Has anyone else received their letter from the NICEIC tucked in with their direct debit invoice concerning the letter they had from the coroner following the death of a young mother by electrocution

See here

Other bodies may also have had the coroners letter.

For those without the letter it says that QSs must be reminded "of the need for them to review the inspection and testing results before countersigning a certificate to conform that it has been completed satisfactorily prior to issue", "which may have been carried out on behalf of the firm by another competent person or persons".

Am I alone in thinking the NICEIC has missed the point?

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

was it an NIC firm which inspected it or carried out the work?? maybe everyone who works for an NIC (any realy) firm should be assessed ??just a way out thee thought and not just the QS??
davy

-------------------------
just because i'm paranoid doesn't mean theyre not out to get me

I agree.
Signing off the paperwork as a QS won't stop a screw penetrating a cable in a wall. (no mention of safe zones).
What are the NIC trying to say

have a look at the penultimate papargraph.

Here

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

Yes I believe the NICEIC has missed the point.
I would agree with the Coronor that having someone in an office signing off forms that are prepared by incompetent persons is a recipe for disaster, and is a practice that should cease imediately.

I've always believed the QS system is flawed. What the governing bodies should do is ensure that their contractors only employ competent qualified people. And thats the problem, how can an employer ensure this?

Would an IR test indicate a screw in one conductor? Unlikely

I know it's not practical, but a licensing system of some means should be introduced.

One obvious problem with signing off work that there maybe many different contractors/wiremen involved in a single project. The QS is put in an impossible position of taking resposibility for work that their not necessarily aware of, including unseen blunders and corner cutting. What is the solution if the QS system is not appropriate?

The solution is that all operatives involved in the process are fully trained, equipped and competent to carry out inspection and testing of their work.

Then they must ensure that their information is accurate (and honest ) before it is assembled for inclusion on the paperwork.

So that's all right then - no problem there .

Regards

Geoff Blackwell

Next is the current Part 'P' consultation.
Apparently the 'whole point is to erradicate accidents, deaths and fires caused by poor electrical work etc' sic ECN.
This leads to conclude that a licensing system is required. We might even end up with a single sheet certificate and report to dish out to clients

Was it poor electrical work or poor plasterboarding work?

As Jobbo said, there's no guarantee that normal electrical testing would have spotted the problem.

I suspect that those outside the industry (e.g. the coroner in this case) presume that inspection & testing will reveal any dangerous defect.

As ever, it's all down to the detail - which doesn't get reported.

Another case might be: Electrics installed, inspected & tested absolutely perfectly. Nail/screw penetrates cable and becomes live, but unnoticed. Wall becomes wet and 'electrics start sparking' - householder notices something wrong and switches off at the main switch and calls an electrician (as my grandmother would have done).

Was it the EIC that saved them? no - it was a better educated householder.

If the householder had left the electrics on and started prodding around, would compliance with BS 7671 have saved them? No (remember this was 2007 - pre 17th Ed and RCDs for concealed cables).

For sure a poor electrical installation increases the chances of a tragedy, but that's quite different to saying that it was the sole or even major cause in this particular case.

- Andy.

But an installer who didn't route the cable in a prescribed zone, would probably not have been aware of it! Nor would an "electrician" who signed the certificate for the work ......... and the Q.S. who rubber stamped it!

Ducks in a row? No.
NICEIC guilty? Yes!
System not fit for purpose? Yes.

Now, if we all could be held accountable for our workmanship! How do we accomplish this?

Regards

Looking at the NIC documentation the QS responsibility is to review the paperwork and to sign off the correctly completed /compliant documentation.
The QS will have a signed statement that the installation has been designed in accordance with the relevant edition of BS 7671,that its been installed as per the compliant design and that its been inspected and tested in accordance with BS 7671.Is there any requirement for the QS to ever leave the office enviroment? Is it his/her responsibility to ensure the signaturies on documentation are competent?
It seems to me that what should happen and what is actually required are two different things and as shown in the OP the system can be fatally flawed.

-------------------------
Regards

Dave(not Cockburn)

It would be nice to know the exact details. The cable could have been within a safe zone (ie horizontal/vertical from the boiler supply maybe) and drilled through studwork. Was an unneccesarily long screw used to fix the plasterboard through the studwork ?

-------------------------
Empty barrels make the most noise.

As one cannot believe these reports I side with John. It could be that this was an accident, but as the quality of many NICEIC members is very suspect (my own experience), and they love the press rather than inspecting the inspectors properly, it could be down to I&T. But somehow I doubt it, this could happen to any inspector at any time unless you watch the whole job like a hawk, which is often not possible. The 17th edition RCDs may help in the long term, but education of the public is clearly the way to go. I have found a lot of nails through cables over many years, and few would be detected by testing, they were usually found when trying to remove those "stuck" cables we sometimes find!
However as most of you find the idea of "Gold Standard" for inspectors unworkable, what do you do?

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!

Please do excuse me for slightly divering from the OP, but the thread is turning towards a QS bashing excersize;

The QS System may be flawed, but from a purely business perspective, how else would you do it? I know costs should not form a basis for safety decissions, but they inevitably do.

