Please ensure your electrics are up to date!!!!!!!!!

inspect

A very very tragic story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198470/Young-mother-electrocuted-live-tap-ran-bath-familys-new-home.html

I feel it is relevant to this thread.

gromituk

In what way do you feel it is relevant?

inspect

I’d have thought it was perfectly obvious.

This sad case highlights the possible dangerous of an electrical system and the importance of having a competent person inspect an installation for safety – not for compliance with the latest regulations but for safety – there is a difference.

Some highlights from the news story. I think the last two points are particularly relevant to this thread.

'The 35-year-old volt trip switch to the main fuse board was not working,'

'The main earth bond to the entire home had corroded though - meaning there was no earth in the event of a fault to ground lethal voltage.

'There was not enough supplemental earth bonding in the bathroom, and catastrophically the ageing oil-filled heater in the bathroom was also laced with faults.

'The combination of the lack of earth bonding and the faulty heater created a lethal charge to the taps -

'Investigations established that an electrical heater at the property was defective and that the electric wiring at the property was not earthed, the combined effect of the two rendering the taps live,'

'As we have learnt our cost, a fault in an electrical installation is every bit as dangerous as a faulty gas supply

The case was a reminder to everyone of the potential perils of electricity in the home.

gromituk

So what is your advice to the rest of us? How likely do you think we are to suffer the same fate? And if we pay for an electrical safety inspection and as a result cannot afford to MoT our car, then will we put ourselves more or less at risk?

My point is that I think that only the most stupid aren't aware that electricity can be dangerous, but it's all a balance of risk. You call yourself "inspect" - are you in the trade? Do you make your living from electrical inspections? Do you have a vested interest?

baldelectrician

I see a bit of this.

I have stopped dealing with a couple of landlords as they do not want to make a house safe it it costs money, they just go to a company (a local handyman does electrical checks for some letting agents I know and he does not have test gear- he just looks and writes a few lines)

Some people do not want to hear- went to a house the day and the guy had a 40A RCD protecting his whole house (a RCD of this type have a high failure rate under normal conditions never mind years of partial overload). Guy said 'I don't care about that I just want another socket putting in- obvoiusly I indicated he use someone else as my standards are too high for him (would rather walk away from a job rather than leave a shoddy job)

You takes your chances in life getting things checked out is a personal matter.
It is a liability matter if you are renting a property to a tenant

jonnysparks

gromituk wrote: »

So what is your advice to the rest of us? How likely do you think we are to suffer the same fate? And if we pay for an electrical safety inspection and as a result cannot afford to MoT our car, then will we put ourselves more or less at risk?

My point is that I think that only the most stupid aren't aware that electricity can be dangerous, but it's all a balance of risk. You call yourself "inspect" - are you in the trade? Do you make your living from electrical inspections? Do you have a vested interest?

fair enough point but lets consider this
yes most people know electricity can be dangerous however reading the article the lady in question was renting a property and surely the landlord in running a business is ultimately responsible for making sure that the property is safe for use,just like if you mot'd a car you would naturally assume that it was safe to drive or if you got on a plane you would expect it to get to it's destination.
yes this is an extreme case and yes by my user name i am also in the trade .
the point i am making is that if it's your own house and your own money then that is your choice what is most important to your financial position but if you are paying for a service. ie a home that you would expect to be safe then i would not consider that a stupid assumption to be made.
in saying this the article would prabably have been better posted in the buying renting selling section

inspect

gromituk wrote: »

So what is your advice to the rest of us? How likely do you think we are to suffer the same fate? And if we pay for an electrical safety inspection and as a result cannot afford to MoT our car, then will we put ourselves more or less at risk?

My point is that I think that only the most stupid aren't aware that electricity can be dangerous, but it's all a balance of risk. You call yourself "inspect" - are you in the trade? Do you make your living from electrical inspections? Do you have a vested interest?

My advice- Better safe than sorry.

“And if we pay for an electrical safety inspection and as a result cannot afford to MoT our car, then will we put ourselves more or less at risk?” – that’s just silly

“My point is that I think that only the most stupid aren't aware that electricity can be dangerous.” Another silly statement, I doubt very much that the poor lady was stupid.

