Hi, contractor using mechanical digger to repair undergroung water leak.  The attachment used is a "spike" to carefully investigate, checking for other utilities underground.

The spike pierced the Gas main meaning water, electrics and gas supplies all isolated.

Was this Accidental or carelessness ?

Edited by user 23 November 2024 12:09:35(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling

as Peter aludes to...Management failure is one element of lack of control, there would also be a human error as another possible thread to your investigation (slip, error or lapse)...very difficult to judge on the limited information...most I have seen are either as a result of not completing the survey properly or inadequate training and supervision

I don't see why you ask if it was accidental "or" carelessness.  Is this a classification you have in the business?

It was presumably accidental - on the basis that it is very unlikely that it was done deliberately.

It might or might not also have been careless.  This would be the case if the operator was not as slow or attentive as they knew they were expected to be.  (The word "careful" is pretty useless - you need to break it down into what it actually means in practical terms for the technique concerned, with a description of how you would tell whether someone was being "careful" or not.)

It might also, or instead, have been a great many other things as well.  Maybe it was the wrong technique to use, maybe there was something wrong with the equipment, maybe the operator was unfamiliar with an aspect of the operation, maybe the operator was unwell or fatigued, maybe there was a massive distraction at the time, maybe there was pressure to get it done quickly, maybe it was sheer bad luck.

Even if the operator was in some way careless, you would need to ask why that was.  Maybe they have done this many times before in this way with nothing going wrong and have become complacent.  Maybe they didn't appreciate the risks for this or some other reason. Maybe they were distracted by something on their mind or that was in their environment.  Maybe they have picked up habits from others.   If your investigation ends up just with "carelessness", it hasn't gone deep enough.

No one can possibly come to conclusions based on the headline description of what happened.

firesafety - you say that the customer was a pensioner.

What paperwork would you expect them to get?

Arguably they might fall within the CDM definition of "client" but if just their home, then a "domestic client" who for all practical purposes doesn't have any duties - with their theoretical duties defaulting to others - cf CDM Regulation 7.

So, we have a Client for the purposes of the Regulations who might be the local water company who, in turn, either does the work itself or contracts it out.

There SHOULD be documentation going from said Client to the Contractor and vice versa. 

In particular, I would expect said Client to have some information as to their own and others' underground services, but any competent Contractor would assume that the information might not be complete and/or up to date. 

Hence all the other precautions then recommended in HSG47.

Based on what you have written here said Contractor may or may not have included doing a scan for services as part of their safe system of work. As you rightly indicate that scan, if it was done, may not have picked up all the services in the vicinity of where the work (to sort out a water leak) is planned.

So, next a safe digging process, the details of which should depend on what is known and what is not. Without much more information it would be impossible to comment on whether mechanical excavation was appropriate.

The pensioner shouldn't need to worry too much about how this is all done safely - their objective is to get the leak sorted.

The pensioner is no different to me, if the highways authority arranges for the street outside out building to be reconstructed or the potholes fixed. I am a third party who the law does not envisage needing to take much interest in the safety of how the work is done.

Edited by user 24 November 2024 17:04:13(UTC)  | Reason: Formatting

It strikes me that we don't know which party in this firesafety is associated with.  I initially assumed working in some capacity for the contractor, but maybe not?

In responding to a leak it would be reasonable to presume some urgency to the activity which means that there will have been potential to not having been thorough with preparations implying carelessness.

That said the utility companies in the North West of England, by their own admission, do not hold accurate mapping of historical subterranean matters so accidents are always a possibility.

The suggestion of hand digging presumes the contractor has a known start and termination for each service to the property to investigate.

I can tell you the location within my house for the gas and electricity meters along with the mains water stop cock - where these supplies originate beyond the walls is a mystery.

The question is why Firesafety101 is seeking a definition for the strike - will the pensioners insurance cover accidental damage of services but not contractor carelessness? Has the water leak been fixed and is the gas supply repaired or pending?