out of this type of discussion. Peter says he feels competent in doing this type job for himself and others, but if he is competent enough he shouldn't be having these doubts. He'd know if the work that he carried out was up to specifications of the current electrical installers institute codes of practice that he studied before carrying out the work. If it happened that any qualified person had the same doubts, then surely they shouldn't be doing this type of job anymore.
Competency is measured in the confidence you have in yourself that the work you do is fully compliant with safe practice. And the security of knowing that the work is done properly shouldn't be an issue. So to ask if an insurance company would take into consideration that the person doing the work is not competent, to me, is a stupid question. Especially if that person is not confident in the work that they themselves carried out.
If you have any doubt in the work that you carried out, then you should leave it well alone. More especially where the health and safety of others is a big issue.
Insurance companies think they are a law in themselves, but if they refused a legitimate claim because they found out (how?) that DIY work had been carried out, *and that work was satisfactory*, you could sue them. Different matter with gas where the law states you can't work on anyone else's installation, and must be competent to work on your own. No such laws yet with electricity.
"Peter" wrote | However how would an insurance company treat work carried out in | my home by myself? | If there was a fire or person electrocuted even if not directly | from the work that I had done but would the fact that I had done | some work count against me? Would the insurance company still | cover a claim?
It may be a condition of your insurance policy that all wiring complies with the IEE wiring regulations (which call for periodic inspection and test). I haven't heard of a claim being refused on these grounds, but it's possible.
However, if someone is electrocuted, as well as civil liability you may be looking at criminal prosecution, which may be a rather more serious matter.
I think the "doing work for a friend" will have to disappear, though doing it yourself under BCO control will carry on in much the same way as has become the case with gas now.
That is (IME) a dangerous statement. Far too many people are perfectly confident in their own work and yet would be judged by others to fall short of competence. At the moment electrical work is the place where this seems to be scariest, but it can happen anywhere. Of course, personal safety needn't be the only problem - the small matter of the DIY-ed conservatory at our last house (DIY-ed by a previous owner I hasten to add) for example, where to be brutal the thing really needed demolishing and starting again even though it was less than 10 years old. It wasn't about to fall down, but other problems could cost thousands to rectify.
Ideally competence should be a quantitative measurement, rather than a qualitative judgement but in practice this is difficult. At the moment really the only measure of electrical competence is to pass a couple of C&G exams. Getting the NICEIC to "ok" your work is a good second best, but think for a moment about just how many 17 year-old newly qualified drivers are *actually* competent in all aspects of driving alone?
Not quite sure what you mean here.
Of course they would - if a major fire was investigated and a cause found, the company would do anything it could to avoid paying :-)
Hmmm yes, but who would own up to that? Without proof, that is.
Absolutely. If you have no doubt though and yet the work is not to standard...
Having said that, we must remember the statistics about deaths and injuries caused by faulty fixed-wiring. Was it Andy who supplied these or Peter? The electrical system in this country is very, very safe. For most problems it takes more than one fault for something to be dangerous.
The most common fault I've come across in my time has to be inappropriate cable. Usually it is size: 1mm2 as a spur supplying a potential load of 3.5kW+, or the client who wanted to install an all-electric cooker using 2.5mm2. Occasionally it is 2-core cable where a CPC is required or T&E with the CPC not connected.
These faults are not necessarily immediately dangerous (the 1mm2 spur worked fine over two or three winters before I ripped it out) but will lie in wait to "bite" at some future date. At another job recently, I restored the earth to half the upstairs lights (it was disconnected in one junction) only to have the fuse blow. It didn't take long to find the culprit - a switched live which was twisted together in a junction box rather than under a terminal and which had, over time, moved into contact with the earth in the box.
To make matters worse, this was for the earthed, metal cased lighting in a non-bonded bathroom, one light (normal R80 eyeball spot) about a foot away from the shower head.
Not sure where this is going so I'll stop. Basically I agree with your argument, but dislike the "confidence in your competence" statement.
I do find the original question interesting, though.
As you say, insurance companies generally try to avoid paying out.
Presumably they could argue that the wiring wasn't to code -- and therefore broke the insurance terms -- if any of the correct sleeves and markings of wires weren't in place. (Has that argument ever been tried? I don't think I've ever come across an installation where
*every* earth in *every* socket was sleeved, nor where all the switch wires to all the lights were correctly marked.)
So my suspicion is that some of the companies would be more than happy to try the argument of "well, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fire, but as one of the spurs in one of the bedrooms wasn't cleared by a certificate-carrying electrician with liability insurance, we ain't payin'...."
How would an investigator ever prove that the work was recent? Only a fool would say that they had just been doing electrical work!
Won't that make it a big problem for elcectricians, needing to check all their qualifications, update courses every 5 years or so, I don't see it ever happening for real
The work doesn't have to be recent. It could have been done years before it caused a fire. The point is that it was your work that caused the fire and the investigator found that it was this installation that caused the break out of the fire.
It still comes back to the person who carried out the installation.
But that's what any professional tradesperson does. They never stop learning their trade because it changes by the day sometimes. So if the current specifications say that I can't work on certain installations because I don't have the qualifications to do so, then I can't work on it, simple as that. If then, I did ignore the rules and carried out work on something that caused injury or worse, and it was then found that I had ignored the rules governing that type of installation. I could be, and probably would if an insurance company was involved, taken to court and sued to within an inch of my life savings.
