Electrical Testing

[JohnW2]

In other words if done by the book then it is all about trust there is nothing to stop a tester cheating.

There will obviously always be some cheating (and also some sloppy practice), and probably the only way to reduce it substantially would be to regulate it, and police the activity of testers.

If those who undertook EICRs knew that there was a significant risk that their EICRs would be subject to random checks (maybe by using 'set up' installations) and that they would 'lose their licence to undertake EICRs' if their reports were found to be seriously wrong (or plain fraudulent), then we might see an increase in conscientiousness on the part of the honest and a decrease in cheating amongst the dishonest. If it can be done with MOT tests, then it could be done with EICRs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have talked about a licence before. Our car licence gains points if we make errors and after so many errors we can't drive plus we have to take a test to start with. There is also agreement between EEC countries and we can drive in other countries as well even though some of the rules change like side of the road to drive on.

This is where we have the problem any licence would need to be an EEC thing with all member countries having similar rules.

We have already seen the mess made with Part P where I can't fit a new socket in my own kitchen but can travel 8 miles down the road and fit one for some one else within the Part P rules.

We have seen cherry picker licence, and fork lift licence work reasonably well but the advanced and approved electrician systems again were failures being nothing more than a way to extract money out of people and it was an attempt to return to the old Union run closed shop which the government made illegal and I do wonder if the advanced and approved electrician schemes are really legal as a result. There has to be free movement of labour within the EEC and the schemes are really restrictive practices.

When a UK citizen can't get a job because their passport is out of date then clearly we have already gone OTT with the rules. I can see where we need to help private individuals in selecting tradesmen but to restrict who can work for companies any more than we already have is wrong.

It would seem companies are making a lot of money doing the same thing Unions were banned from doing with things like "Rated Tradesmen" which in real terms means if your useless you can pay them to say you can do the job so unsuspecting householders will employ you without checking your previous work as they think the overseeing company has. At least the electrical scheme operators do check you can do the job if sole trader but very little control on who the larger companies employ.

In my dads day the Trade Unions did a reasonable job in ensuring it's members had a warranty of skill it was a sad day when MT took away from them their self regularly powers.

So putting it simply the government messed it all up and the only way it can be improved if for the government to assume control to replace the control removed from the Unions. The government would need to issue a licence not any private organisation. Or of course give the Unions back their powers.

 

[JohnW2]

I have talked about a licence before. ... This is where we have the problem any licence would need to be an EEC thing with all member countries having similar rules.

I really don't see that. BS7671-based EICRs, like MOT tests, are a purely UK phenomenon, so there's no reason why those who wish to undertake EICRs in the UK could not be required to be registered/licensed so to do (just as with MOT testers) - with QA/audit, and sanctions (ultimately removal of registration/licence) for those found to be working unsatisfactorily.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have talked about a licence before. Our car licence gains points if we make errors and after so many errors we can't drive plus we have to take a test to start with. There is also agreement between EEC countries and we can drive in other countries as well even though some of the rules change like side of the road to drive on.

This is where we have the problem any licence would need to be an EEC thing with all member countries having similar rules.

Don't see why.

You talk about driving, but you need more than a driving licence to become a licenced Hackney Carriage driver in London, and other cities. You can't just come and work in London if you're a licenced HC driver from Birmingham, let alone Bratislava.

So clearly it is quite possible to have different rules in different places.

We have already seen the mess made with Part P where I can't fit a new socket in my own kitchen

You can if you are competent.

but can travel 8 miles down the road and fit one for some one else within the Part P rules.

Part P is the same in England & Wales.

There has to be free movement of labour within the EEC and the schemes are really restrictive practices.

People having to take tests to show that they are capable of doing the job is not incompatible with free movement of labour, as long as it's the same test that everybody has to do, irrespective of nationality.

When a UK citizen can't get a job because their passport is out of date

¿Que?

In my dads day the Trade Unions did a reasonable job in ensuring it's members had a warranty of skill it was a sad day when MT took away from them their self regularly powers.