First: Immagine that you needed to get 20 sparks evaluated by the NICEIC and then re- inspected every year? The NICEIC would have to get (1000?) inspectors per county and the costs for inspection to the company would be astronomical.

That would be some serious overheads, that few would be willing to accommodate it.

Second) I use self empolyed sparks all the time, most of whom are or usually work through the agencies - almost none of these blokes are registered with a governing body - who's going to regulate the agency workers? No one would be able to use Auzi/ New Zealand/ South African sparks - here on a working visa, most often very competant indeviduals.
If you are not up to QS standards, you don't get a look in on site? That would be rediculous.

I have one guy that is an electricians mate (No formal qualifications) and I garantee that he does a better job than most electricians. I tell him the cable to use, the installation method and where sockets/lights/isolators etc are to go, and he does an excellent job.

I do all the inspection and testing. I am a really small company so can keep a careful eye on all that is happening on my site(s). The QS system works exceptionally well for me and my company.

This particular bloke is another example where I think qualified electricans (Such as myself - so I assure you I do understand and empathise) have an issue with and the QS system under which he works. He IS slightly cheaper, but does the job that I need him to do.

I know that in a very large company people like him may find themselves taking on more resposibility that his formal qualifications perhaps allow as he is that kind of guy, this can be abused.

The QS system can be abused, but perhaps the only alternative may be the JIB system?

This would leave them (The JIB)as the only player in the game and I know for a fact that a vast amount of qualified and experienced sparks would not get electrician grade in the JIB because of the route taken to becoming a spark is not always the step by step one that the JIB demands with out any missed steps, no matter the qualifications and experience held beyond that one missed step.

I am aware that those of us who are QS standard would benefit if we opperate as a one man band, if everyone had to be the same high standards, we'd be wealthy in no time. I think that this is the only benefit though.

That should kick off this thread on a small tangent to the original post. Sorry John.

But would be the same as the total costs to 20 one-man outfits - level playing field?

Of you employed 20 lorry drivers, you'd expect each and every one to hold an individual driving licence wouldn't you?

- Andy.

Abolish all the Voluntary Registartion Bodies and Part P Requirements. Make every electrician personally accountable for his/her own work.

National Licensing of Competent Electrical Craftsmen is the way forward.

We should all be prepared to fall on our swords if our work does not meet the minimum standards.

I have first hand experience of working for a registration body and believe me both good contractors and chancers are given the same level of registration.

It was my opinion that it was easier to stay on the list of registerd contractors than it was to be removed. Unless of course you did not pay your annual enrolment fee.

NICEIC did not miss the point here guys because they were coming in from a differant angle ie this was not about highlighting safety this is about drumming up business for NICEIC in other words playing on the death of a young mum to say "See thats what we are about defending your safety so sign up or as I have recently seen get a free transfer from your existing Schemie and join us"

I could be wrong here as there was not enough information but I take it the plasterboard screw went straight through the supply cable cutting the earth and shorting the boiler side to the live ? The only thing this could highlight is that the testing should have been done after all the plasterboard and fixings went up. This also makes me think that the guy putting the plasterboard on may have got a bang when the screw went in and then reset the breaker just a thought

Tatty

I am not trying to bash every QS. However that said I strongly believe the QS should have 2382 and 2391 (or it's replacements) as a minimum. I don't think it is unreasonable if the QS is required to examine the paper work and countersign it to have qualifications that indicate he/she knows what they are looking at. Sadly 4 years on from the 17th Edition there are plenty of QSs out there who do not even have 2382 let alone a qualification in inspecting and testing. I know of a QS who has failed his 2382 twice.

I don't think it is necessary or desirable for the NICEIC or any other body to see people authorized by the company to inspect and test. However Approved Contractors should keep a register of persons who have 2382 and 2391 (or 2394/95) with copies of their qualifications who should be the only people who inspect and test for the company and write out the certificates and reports. These people would have proved their competence, to some extent, by examination and practical assessment to a City and Guilds standard. Perhaps the QS could go to site a couple of times a year to verify that these authorised inspectors are performing to a satisfactory standard, after all they are responsible for technical standards in the company.

Add to that a requirement for the companies to keep a list of their electricians together with a list of their competences and you might have something that looks like a professional organisation. The annual visit from the NICEIC AE or other organisation would have a look at the registers and copies of competences and review a random sample of their certificates. If the company did not have a high level of compliance they should be suspended from use of the bodies Logo until they meet the standard.


That might seem a bit prescriptive but we have to keep registers of our test instruments and monthly records of ongoing accuracy but nothing about the people who are going to use them (or not).

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

Hi John

I whole heartedly agree with all that you have said in the above post, and if I understand you and to clarify then:

It is the minimum qualifications of the QS for the company that need to be improved.

Having a QS supervise a small crew of people who may or may not be formally qualified ( from very experienced electricians to mates and apprentices) is still a good system - as long as the QS actually supervises the work done. ie: Actual supervision occurs.

I did think that perhaps a maximum number of workers to a QS could be given as a guidance, beyond which the area inspector is going to have a close scruteny of how the QS is managing/supervising this work sucessfully and then in order to have bigger crews working under a QS, "X" number of named electricians with the 2391 or simmilar are required in order to justify that sufficient quality monitoring is getting done.