Zs, i dont agree with the last paragraph in total, what strings are attached, an employer pays for courses he gets the benefit as well as the spark.

Tickets are all in the sparks name, so if he leaves he leaves and takeshis certs with him.

DCLG's Part P Schemes are still abusing the QS system in the Domestic market place and it is not for Safety reasons.

The QS system is fine in Commercial and Industrial market places, where the customer can tell if the job is compliant and if not can take legal action.

With the unlawful killing of Emma Shaw by an NICEIC contractor, the Coroner stated that the public were still at risk, from the practices carried out by the NICEIC contractor.


He stated that that it was the "Testing Inspector that was Personally liable for the authenticity of the entries he makes on the certificate in question and that the practice of relying on another is to be deplored," how can you rely on the Competent QS in the office.


But the abuse of the QS system continues to put the public at risk, the testing inspector does not have to be qualified or Competent in any way.


What is the point of having a C&G 2397 for the QS sat in the office?


What happened to the Electrical Safety Councils, "One death is one too many" ?

I`m sure the FACT that the contractor involved was an NICEIC firm has nothing to do with any change in ESC policy - after all, they are a totally independent safety charity - which must be true, as they have stated as such .....

Quite how a requirement for a QS to hold a very simple, basic I&T qualification will ensure that a job that they have not seen, carried out or tested is safe is a complete mystery to me ..... - in what way does such remedial action address the concerns re: DEPLORED PRACTICES highlighted by the coroner?

Edited: 16 September 2012 at 03:02 PM by napitprofessional

None of the schemes, or intended qualifications from the EAS (NVQ3) require the QS or any other person in the company to have a qualification in I&T. None of the schemes require the QS to go to site and I&T an installation.

The some of the schemes don't even require the QS to have a qualification in BS7671 (C&G 2382) just a promise to get the qualification within 12 months.

Th Competent Person scheme does not require a competent person to turn up on the doorstep to do the job and worse still a competent person to I&T the job on completion and before being put in to service. If Mr and Mrs public do know about the Competent Person Schemes and contract such an organisation to carry out an installation in their house it is not unreasonable for them to assume a competent person will do the work is it?

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

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

And I see the barrier as being far too low. 2391 is a level 3 qualification, but the people doing the I&T (especially EICRs) often do not seem to have the personal qualities to make this mean anything. They falsify readings (or make them up), have no knowledge of BS7671 (or if they do it is conveniently "changed" to suit their own ends), invent new "regulations" to make themselves money, and are prepared to condemn anyone else's work, whereas their own is often appalling!

As for the idea that the "QS" (joke) can supervise this mess in any meaningful way from the office, the mind boggles. It is not just domestics either, some large contracts have just the same things going on. Give me a Zs job any day, because she obviously cares about the customer.

This is more than can be said for any of these dodgy guys, the approval clubs or anyone else in it for the money. That particularly applies to the training providers, who see mandatory qualifications as an advantage to themselves and no one seems to care about why the standard should be reduced.

One way is to make sure is that the I&Ter has something valuable to loose, is given authority to supervise, is properly paid for his work, and is independent from the contractor. The other is to make the signatory personally and legally responsible for the certificate, and thus the work. At the moment it is pretty difficult to extract damages from a contractor for poor work, or inaccurate or false certificates, and far too expensive for most domestic jobs, unless a serious accident occurs and the HSE become involved. Even complaints to the clubs seem to be ignored, they have too much of a financial interest.

You may say I have an axe to grind, or am looking to self interest, but I am disappointed if so. Issuing cards and similar nonsense will make no difference, part P hasn't worked out because councils cannot be the supervisor as BC is not on site much. What is needed is a complete change of attitude to the customer, they are not a source of work which can be abused forever. And in many cases abused they are. More meaningless qualification certificates are simply a way of making the abuse sound more official. I'm sorry for the honest hard working contractor, whatever his qualifications, because he suffers as a result of each of these so called "initiatives".

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

I'm not sure that's always, or even often, the case. On the commercial side at least, all the office managers I've come across have no more electrical knowledge than your typical householder - as long as it seems to work and looks fairly tidy, the contractor gets paid. Choice of contractor is often on lowest price. Some of the worst botches I've seen have been above suspended ceilings in offices.
- Andy.

How many electrical contractors have a plan B?

So many firms rely on one person, be it the person who started and owns the firm or has become a employee of great responsibility the "QS", but more likely the person who does the accounts.

So what happens if they are ill, leave the firm or even has a couple of weeks off for a holiday.

I thought most firms could at least depend on their electricians to be able to produce certification for their own work and if need be do a part P notification, however I was told a couple of months ago that I am wrong in thinking this and most electricians are not up to the challenge of taking this responsibility if required to do so.

Andy

i dont like the QS system either. I work for a large company, and i install, inspect and test my own work, and that of others.
We are an NICEIC company. We have one QS for a company that employs around 200 sparks.
Considering that i do all of the testing ect for our current contract, i find it worrying that I have never met our QS, and i know he has never visited one of the sites that i work on.
Ive met lots of electricians wgho i struggle to see how they can call themselves that (more like installers), and some of the lack of basic knowledge is worrying.
Yet, despite this, our company may well win work based upon the fact that they are NICEIC registered (amongst other things).

I also undertake commercial work in my own time, yet im not individually NICEIC registered, yet im the same person that is carrying out good quality work for an NICEIC registered firm, issuing certs with my signature on.

I really am in favour for individual licences that can be revoked, and maybe we could bring the trade back to the good old days that i hear about.

The good old days are a myth and fantasy!