So, if you have any doubt in your ability to carry out a certain type of work, and you have no one to supervise and inspect the work you've carried to make sure it is done satisfactorily, then leave it alone. Especially if it could mean other peoples lives.
If this advice were followed in DIY matters, most DIY would not occur. And I think DIY is overall a very good thing. Thus I would question the above. I do see its merits, but also I see problems with it.
As far as electrical work goes, in the great majrity of cases it should be possible for most untrained persons to find out the details of what is required, and do it themselves without endangering anyone. But... there are some who are not willing to find out, some too stupid to follow good advice, and some who just dont know what theyre doing.
Finally, competence is not a question of whether youve done an NVQ in electrical wiring. Its somewhat more complicated than that.
Very true in all you're saying, but a good majority of DIYers have the attitude of "That'll do, it's only doing that" because they don't take time to find out how it should be done safely and securely. And, as you say, competency is more than just knowing how it's done.
Hi Many good points. Just to clarify - I do consider myself pretty competent and have done three total rewires incl designing the circutry and putting in the consumer units but had them tested and certified before going live!!
My main concern is what do insurance companies think of diy and their attitude when something goes wrong as it inevitably must if many people alter electrical systems.
Putting in the odd socket may be alright - or is it? what happens if there is a problem?
It is often difficult to get an electrician to do a simple job as one socket. Are electricians that do small jobs such as this fully certified and have insurance? Should people ensure that they do?
Is it time to bring in a similar scheme to the gas CORGI?
regards Peter
Hi Many good points, many thanks.
Just to clarify - I do consider myself pretty competent and have done three total rewires incl designing the circutry and putting in the consumer units but had them tested and certified before going live!!
My main concern is what do insurance companies think of diy and their attitude when something goes wrong as it inevitably must if many people alter electrical systems.
Putting in the odd socket may be alright - or is it? what happens if there is a problem?
It is often difficult to get an electrician to do a simple job as one socket. Are electricians that do small jobs such as this fully certified and have insurance? Should people ensure that they do?
Is it time to bring in a similar scheme to the gas CORGI?
What really gets me about all of this is the way that 'regulations' define competency - which is something no doubt that insurance companies would hinge a claim upon.
I have an HNC in Electronic and Electrical Engineering, I'm a fellow of my institute, I served a four-year formal traineship, and I've been in the industry nearly 35 years. I have to work to IEE regs whenever I do an equipment installation, and in my workplace I am a H&S supervisor, I work on equipment with voltages higher than mains almost every day, but - technically - I'm not competent to fit a 13A plug because I'm not a 'qualified' electrician.
I designed and installed my own burglar alarm system using professional components (i.e. from an alrm specialist, not a DIY shed) but my insurer will not accept it as (a) it was not installed by a member of the relevant body and (b) I don't have an annual maintenance contract with a registered company.
In both instances I would suggest that I am far better qualified than 'official' holders of such posts because I understand - as distinct from 'know' - what I'm doing, but will any commercial organisation recognise that? Will they **********!
I think one reason the rules are more stringent for gas is that a duff electrical installation can injure or kill an individual, or more rarely cause a fire which will gut a house, but a duff gas installation can cause an explosion which will take out a block of flats.
Granted that a fire can also take out a block of flats, but with smoke alarms and time to spread, there is usually time to evacuate.
A gas explosion has a more immediate (instant) impact.
Faulty gas heating appliances are also more likely to kill than faulty electrical appliances - and CO poisoning strikes at a distance from the appliance. There are no safety fuses for gas.
Interesting to contemplate what and how much you could do in the home if regulation came in. Presumably you couldn't change any switches, sockets or light fittings but all these would have to be fitted by electricians. Sale of adapters, extension leads and distribution boards banned because this could result in an unsafe electrical configuration? I think that the average householder is far more likely to want to change an electrical configuration thatn a gas configuration. The number of gas appliances is generally far less than the number of electrical outlets, especially when you include lighting circuits.
I wonder if an alternative is to have an 'electrical driving test' where householders have to attend (evening?) classes and pass a written and practical examination which authorises them to undertake limited electrical maintenance in the home, with any major work supervised and checked by a qualified person.
It's already underway as Part P of the Building Regulations.
The government has presented it as being necessary because of the number of electrically related accidents.
The reality is that virtually all of these are to do with appliances and appliance wiring which are not covered.
The truth of the matter is that it is mainly a means to pull more people from the construction industry into regulated organisations in order to be able to identify and reach them for tax purposes.
Insurance companies will like this because it will present them with yet another excuse not to pay out. Lawyers will also be pleased because they will have many opportunites when lawsuits are issued.
The real problem is that as a society, we are risk averse to the Nth degree, even when the risk is almost immeasurably small, as it certainly is with competent DIY electrical work.
Legislation will do nothing to address the DIY bodger and the consequences of his work because that will continue.
The right thing to do would be to provide for low cost education for DIYers to cover typical work that is done in the home. This is not rocket science and could easily be handled through evening classes etc.
The second thing to do would be to make wiring inspection part of normal house conveyancing so that most (but never all) risk is removed for future purchasers.
Forcing people to use tradesmen registered with questionnable trade organisations or the necessity to involve building control is not the right approach in terms of helping the consumer.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.