There have been very good points already made.
I’ll tell you what we actually do, & how we actually see it.
Mind, we are not Company A, nor Company B in the OP.
We will service the machine.
On the machine service schedule which is an NCR form that the customers representative has to sign at the end of the work, we highlight that the machine is unsafe to use.
We also write why on the form.
The client has to sign this.
We have to isolate the machine for service, therefore we leave it isolated and refuse to re-energise.
This is also entered on the service schedule.
The safety issues are also entered onto the site worksheet, for times spent on site, extra comments etc.
The safety issues are explained to the client contact and they are made aware that they are signing to acknowledge that the machine is unsafe.
The work is then followed up with a typed report emailed to the relevant customer personnel, if there is a serious safety issue that means the machine has been left isolated, this will also be cc’d to the most senior contact we have in the company.
We invite the customer to ask us to quote for the remedial works, on all 3 documents.
We cannot force them to do this.
This cycle then repeats.
As a service company, and I’ve worked for a few, both OEM & 3rd party, we have no authority to disable the machine in any form, other than to make safe to work upon when we are servicing.
If there is a dangerous situation with respect to BS7671 associated with the machine then we would issue an NICEIC Electrical Danger Notification, NCR form issued on site and signed for.
I don’t issue many, as they are really for what would be a Code 1 defect under an ECIR, or IMHO a Code 2 defect on a new installation that is a blatant non-compliance with BS7671, and could result in death or damage to property.
Sometimes, I will issue an EDN for machinery, however, as they are NICEIC forms they are aimed at BS7671 works.
We feel that the completed service schedule, which has a clear indication that the machine is unsafe for future use, and why, is adequate to advise the client of the dangers.
A lot of this depends on the agreement & relationship with the client.
One thing we would not get hung up on is CE marking.
If we were the OEM, we would advise that the machine no longer complies with our DoC, and we would advise, that the client is in breach of their statute law duty under PUWER, and potentially MHSWR, & EAWR, and thus under HASAWA.
This would be stated on the site completed forms and the typed report.
The typed report would cite the NCR forms already completed and signed for, and scans may even be attached to the email with the typed report.
Depending on the level of servicing agreed, the typed report may even include clauses & quoted from Regulations, Standards & Guidance, e.g. PUWER, the PUWER ACoP, L22, & say BS7671, or EN 60204-1 etc. as appropriate.
All this is done in a very matter of fact and almost abrupt nature, it is done as a statement of facts, without any personalisation.
However, this is all only the opinion of the person working at the machine, they must be competent to undertake this work, and make these observations and recommendations.
This is why it has to be backed up with factual evidence typically from the above sources.
This is not an unusual situation, the second time it happens, this is re-iterated on the documents, the third, that it has been observed previously twice, and that the client is not undertaking their statute law duty to ensure that the equipment is safe to use.
However, we rarely have carte blanche to repair equipment, there is a difference between repair and servicing.
How would you feel if your car went into a garage and as the brakes were worn they just went ahead & replaced them without telling you, then presented you with the bill for work that was not agreed?
Yes, I would expect the garage to inform & advise, but, not to undertake works without authority.
If you were informed that the brakes were dangerous, then chose not to have them repaired that is your choice, the garage cannot stop you.
In the same way if your car fails an MOT even in a dangerous manner, the garage cannot “confiscate” your car, they cannot stop you from driving it away from the MOT station, even if it is a danger to yourself & other road users.
Yes they could film you, or call the police & tell them what you were doing, but, they do not have the right to stop you.
Unless they feel that a citizen’s arrest is in order. Good luck with that one!
It is a very awkward position. However, also very common.
As Company A is the machine OEM, then really their word cannot really be doubted. However, the machine is the property of Company B.
Steve e ashton,
Don’t forget, the service engineer may not be competent to remove the supply fuses, as these would not be part of the machine.
If he were to remove fuses from inside the machine he would have to leave them with the client, else this would be theft, after all the machinery & fuses belong to the customer.
If fuses were removed, then this would require significant explanation and justification, as he is then overstepping his authority by deliberately disabling a piece of equipment, i.e. this could be construed as industrial sabotage, whether the fuses were removed from the machine or the supply.
Remember, the service engineer may be accused of simply trying to upsell, rather than simply undertaking their duty.
Also, I can see where you are coming from with the moral aspect, but, the OP states that there is a service contract in place.
Therefore the customer could try to sue for breach of contract if you didn’t undertake all of the requirements of the contract in full.