IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: WANNA BE A REGISTERED CONTRACTOR?
Topic Summary: Book early to avoid disappointment.
Created On: 25 February 2013 04:23 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 28 February 2013 09:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sbrown2

Posts: 97
Joined: 25 July 2008

"I was actually suggesting "installers" and "electricians" - and no so much a book of standing orders - more a seperation of domestic installations into a sub section of BS 7671 based on standard, pre defined circuit arrangements - once you vary from those, then you're out of scope"

Example please.
 28 February 2013 09:31 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 10964
Joined: 13 August 2003

Andy,

Please work on your theory and publish it. Could we please have something involving the square of the hypotenuse and the square root of three. Uvverwise we'll get proper confused.

A-ha! yes - I think you've got something there - year-duration-perception might indeed be non-linear. It might not even be discrete (different ones for different groups) but part of a continuum - electricians and customers being but different points on the same curve. Adding customer-years and electrician-years would then be a bit like vector addition (or phasor addition if you prefer). It could bring a whole new branch of mathematics (electro-maths?) to project planning.

- Andy.
 28 February 2013 09:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: sbrown2

Therefore, Andy, we appear to get to the point where indicate that all electricians should be educated to a minimum level. I would say a minimum academic level that they have the fundamental knowledge to cover all aspects of electrical and associated engineering.

I disagree - the cost of training and owning highly skilled elctricians and employing them in low skill installer jobs is a real burden - we really do need a twop tier system, that allows progression from installer to electrician in a variety of routes - the very narrow criteria related to formal aprenticeships and "classic" apprentice type training are increadibly restrictive to some very competent people who come to the industry via diverse routes.

There is nothing wrong with NOS - what we don't apear to have is the people with the adequate skills to evaluate individuals against the NOS - they relay on a very narrow academic criteria to do it for them



it would appear the schemes are setting this around the NVQ 3 level. I appreciate this is a vocational award.

see above.

I also believe that with the three phase knowledge allied with the installation of heatpumps and solar panels we could be required to install the electrician/domestic installer would become something like a building services technician/installer.

I do wish people would stop talking about 3 phase as if it were some sort of weird and specialist thing - in the vast majority of cases, loads from 3 phase supplies are single phase anyway - it's just basic electrical work.

I strongly suggest that you don't mix up installers of such systems with individuals who understand the systems and have knowledge how to control them (and integrate them) - we have MCS for that.




Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 28 February 2013 12:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



SherlockOhms

Posts: 313
Joined: 05 April 2011





I do wish people would stop talking about 3 phase as if it were some sort of weird and specialist thing - in the vast majority of cases, loads from 3 phase supplies are single phase anyway - it's just basic electrical work.




I agree but tell that to my insurance co.

S.
 28 February 2013 01:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: sbrown2

"I was actually suggesting "installers" and "electricians" - and no so much a book of standing orders - more a seperation of domestic installations into a sub section of BS 7671 based on standard, pre defined circuit arrangements - once you vary from those, then you're out of scope"



Example please.


Well we have several already - there are plenty of people who believe that a 100A domestic supply should only have 25mm2 tails and a 16mm2 earthing conductor and that 10mm2 bonding is the minimum - also that includes 16mm2 to any TT electrodes - it's in BS 7671 they say, and won't believe you when you point out it isn't

So - taking that as an example - those are simple rules for an installer - if he does that every time he can't get it wrong - an electrician on the other hand would understand that what he was looking at was rule based but could be smaller based on calculation and a full aplication of the regs.

Another example would be outbuildings, sheds, garden power and hot tubs. If we simply manfdated a simple "make it TT" rule, then again most installers could identify with that - the more experienced, knowledgable electrician would again recognise simple "rule based" criteria but equally could evaluate specific circumstances back to what BS 7671 reqires would be acceptable. You'd be amazed at the number of people who swear bling that the issues of exporting PME are in BS 7671 but don't recognise the issue when putting in an external socket for a caravan parked on the drive.

In the installers rule book, all showers would be wired in 10.0mm2 and protected by a 50A MCB along with an RCD as another example.

