Disciplinary hearings – April 2024

Mr Baoren Wang

Mr Baoren Wang was engaged to carry out Prescribed Electrical Work associated with the construction of a new build house at the Property. Mr Wang completed the work in December 2019. Mr Wang with served with the complaint, however, no response was received despite multiple attempts to contact him, the Investigator, In conjunction with another investigation into Mr Wang, the Investigator established through Immigration NZ that Mr Wang had left the country in November 2022 and had not returned. However, the Investigator was satisfied that Mr Wang and properly been informed of the particulars of the complaint given the complaint file had been sent to the same email he had recently responded to another complaint from and was the email address associated with his registration, which he has a responsibility to keep updated.

Based on evidence provided by the homeowner,  a remedial electrician, and the Technical Advisor the Investigation found that Mr Wang had:

• Failed to provide adequate protection against dangers arising from direct contact with live parts.
• Utilised and connected conductors of an inappropriate and incorrect insulation colour as active conductors.
• Failed to consider fundamental aspects relating to the size and quantity of conductors to be connected to electrical fittings and removed significantly greater amounts of insulation from conductors to be connected than what was required, resulting in unreliable electrical connections and a heightened risk of access to live parts
• Failed to provide mandatory RCD protection to final sub circuits supplying lighting and socket outlets in a domestic electrical installation. The intended operation of an RCD had been impaired as a result of the modifications to associated electrical connections i.e. RCD was bypassed.
• False certification of prescribed electrical work as being lawful and safe. Incorrect completion of Certificate of Compliance.

Mr Wang continued to not engage with the disciplinary process and did not appear at the Pre-hearing, the Board adjourned a number of times to give Mr Wang a chance to engage with the process and for the Investigator and the Board Officer to continue to attempt to make contact with him. These attempts were unsuccessful, and the Board decided to hold a formal proof hearing in Mr Wangs absence.

At the Formal Proof hearing, based in the opening for the investigator and filed evidence and signed briefs from all witnesses, the Board decided that Mr Wang had committed offences under Section 143(a)(i) for carrying negligent Prescribed Electrical Work, and section 143(b)(ii) for carrying out Prescribed Electrical Work on a manner that created a risk of serious harm to any person or a risk of significant property damage in relation to leaving an unprotected, energised cable exposed in the heat pump room. The Board also found that Mr Wang had committed an offence under section 143(f) for providing a false and misleading Certificate of Compliance.

The Board fined Mr Wang $5000 ordered costs of $2500, and ordered publication of an article in the Electron naming Mr Wang. The Board noted that if Mr Wang returned to the country and intended to relicense, he would have to pay the fines before he could renew his practicing license.

Case 2

The Board found that the Respondent carried out prescribed electrical work (PEW in a negligent manner, being an offence under section 143(a)(i) of the Act. The Respondent further falsely certified the PEW as safe and lawful when there were elements of the work that were not carried out safely and lawfully and failed to provide all information required for both a Certificate of Compliance and an Electrical Safety Certificate. The Board, having made those findings, decided that it would fine the Respondent the sum of $1,000 and order that he pay costs of $225.

Case 3

The Board found that the Respondent carried out prescribed electrical work (PEW) in a negligent manner, being an offence under section 143(a)(i) of the Act and negligently created a risk of serious harm to any person, or a risk of significant property damage, through having carried out or caused to be carried out prescribed electrical work being an offence under section 143(b)(ii) of the Act. The Respondent further failed to provide certification documentation within the maximum permissible timeframes (20 working days), being an offence under section 143(f) of the Act. The Board, having made those findings, decided that it would fine the Respondent the sum of $1,500 and order that the Respondent pay costs of $225.