And in my Dad's day they also perpetuated some shocking abuses of power - deliberate overmanning, institutionalised absenteeism etc. There were lots of places where if everyone on the payroll turned up when they were supposed to there'd be no room for them all.

Or of course give the Unions back their powers.

Would these be the unions who used to cooperate with employers to blacklist people who they didn't like?

Six workers, thought to be members of the Electrical Plumbing Industrial Union (EPIU), were blacklisted from the Jubilee Line extension work in 1998-99, for example. This followed information obtained at a “liaison between union, contractor and managing agent”, according to TCA documents.

TCA documents reveal that Mick Anderson, an electrician, was reported “not recommended” by Amicus when he applied for a job at Heathrow Airport in 2005.

-----------------------------------------

In part AMICUS is looking increasingly like a union that has been bought and sold by the bosses in the building trade. Sweetheart deals and a payoff by the bosses to the AMICUS union is creating an unsavoury situation on the building sites. In the case of the locked-out Manchester electricians it seems Roger Furnage, a now pensioned-off AMICUS official, tried to enforce the black-list against Steve Acheson on the One Manchester Piccadilly site.

-----------------------------------------

Under the terms of the JIB, employers pay Amicus dues for each worker covered by the agreement. It is rumoured that this nets the union well over £1m a year. Membership of any other union is aggressively discouraged by contractors and union officials. Workers in the Manchester dispute have evidence that Amicus officials sanctioned their sacking in a bid to preserve good relations with management.

 

[burntwire]

Maybe limit the amount of circuits that can be tested per day?

I am sure that with car MOT's they used to be able to bash them out as fast as they could, then mot stations were limited to one mot per hour to ensure the appropriate time was spent on each vehicle

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe limit the amount of circuits that can be tested per day? ... I am sure that with car MOT's they used to be able to bash them out as fast as they could, then mot stations were limited to one mot per hour to ensure the appropriate time was spent on each vehicle

That wouldn't offer any guarantees as to how rushed/badly done the inspections actually were, but it could be part of a regulation system.

In any event, such a system could only be operated if those undertaking EICRs had to be registered/licensed, and had to 'notify' all jobs undertaken to some body. By the time one had set all that up, it would be far better to include 'random audit' (which would actually assess quality of work) into the policing - just as, I believe, is the case with MOT testing.

Kind Regards, John[/u]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you think any of that would pass a cost-benefit analysis?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I know a VOSA inspector could possibly be waiting outside the MoT station, presumably with a police officer so that you have to stop, to verify the effectiveness of the test just undertaken.

To imagine something similar, with police?, for electrical inspections/work is getting a bit far-fetched.

There are 'cowboys' taking advantage of people in ALL walks of life including Parliament.

Legislation in Britain seems to be primarily to apportion blame when something goes wrong - not to stop it happenning.
The exception to this would appear to be motoring which, you may have noticed, is hugely profitable.
Plus, of course, it could save up to ten lives, and many injuries, per day.

Electrical legislation could/may reduce shoddy work but it would have minimal effect on people's health.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you think any of that would pass a cost-benefit analysis?

Always difficult, if done properly, since one has to somehow attribute monetary 'value' to loss of life or serious injury. However, as we often discuss, the number of deaths due to electricity is tiny, the number of serious injuries due to electricity pretty small (in terms of the 'big picture'), and far from all of those deaths/injuries will be due to 'bad work', anyway. It follows that cost-benefit analyses would probably struggle to show that anything related to electrical safety was 'cost effective'. The same amount of effort/money spent on, say, road safety would have far more scope for reducing deaths and serious injuries.

Kindest Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I know a VOSA inspector could possibly be waiting outside the MoT station, presumably with a police officer so that you have to stop, to verify the effectiveness of the test just undertaken. ... To imagine something similar, with police?, for electrical inspections/work is getting a bit far-fetched.

I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that, like hotel and restaurant (and many other) 'inspectors', VOSA put cars with known defects in for MOT tests and took it from there. I'm not sure where the police would come into it.

Electrical legislation could/may reduce shoddy work but it would have minimal effect on people's health.