There are many more - take a browse through this forum and pick out say a dozen common themes - there's half the book written right there.

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 28 February 2013 02:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sbrown2

Posts: 97
Joined: 25 July 2008

I agree with your comments. But without strict, statutory, regulation this would and could not be enforced. Especially when you consider the statutory part of the electrical regulation, EAWR, is guided by an ACOP already. The regulators in this case then risk assess their work and put in special regulation in for lets say, in my case, mining and others which are statutory regulation. But then when we come to domestic, commercial and other industrial electrical works we make reference to the non statutory BS7671. This is why it is clear that the OSG or any guide related to BS7671 can be vague at the best.
My thought is that, maybe, this domestic installer should be supervised. Not at all times but be under the supervision of somebody with technical knowledge. This knowledge appears to be coming in the form of third either third party assessments or installers needing to reach this supposedly dreaded NVQ3. Its is pointless looking back at who has been allowed into the schemes previously as, lets say 5 day wonders.
In answer to people talking of grandfather rights my apprenticeship, in mining, was led by guys with these grandfather rights. They were considerably older than the new breed of guys who were studying for ONC's, HNC's and C&G's. I was told that most of these guys, usually shift engineers had c&G's craft qualifications at best. I/we were told that we would not progress unless we obtained certain levels of qualification. My point is unless you are in a environment where there is some structure as I was, at times, then this grandfather rights fiasco cannot persist otherwise people will always look to circumvent the education system on these grounds.
 28 February 2013 02:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: sbrown2

I agree with your comments. But without strict, statutory, regulation this would and could not be enforced. Especially when you consider the statutory part of the electrical regulation, EAWR, is guided by an ACOP already. The regulators in this case then risk assess their work and put in special regulation in for lets say, in my case, mining and others which are statutory regulation.

We are talking about domestic installations - there is no EAWR, the only statutory aspect is ESQCR and that simply relies on BS 7671

But then when we come to domestic, commercial and other industrial electrical works we make reference to the non statutory BS7671. This is why it is clear that the OSG or any guide related to BS7671 can be vague at the best.

I disagree - I was simply suggesting that a "dometic installers" rule book section of BS 7671 has some merit.

My thought is that, maybe, this domestic installer should be supervised. Not at all times but be under the supervision of somebody with technical knowledge.


why, it's hardly rocket science - the installers wouldn't be any less skilled than they are now - they would only operate at a domestic level and use rule based solutions - what's so difficult about that which would require supervison.


This knowledge appears to be coming in the form of third either third party assessments or installers needing to reach this supposedly dreaded NVQ3. Its is pointless looking back at who has been allowed into the schemes previously as, lets say 5 day wonders.

I agree - looking back is pointless, but I disagree that the knowledge can only come from third party assessment - there are plenty of people on here who don't have a classical apprentice background, have less than formal qualification in some cases but still succeed in operating small businesses turning out quality work coupled with a good technical understanding commensurate with what they do every day.

In answer to people talking of grandfather rights my apprenticeship, in mining, was led by guys with these grandfather rights. They were considerably older than the new breed of guys who were studying for ONC's, HNC's and C&G's. I was told that most of these guys, usually shift engineers had c&G's craft qualifications at best. I/we were told that we would not progress unless we obtained certain levels of qualification. My point is unless you are in a environment where there is some structure as I was, at times, then this grandfather rights fiasco cannot persist otherwise people will always look to circumvent the education system on these grounds.

I suggest you read that again - you are first telling me that you worked for some incredibly competent engineers who, for whatever reason, didn't have formal qualification to back up that competence.

Then you tell me that without the education you couldn't progress - competence didn't play a part

and finally you seem to suggest that people who are competent but don't have those qualifications shouldn't be allowed to be competent.




As i said, it was just a suggestion of mine that we are now at the point where we seriously need to consider the roles of domestic installers and electricians - I just suggested one way that we could do it, safely and efficiently without the complete fiasco we are now creating.

