Disciplinary hearings - February 2022
The Board hears a high number of cases that involve a failure to provide certification within the specified time frames set out in the Electrical (Safety) Regulations 2010. Certification is important, especially within a regulatory framework that allows for self-certification. Failures to adhere to the legislative requirements are serious and need to be dealt with in a manner that deters other electrical workers from fulfilling their obligations.
Failure to provide certification is a form of strict liability. The Board, when deciding whether a disciplinary offence has been committed, does not have to consider whether the failure was deliberate or mere inadvertence. It is enough that it was not provided in the specified time frame.
Electrical workers should also note that, under regulation 74H of the Electrical (Safety) Regulations 2010, a person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a level 2 penalty if he or she fails to comply with any of the requirements of regulations 74E to 74G which cover record keeping. A level 2 offence, in the case of an individual, carries a fine not exceeding $10,000 and, in any other case, a fine not exceeding $50,000. The provision reflects the importance of certification and of ensuring it is issued in a timely manner.
The Board recently dealt with a matter where the electrical worker argued that he did not have to provide an Electrical Safety Certificate (ESC) as well as a Certificate of Compliance (CoC). The Board noted that, where a combined CoC/ESC is provided, the detail that is contained in the CoC portion does not have to be repeated in the ESC. This is allowed for in regulation 111A, which is designed to prevent unnecessary duplication of information. However, the Board also noted that the two certificates are different. They serve different purposes, and the regulations clearly require two documents, a CoC and an ESC, which can be contained in one document.
The fundamental difference between a CoC and an ESC is that the latter must include a statement that the person issuing it is satisfied that the installation or part installation is connected to a power supply and “is safe to use”. The “safe to use” statement is not a CoC requirement. The required statement in a CoC is that it is “safe to connect”.
Another form of strict liability offence is carrying out prescribed electrical work in a manner that is contrary to any enactment relating to an electrical supply or prescribed electrical work that was in force at the time the work was done (section 143(a)(ii) of the Electricity Act 1992) in that the Board does not need to find that there was any intention, fault, or negligence. A charge before the Board under section 143(a)(ii) usually arises because AS/NZS 3000 has not been complied with. This is because regulation 59 of the Electrical (Safety) Regulations 2010 stipulates that all low and extra-low voltage installations must comply with AS/NZS 3000:
- 59 Low and extra-low voltage installations to comply with AS/NZS 3000
- (1) Every low or extra-low voltage domestic installation, or part of a domestic installation, must be installed, tested, inspected, and connected so as to comply with Part 2 of AS/NZS 3000 if it has a maximum demand at or below—
- (a) 80 amperes per phase if single-phase; or
- (b) 50 amperes per phase if multi-phase.
- (2) Every other low or extra-low voltage installation or part installation must be installed, tested, inspected, or connected so as to comply with either—
- (a) Part 2 of AS/NZS 3000; or
- (b) a certified design prepared in accordance with Part 1 of AS/NZS 3000.
- (1) Every low or extra-low voltage domestic installation, or part of a domestic installation, must be installed, tested, inspected, and connected so as to comply with Part 2 of AS/NZS 3000 if it has a maximum demand at or below—
The Board’s disciplinary decisions can be viewed online
| October 2021 |
Finding | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
|
Practitioner 1 |
The electrical worker failed to provide a Certificate of Compliance within 20 working days as required by regulation 74E(2) of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010. |
The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $500, which it reduced to $250 on the basis that the electrical worker accepted his failure, and the matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. He was also ordered to pay costs of $250. |
|
Practitioner 2 |
The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a manner that was contrary to the provisions of AS/NZS 3000:2007 and provided a false or misleading return. |
The Board adopted a starting point of a fine of $750, which it reduced to $250. The electrical worker had learnt from the matter and had changed his work practices as a result. He also accepted his failings, and the matter was dealt with on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. He was also ordered to pay costs of $250. |
| November 2021 | Finding | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
|
Practitioner 1 |
The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work when not authorised to do so and provided a false or misleading return. The offending came about because of the electrical worker not renewing his practising licence. |
There were no issues with the prescribed electrical work that had been completed, another licensed person was on site who could have supervised the electrical worker and certified the work, and there were other strong mitigating factors. The Board decided to censure the electrical workers and order him to pay costs of $250. |
|
Practitioner 2 |
The electrical worker provided a false or misleading return. The matters were technical in nature and involved the use of combined forms. The matter is discussed above. |
There were extenuating circumstances and mitigating factors present. The Board decided that it would not take any disciplinary action but did order that the electrical worker pay costs of $250. |
|
Practitioner 3 |
The electrical worker carried out prescribed electrical work in a negligent manner and provided a false or misleading warrant of electrical fitness. The Board followed its previous decisions that certification of caravan is prescribed electrical work as it falls within the definition of maintenance. |
The Board decided to adopt a starting point of a fine of $1,500. It reduced the fine by $500 on the basis that the Respondent accepted his wrongdoing and by a further $500 in recognition of other mitigating factors that were present. He was ordered to pay costs of $250. |