Indeed, as we've often discussed. The risks to health and life posed by electrical installations are, surprisingly, so very small that nothing designed to improve safety can possibly have an appreciable effect on "people's health". Get rid of Part P and reduce BS7671 to a dozen pages of the most crucial advice (approximate guidance about cable sizing etc.) and you'd probably be hard-pressed to measure any detrimental effect on the community ... but that's not how the world works!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that, like hotel and restaurant (and many other) 'inspectors', VOSA put cars with known defects in for MOT tests and took it from there. I'm not sure where the police would come into it.

I believe there is a chance that VOSA could be waiting outside the testing station to verify that the MoT has been carried out correctly - to check on the testing station.
This has to be done 'instantly' as , by the next day for example, the test and certificate are irrelevant.
Without the police they cannot stop you or force you to comply.

Indeed, as we've often discussed. The risks to health and life posed by electrical installations are, surprisingly, so very small that nothing designed to improve safety can possibly have an appreciable effect on "people's health". Get rid of Part P and reduce BS7671 to a dozen pages of the most crucial advice (approximate guidance about cable sizing etc.) and you'd probably be hard-pressed to measure any detrimental effect on the community ... but that's not how the world works!

There is a simple way to ensure that electrical installations and work have been done correctly - ban protective devices.
It would be like gas then - do it wrong, something bad happens.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that, like hotel and restaurant (and many other) 'inspectors', VOSA put cars with known defects in for MOT tests and took it from there. I'm not sure where the police would come into it.

I believe there is a chance that VOSA could be waiting outside the testing station to verify that the MoT has been carried out correctly - to check on the testing station. ... This has to be done 'instantly' as , by the next day for example, the test and certificate are irrelevant. ... Without the police they cannot stop you or force you to comply.

Maybe they do that, but it (and the police) certainly wouldn't be necessary to undertake 'auditing' of EICRs. You obviously do have a bit of a point about 'instantly', but in practice the lack of that would often not been an issue - either for MOTs or EICRs. Inspectors aren't daft, and they know that worn out brake pads or undersized cables (which have clearly been there for a long time) don't suddenly appear overnight!

There is a simple way to ensure that electrical installations and work have been done correctly - ban protective devices. It would be like gas then - do it wrong, something bad happens

Hmmm. Although you jest, you actually highlight one of the issues - namely that, even in the absence of protective devices, the vast majority of 'bad work' would not result in anything bad happening (for a very long time, if ever). Of course, the greater issue is that protective devices are not there primarily to deal with the consequences of 'bad work' - they are needed to deal with spontaneously occurring faults, for which there is often not anyone to 'blame'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Maybe they do that, but it (and the police) certainly wouldn't be necessary to undertake 'auditing' of EICRs. You obviously do have a bit of a point about 'instantly', but in practice the lack of that would often not been an issue - either for MOTs or EICRs. Inspectors aren't daft, and they know that worn out brake pads or undersized cables (which have clearly been there for a long time) don't suddenly appear overnight!

That is true but unless they see the vehicle as it leaves the testing station, they cannot prove it was like that when tested.

It may be obvious to you and me but if denied ...

 

[JohnW2]

That is true but unless they see the vehicle as it leaves the testing station, they cannot prove it was like that when tested. ... It may be obvious to you and me but if denied ...

I suspect that there would probably be ways around that but, even if there weren't, I don't think there would be a problem with EICRs. If the inspectors 'pre-inspected' the installation (and, if you really wanted it to be legally watertight, also 'post-inspected' it), I don't think there would be any wriggling out of a bad/incorrect EICR! However, it's not going to happen - at least, not any time soon!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Inspection/legislation won't fly - too expensive, not worth it.

The Wiring Regulations were started by insurance companies, so standards developed by bodies such as NAPIT, ESC etc, a way of using technology to log/audit testing activity, and check the logs, and the insurers telling their customers that they must have EICRs done (by anybody, at any price - free market etc) by someone who signs up to those standards, or their policy is null and void, and away we go.

Sudden thought - I don't know how big a problem theft of testers is? But if they were generating data files which had to be uploaded somewhere and processed - hey presto, no way to use nicked gear.