As I said, training and owning highly skilled electricians is expensive, and there is a shortage - why would you want people at that level when all they do is domestic installation - surely you would want people with the skills commensurate with the task, and the pricing regime that goes with that.

look at it another way - if i'm a global construction player, when times are tough in the UK I want systems that are labour intensive because labour is cheap - so plenty of trunking, conduit, tray - when times are booming, i want as much prefab and modular solutions as I can get because labour is at a premium and simple systems only need simple skills to install.

take dado trunking - why would i pay a highly skilled electrician to install what is basically a carpentry task - much better for me to employ a chippie and an electrical installer using pre designed circuit arrangements to put it all in and then just pay my skilled electrician to cast an eye over it, test it and certify it at much less time, but much higher rate.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 28 February 2013 03:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sbrown2

Posts: 97
Joined: 25 July 2008

I appreciate your comments. I am just attempting to understand nthe fundamentals of the competition I could have been up against. I am in a different part of the food chain to yourself namely manufacturing (maintenance). I have been attempting to get to grips with the domestic and commercial sectors which led me, around one year ago to join the schemes. Although I've just joined for a second year I am actively looking to back away from this. I've most probably got enough on with the day job as such. As you are aware once employed in my particular sector, based on qualification, procedures are then based on regulation and thus risk analysis. In my particular case being one of only two maintenance bods (one on each shift) we have to utilise production staff to support us with tasks and thus have to analyse risk and produce procedures based on all eventualities.

Regards

Steve
 28 February 2013 03:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: sbrown2

I appreciate your comments. I am just attempting to understand nthe fundamentals of the competition I could have been up against. I am in a different part of the food chain to yourself namely manufacturing (maintenance). I have been attempting to get to grips with the domestic and commercial sectors which led me, around one year ago to join the schemes. Although I've just joined for a second year I am actively looking to back away from this. I've most probably got enough on with the day job as such. As you are aware once employed in my particular sector, based on qualification, procedures are then based on regulation and thus risk analysis. In my particular case being one of only two maintenance bods (one on each shift) we have to utilise production staff to support us with tasks and thus have to analyse risk and produce procedures based on all eventualities.



Regards



Steve


OK Steve - the fundamentals of the competition wouldn't be any different - if you wanted to compete in a domestic market, there will always be lower skill operators with lower prices and perhaps lower expectations.

if you wanted to go into the commercial market as an electrician then again nothing has changed

Overall, i was simply suggesting that people did what is most appropriate to do - and that a simple set of rules would assist in raising standards at the domestic end whilst removing some from the commercial end back to a domestic installation role.

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 28 February 2013 03:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ashley143smith

Posts: 1
Joined: 28 February 2013

I'm a contractor but I'm using my grand father's license is there away I can register it on my own name? the problem is I don't have my own license in engineering works. Is there a possible way that it would be name on my own?
 28 February 2013 04:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: ashley143smith

I'm a contractor but I'm using my grand father's license is there away I can register it on my own name? the problem is I don't have my own license in engineering works. Is there a possible way that it would be name on my own?


Change your name by deed poll to your grandfathers - that should do it

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 28 February 2013 07:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8808
Joined: 03 October 2005

LOL What a fuss over nothing, the government has now very little interest in Part P and domestic electrical maintenance, we have basically said to you, we trust you, go out there use your common and do a good job which I expect most of you will do as you have done so already.

Most of the emphasis now is on 2016 but you will watched albeit from the corner of the eye, the issue is not over yet as I pointed out before there is still a provision for change in October 2013 whether to de-regulate further or tighten up some of the regulations as required, the figures regarding the cost of the new arrangement have been a bit disappointing and very much looking like that around £10m further needs to be saved, the costs also to small businesses, consumers and LA's who have had cuts of up to 83% is also looking a bit shakey for a de-regulation exercise, the question that originated from the Building Services Engineering Group has re-surfaced;
Should we make the existence of a 30mA residual current device (RCD) protection on affected circuits a condition for all alteration work being non-notifiable?;
This is certainly looking like a cost effective solution that does appeal to most groups, except your schemes who have not really agreed to anything since March 2012.

