OK - I have (ab)used my contacts at the ECA to dig into this Shelley Beach matter a little deeper. Arising from a discussion with Brian Bilton -

1. An ECA member contractor did supply another electrical contractor with a pad of the ECA pre-printed COC forms.
2. Apparently this practice is not uncommon between electrical contractors.
3. This other electrical contractor is not a member of the ECA, a fact that the member contractor alleges he was not aware of at the time.
4. The COC in question was issued and signed off by the non-member electrical contractor (and IE).
5. This non-member electrical contractor is registered with the DoL as required by the Electrical Installation Regulations.
6. The complainant (nemangwe) called the ECA as they were concerned that the electrical installation might not be compliant/COC was invalid.
7. Arising from this complaint -
  • The member contractor that bought the pad from the ECA was approached by the ECA
  • The member contractor then tested the electrical installation at no charge to the complainant
  • The member contractor confirmed that the installation was not compliant and has produced a list of faults
  • The member contractor has attempted to assist the complainant by contacting the non-member contractor
  • Relations between the member contractor and the non-member contractor have... let's just say "deteriorated" since.

8. The matter has been reported to the DoL by the ECA. On this aspect, I can advise Babalo has been on leave and is only returning to work on Monday coming. I can also advise that he has other matters that have been referred to him while on leave; who knows what is at the top of the pile.

There was no mention of the COC being "retracted" in the conversation. The phrase used, which in my experience is usually the case in these things, is that "the COC would seem to be invalid."