This death could have been avoided if the electrical installation had been inspected by a competent person. The installation was inspected by the landlord but I guess he thought he knew it all too.

I am in the trade and I inspect and install gas, electrical and water services for a living, for that reason I consider myself qualified to discuss and post on this topic. I have no link to my company so I’m not promoting myself or my business - just promoting safety. I thought it would be a good thing for professionals to post on a DIY forum, should it only be left for unqualified people to offer advice? As the old saying goes – a little knowledge is dangerous.

Generally people think that if an appliance works when it's plugged in then the electrics must be ok. This is not the case, when testing we are checking to make sure that under a fault condition the electrics disconnect safely without causing any harm to the user. In other words before you get a lethal shock.

Let’s put it another way - take a vented heating system, the ones with the water tanks in the attic. Normally these work fine everyday but if the tank was to overflow you’d want the overflow pipe to take the water away, dispersing it safely. You wouldn’t want it to come through your ceiling would you? Now would you fit a tank without an overflow pipe? No, even if it might never get used you’d want one just in case. It’s the same with electrics there are certain parts that act like an overflow pipe, they may never be used but if a fault was to arise you’d want them in place to make sure that the electricity (current) flowed away from you rather than through you. To be simplistic many electrical installations have been fitted without an overflow pipe.

All I’m saying is, for peace of mind, if you’re electrical system has never been tested or has been tested over ten years ago; get a competent person to check it out for you. Where’s the harm in that?

The worst kinds of accidents are the ones that could have been prevented.

Mary_Hartnell

The bathroom had an oil filled radiator, presumably permanently wired and screwed to the wall?
The heater's permanent electric socket was one of those with a lever out fuse holder and in that fuse holder there should should have been a brown 13 amp fuse BUT it was "wrong" - what was it fitted with ?
The insulation on the heater had failed and electricity was leaking down the heater's earth wire?
Presumably somewhere the earth wire was clamped to the copper cold water pipe?
For some reason of "corrosion" this copper pipe no longer allowed the electricity to run freely to the ground?
As well as fuses and an earth, the property was fitted with an earth leakage circuit breaker. This too was faulty? Do we know why?
The victim had grasped the metal taps with both hands. One tap had been electrified by the current that should have leaked to earth, blown the fuse and tripped the circuit breaker and had done none of these ?
However the other tap formed a good earth and the current ran up one arm, through the chest and down the other arm of the victim. The muscle spasm would have clamped the victims hands to the taps and the electrical "jolts" would have stopped her heart?
Have I more or less understood what happened?
There are two electrical failures: Insulation breakdown in the heater and earth circuit breakdown in the clamp or in the piping (where copper could have been replaced with plastic)?
In addition there have been three safety devices that have failed to do their job. Two fuses, one in the socket and one for the circuit (30 amp?) and the earth leakage circuit breaker?
Presumably the landlord could have discovered that there was something wrong by the simple procedure of buying one of those testing plugs and discovered that the home had no effective earth?
I don't know what sort of old fashioned circuit breaker is fitted, but mine has a little red button marked "test". Poke that and the whole house gets cut off (or not if its faulty)?
So never mind calling in an electrician, the landlord had obviously not taken the simplest of precautions?
Have I understood the situation?

AdrianW2

The fact that this story is national news demonstrates how unlikely an event it is.

IIRC correctly there is one death by electrocution per year.

Contrast that with 5.5 deaths per year of children under 5 through drowning in the bath.

Or with the 100 or so deaths a year caused by defective car maintenance (that figure is single vehicle, and so ignores accidents in which defective cars played a causal role), and yet MSE encourages DIY car maintenance.

gromituk

inspect, I've no problem with you posting on this forum. However, just as some amateurs are overconfident with their limited knowledge, some professionals can give the impression that they know it all and the views of non-professionals are to be dismissed because they understand nothing.

I don't think that an inspection every ten years or so is an unreasonable thing to do. Nor would I be against a compulsory electrical inspection for rented properties, but to expect one annually would seem like overkill (ha ha).

Most accidents could have been prevented - but it's necessary to weigh up the risks in order to make sure that the best balance is achieved overall. You can give me examples until the cows come home, but that won't alter the fact. Why is my example "silly"?