For those who are confused as to what 2016 has to do with it, well that is the year we are required to build zero carbon homes, briefly, very little foundation work, probably pad and pile, no hairy a$$ed builders on site polluting the atmosphere and modular homes required to be built in weeks rather than months, a large number of factory units in areas where people would benefit from employment have been earmarked ready to be tooled out to produce modular homes, it is quite possible there will be a completely new set of radical Building Regulations to complement this phase in our future and Part P with reference to electrical maintenance of our existing stock does not feature very high on anyones agenda.

I know that the subject of 2016 and zero carbon homes is a very controversial subject amongst all the groups involved and their forums will show this but I have only briefly touched on it here.

Go Building Services Engineer NOW!!!!!!!!

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------

Edited: 28 February 2013 at 08:07 PM by rocknroll
 28 February 2013 09:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5695
Joined: 18 January 2003

I had a conversation with one of my customers a couple of weeks ago about 2016. He thinks it could be the end of one off self build homes, because only large contractors and home builders with the economies of scale from repeatedly building the same units will be able to manage the complexities and costs involved with the new requirements. Even then it may add £30K per home onto the build cost affecting the viability of projects.

However I don't need to worry about this as I can make my living maintaining and improving the existing housing stock without worrying about new builds, having said that the is going to have to be a major improvement plan put in place for the existing housing stock over and above the Green Deal to reduce energy consumption within them.

Anyway back to prescribed circuits, the authors of BS7671 had a go at including a diagram and instructions on how to install a ring final circuit, got it wrong and had to publish a erratum, need I say more other than perhaps what is so complicated about it?

Andy
 05 March 2013 09:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1792
Joined: 01 April 2006

Posted by Zeeper
have you ever heard the phrases "vested interest", "cash cow" and "lobbying" by any chance ?


No NO , you have completely miss read the situation. These people who dance in the shadows are there to protect us from the bad electrical men who are nearly kill lots of persons.

Please do your reseach before commenting in the future.
...............................................................................................
Looks like your comment is correct about the shadow people, they appear to cast an eye on the changes and do not like what they see. Third party testing has been put off until 2014.
Do the schemes have a right and the responsibility to see that their subordinates do their job properly, maybe so, but leave room for the operatives that have been doing the job long before these scams were born, and have all the qualifications needed.
A monopoly the schemes should not have, nor the government promote private schemes without accused of favouritism But there you go, who leaned on the Government:

18. We are therefore pleased that the Government is keen to go down the route of a
third party inspection and testing regime. We understand this will be brought
forward separately to the Part P changes and will not be up and running until up to
twelve months after the Part P changes are adopted. Current arrangements will be
used in the interim. We look forward to supporting the development of this scheme
so that implementation does not create a disincentive to register as a Part P
contractor.

http://www.parliament.uk/docum...%20for%20web%20BRS.pdf
 05 March 2013 01:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8808
Joined: 03 October 2005

Probably the most important statement in the document you refer to is the 'statement of fear' for the schemes and pro-registered, Part P does not figure highly in the future of the Building Regulations there are more important future issues as we run up to 2016 all that Part P will become is what it was originally intended, a guidance document to ensure consistency in our build system like all the others.

Given the on-going fundamental review of Building Regulations led by the recently set-up Challenge Panel, we are also concerned that further changes undermining electrical safety in dwellings might be forthcoming.

As I pointed out Part P is no longer a moving force, it is too costly and time consuming for a trade that is at the bottom of the ladder such as domestic installation work, the government is tired of it, the industry is tired of it and the consumer who has to bear the brunt of funding you, your schemes and the other hangers on is definitely tired of it and no longer supports the over regulatory burdens that are imposed, we have plenty of evidence to support the increasing number of consumers and contractors who work outside the system and the revised document is not expected stop this, the message is very clear if you can understand it, the power has been given back to you to go out there use your commonsense and ability you were born with and do a good job, there is at the end of the day one regulation that matters in all of this and that is Regulation 7 and I am sure even the most challenging of you can understand this.

