Parts of the installation not covered by this report (COC)

[ians]

This has become a rather interesting topic.

The question is what can you exclude?

A set of guidelines received for a Seminar ... has a quarter page large font in bold ... "NEVER EXCLUDE ANY PART THAT IS STILL ALIVE AND ISSUE A CERTIFICATE"

Then I am in a discussion with another person about a dodgy installation ... and from what I understand ... " just exclude the dodgy parts ... but make sure you exclude them on the test report"

If a customer wants me to issue a COC and I find a pile of dodgy wiring ... do I disconnect it and exclude it on the test report .. .and issue the COC.

An example of a common problem ... security lights ... installed using twin speaker wire.

To save time and money ... do I just go around and cut the point of connection to the electrical installation ... and add it to parts not covered.

Then the new owner moves in and insists the lights must work ... so the seller calls you to inquire about the lights not working ... but it clearly stats on the COC issued to the responsible person at the time ... that the security lights are excluded.

Who is responsible ... I would say the responsible person ... in the most recent case ... it was the person renting the property at the time.

It becomes a bit of a challenge because the buyer saw the lights ... working or not ... assuming they work ... the owner wasnt aware that the person renting had installed them ... but the owner expects the inspector to reconnect the light and make them work ... because he did the test report and issued the COC excluding the security lights.

So what can you exclude on a test report?

The solar installation fitted by some dodgy installer?

The geyser replaced by the plumber who decided the bonding wasnt required ?

The Stove circuit you disconnected because it was connect to ta gas hos and in the wrong place?

The granny flat wired by the builders electrician who wasnt actually an electrician.

The pre paid meter installed on site by a private vender?

The UPS installed by a registered electrical contractor who decided he didnt need to supply a COC because there was no initial COC for the property.

It all sounds whoopy do ... but one critical component is missing ... who is checking that any COC issued is actually legit ... not even random checks ? ... to give you an idea of how bad this actually is ... a COC was issued with the most ridiculous readings like 5000 V and using names like donald duck and 101810 for registration numbers ... some poor sucker has this COC ... it could be in a lawyer filing cabinet somewhere (it was for the sale of a house) ... it was a test.

You can make all the rule and regs you want ... threaten people with prosecution but at the end of the day ... the very people these documents are designed to protect ... are the only ones getting the short end of the stick.

I would have thought with lawyers involved in the property sales ... there should be some form of ethics or at least accountability ... but it seems I was so wrong ... the last meeting I had were a lawyer was in the meeting made me realise how bad it is

[ians]

RE: A COC issued for the sale of a property with a 3 phase DB and a couple sub DB's.

Annexure 1 - filled out correctly ... it seems inspectors have managed to get Annexure 1 right.

then we turn the page.

Section 3

"Comments on parts of the installation not covered by the report .... hand written "only what is mentioned in section 3"

So what wrong with that?

Well section 3 indicates that is is for a SUB DB ... the question I ask ... which sub DB?

Does this mean that the main DB is excluded ?

The new owner is asking if it is his responsibility to get an inspector to test the issue a COC for the main DB or must the seller get the inspector to return to site and issue a COC for the main DB?

The pool DB is also not covered by the COC ... must he get an inspector to carry out a test report and issue a COC at his cost or is it the responsibility of the seller?

So here is the catch ... the new owner has already made the mistake of authorising the transfer ... the inspector who did the COC has according to the comment in section 3 "excluded" the the main DB other sub DB's and pool DB.

The sad news is the new owner must now pay to get the AIA in to investigate the exclusions and pay for someone to carry out the test reports and repairs (if required) ... but doesn't have a leg to stand on because they were excluded on the COC issued for the transfer

The same shyte every day I need to find a better way to make a living.

[Dave A]

So here is the catch ... the new owner has already made the mistake of authorising the transfer ... the inspector who did the COC has according to the comment in section 3 "excluded" the the main DB other sub DB's and pool DB.

The sad news is the new owner must now pay to get the AIA in to investigate the exclusions and pay for someone to carry out the test reports and repairs (if required) ... but doesn't have a leg to stand on because they were excluded on the COC issued for the transfer

Oh, the buyer does have a leg to stand on (section 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act) and has a legitimate claim against the seller as long as they haven't taken on the responsibility themselves in writing (as provided for in 10.4). The challenge is in enforcing their rights...

[ians]

Oh, the buyer does have a leg to stand on (section 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act) and has a legitimate claim against the seller as long as they haven't taken on the responsibility themselves in writing (as provided for in 10.4). The challenge is in enforcing their rights...

It would be like trying to get money out of a customer who refuses to pay ... the cost is not worth the hassle.

As we all know from experience ... having team/s of people working on your new property who dont want to be there and think you as the customer are a right prick for making them have to go back and fix what they should have done right the first time ... generally doesnt end well. YOu either going to end up just getting your electrician to fix everything and bring the electrical installation up to standard ... or get the previous owners teams to come back and fix everything ... which in most cases ends badly and they are thrown off site.

My advice to anyone buying a property ... make sure you understand the procedure ... what is required by law ... take pics of the installation before you rush out and authorise the transfer ... once that transfer document is signed ... you screwed ... it is that simple.

By the way another problem we have been experiencing ... make sure the seller or the person renting the property doesnt leave with this like the gate motor ... the geyser ... gas hob etc.

Make sure you secure the property ... if you leave the property empty with no security for a couple of days ... chances are you gona be calling the plumber ... and the COC wont be worth anything because there wont be any light plugs and switches

[Dylboy]

Hahaha thats like the installing a light circuit and making a CoC for it and claiming it is the initial and excludes everything...

It appears the easier way to make money is to do what the they do and have no morals and take short cuts...

That inspector is happy as Larry with his cash and no one can touch him yet you now sit with all his poor decisions and probably not getting paid " as you didn't do anything and just have advice"...

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[ians]

That is pretty much where we are with COC's at the moment .. .have one plug fitted next to another plug ... get the contractor to fill out a COC for the one plug and hand it in for the sale of the house ... huge saving compared to getting the entire installation tested ... if the buyer is happy to blow more than a million rand on a new house and not even get a second opinion on the COC before the transfer ... knowing that they will become the responsible person for the property ...

[ians]

A silly question ... us tradesmen are basically just "workers" ... paperwork is certainly not one of my strengths ... but when it comes to dealing with a lawyer who is representing a client (landlord) in a property matter ... dealing with tenants and legal documents ... surely a lawyer should be up to date with the latest legal requirements ... especially simple things like who should keep the COC ?