Disciplinary cases - August 2020
The Board has been able to continue with prosecutions of persons who carry out illegal prescribed electrical work since the Courts reopened for business. In the most recent case, Naveen Kumaran of Auckland was convicted on charges of performing unauthorised PEW and holding himself out as registered electricians under the Electricity Act 1992.
Mr Kumaran advertised his ability to carry out electrical and maintenance work in the New Zealand Herald. After engaging Mr Kumaran to install lights and switches at an address in Browns Bay, the homeowners had concerns with the work and, on investigation, they found out that Mr Kumaran was not a registered electrician authorised to carry out the work and reported this to the EWRB.
Mr Kumaran had previously been prosecuted by the Board for similar offending. The Court, on this occasion, fined him $7,650 and ordered that he pay court costs and solicitor’s costs after he pleaded guilty to the charges. Electrical workers are asked to report any unauthorised persons who hold themselves out as being able to carry out PEW to the EWRB so Court action can be taken.
The Board will, in the next month or so, be publishing its complaint decisions on its website. Publication of disciplinary decisions is a common practice in New Zealand where there is a principle of open justice and open reporting where the courts have stated that there is a public interest in an adverse finding. By publishing its decisions, the Board hopes they will educate electrical workers and assist them to become more familiar with the Board’s disciplinary process and findings.
| April 2020 | Finding | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Damian Rogers |
Mr Damian Rogers, an Electrician from Upper Hutt was found to have carried out and certified PEW without holding an active practising licence. His licence had expired in 2015 and was not renewed until the complaint was made. |
The Board fined Mr Rogers $1,500. The fine was increased on the basis that he had failed over two licensing rounds to relicense. Costs of $225 were ordered. The matter was dealt with on the papers. |
| Practitioner 2 |
The electrical worker was found to have carried out PEW in a manner that was contrary to the Safety Regulations and to have provided a false or misleading return. The electrical worker failed to install an RCD and label a distribution board. There was also a loose connection between the main switch and a sub-board circuit breaker. |
The electrical worker was fined $750. The fine was reduced from $1,500 on the basis that the electrical worker accepted his wrongdoing as well as remediating the work and compensating the owner. Costs of $450 were ordered. The costs were reduced as the matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Practitioner 3 |
The electrical worker was found to have carried out PEW in a manner that created a risk of serious harm as well as having carried out PEW in a manner that was contrary to the Safety Regulations. The non-compliant PEW included installing fittings within a damp zone, failing to install an earth conductor and using a red sleeve over a green wire as an active conductor. |
The disciplinary offending was very serious. The electrical worker stated he no longer wanted to work in the industry. The Board considered that the cancellation was appropriate as a punishment and to protect the public. The Board considered the penalty would also deter others from such conduct. The electrical worker's licence was cancelled for a period of five years. Costs of $1,000 were ordered. The costs were reduced as the matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. |
| Practitioner 4 |
The electrical worker was found to have been negligent in his supervision and to have provided a false or misleading return. The negligence related to failures to provide adequate fire protective sealing measures for a switchboard, RCD protection to required circuits, and reliable connections on switch socket outlets. |
The level of negligence was high. There was a complete failure to supervise. The non-compliant PEW was at the moderate level. A starting point of a fine of $2,000 was adopted. It was reduced to $1,500 on the basis of the electrical worker accepting responsibility and the matter being dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Costs of $450 were ordered on the same basis. |
| Practitioner 5 |
The electrical worker was found to have carried out PEW in a manner that created a risk of serious harm as well as having provided a false or misleading return. The risk of serious harm related to a failure to connect the main neutral cable to the MEN point and a failure to adequately test an installation leaving it electrically unsafe. |
A starting point of a fine of $4,000 was adopted. The fine was reduced to $3,000 on the basis that the electrical worker accepted his wrongdoing and that the matter was dealt with on the papers. Costs of $675 were ordered on the same basis. |