There is growing evidence that the regulatory and financial burdens that have been imposed on basic electricians has caused a massive shortage in this area, training budgets have been cut because of the lack of takers, young people who would naturally move into this trade have been put off by the over regulation and the expense to become a electrician and are moving into other areas, our estimates suggest that to serve the nation we need at least around 150,000 electricians, we have never reached this figure the most was around 127,500 a few years back, we have hovered around 106,000 for a while now and the latest figures suggest just over 103,000, as I have pointed out on many occasions our studies of regulated trades elsewhere have shown the snowball effect, less skilled people, less income, and the major point is in most of these regulated areas major contracts are completed by foreign workers because of this.

The government dont wholly support the idea that you need all these bureacratic regulatory paper hurdles that the schemes are suggesting for basic domestic third party inspection, they still believe that basic inspection and testing is part of the trade as they do it every day, the definition of competence as defined in the IET regulations is very much a favourite definition, it is quite obvious that the pro-registered and the schemes are over the next year going to cook up all sorts of ideas in an attempt to gain control of you and the domestic consumer and continue to destroy your trade from within, as I said the power is with you to stand up for yourselves, cut through the hype and do a good job.

The old chestnut that keeps cropping up regarding safety has now become an overused word, the government do not consider it as an issue but a perceived issue, a means of gaining competitive advantage over others at the expense of the consumer.

This proposal by the Building Services Engineering group is still very much alive and gathering favour;
Should we make the existence of a 30mA residual current device (RCD) protection on affected circuits a condition for all alteration work being non-notifiable?;

As OMS often says, crack on, get on with and dont worry.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------

Edited: 05 March 2013 at 02:22 PM by rocknroll
 05 March 2013 02:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

LoL - the shadow of "two jags" still loiters in the corridors of power then Funkmeister.

Still, he was a big bloke - so it'll take some time yet to vent the fumes and scrub off the stains - but going in the right direction.

Eventualy, I predict the BCO's will just become a repository for certification for all parts of the building regs - individuals will be competent to "sign off" relevant parts and if there's a future drama, BCO will just pull the certificate pack from archive and go and bother the signatory.

I never did understand the point of a semi trained BCO arguing with and having the final say over work undertaken by, as an example, a competent fire engineer - most of them don't understand the relevant aspects anyway and they certainly get fixed in thier views and opinions.

ditto any other part of the building regulations

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 05 March 2013 02:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8808
Joined: 03 October 2005

Absolutely Grasshopper, the writing is on the wall and I suspect as we move into to the future domestic electrical maintenance will fade into the distance, to the extent in a few years time electricians who gather around the wholesalers or McDonalds will retort "Do you remember that thing we had a few years back, what was it called 'Part P?". LOL

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 05 March 2013 02:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

Personally, I don't think it will disappear in terms of a Part of building regs - it'll simply be either everything is notifiable or nothing is and that competent persons will just self certify along with thos competent persons also certifying work of others - it'll be a commercial choice if you want to take on the risk or not. akin to third party persons undertaking parl L EPC's and BRUKL documents.

Part P won't go away - just that it won't become such a ridiculous drama that the industry "grew" it into

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 05 March 2013 03:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8808
Joined: 03 October 2005

Just a quip. I agree Part P wil always be there if not just a set of rules to ensure consistency, there are many ideas in the vein you describe down to just basically sending your IEC etc; to BC, third party testing is not seen as much of big deal as experience has shown us not many take up this idea as most micro businesses prefer to work inside their own comfort zone, within their own circle and often have enough to do rather than get involved in this area, but it will appeal to some probably those towards the end of their career when the old aches and pains are setting in.

Part P won't go away - just that it won't become such a ridiculous drama that the industry "grew" it into


Thats right, its just one of the many thousands of casualties of de-regulation, unless we free everything up so people can work and get work freely without any hinderances then we aint going nowhere, just common sense.


regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 05 March 2013 03:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

For sure - as the bones get a bit creaky, no problem doing a quick once over for Mr DIY, a semi visual EICR whilst your about it and £80.00 in the tweeds pocket, ta very much.

No dramas - as it should have been essentialy -

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
IET » Wiring and the regulations » WANNA BE A REGISTERED CONTRACTOR?

<< 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.