Rescinding Amendment Three???

[JohnW2]

I am saying you want a regulatory system simply because you want a regulatory system;

Not at all. Personally, I do not 'want' a regulatory system at all. If I were ever to need to services of an electrician, I consider myself able to make a judgement as to whether someone I'm considering engaging is adequately qualified, experienced and competent. However, on behalf of the general public, I am suggesting that it would be desirable for them to be reassured that an 'electrician' had satisfied some official body that they had a reasonable amount of training/ qualifications/ experience/ whatever.

... not because there is any problem with the trade which needs a solution.

If you feel (and could convince me) that there is no problem with a situation in which someone who has little or no training, qualifications or experience can style him/herself as an 'electrician' and offer any/all (paid) electrical services to customers, then I suppose I would have to agree that there is no problem with the trade which requires a solution.

However, as I've just written to stillp, why is there all this resistance to the idea? Registration for people like yourself would just be a 'rubber stamping' exercise, and only those who competence might be in question would be likely to have any difficulties.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Am I missing some reason why trained, qualified and competent electricians should oppose (or 'fear') such a system?

No, but using the word 'fear' is tarnishing everyone who sees unnecessary bureaucracy as, well - unnecessary.

It will just lead to more expense for no benefit.

Perhaps, I am too cynical but NICEIC is NOT the GMC.
The schemes have shown themselves to be nothing more than a money-making exercise staffed by people no better, if not worse, than those they seek to regulate - £500 will get you in - unless, I imagine, you are utterly and totally inept.

You, yourself, have done more than anyone else here to highlight the inadequacies of even those who make the rules.

If it could be staffed by robots who knew everything, then maybe I would be less averse, but regulatory bodies staffed by humans who are fed up with actually doing the work or have been promoted sideways never leads to a good outcome.

 

[bernardgreen]

I am suggesting that it would be desirable for them to be reassured that an 'electrician' had satisfied some official body that they had a reasonable amount of training/ qualifications/ experience/ whatever.

No matter how many "qualifications" a person can show to prospective clients those pieces of paper cannot indicate the attitude the trades person has to the work they do and the customers they are working for.

In other threads there have been mentions of GasSafe registered "engineers" making basic errors and omissions, one of these omissions could have created a serious hazard to the people living in the house. That to me ( and to a trusted local plumber ) shows a lack of commitment to the work.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you feel (and could convince me) that there is no problem with a situation in which someone who has little or no training, qualifications or experience can style him/herself as an 'electrician' and offer any/all (paid) electrical services to customers, then I suppose I would have to agree that there is no problem with the trade which requires a solution.

Where are all the cases?

However, as I've just written to stillp, why is there all this resistance to the idea? Registration for people like yourself would just be a 'rubber stamping' exercise, and only those who competence might be in question would be likely to have any difficulties.

Alright, maybe it's just me.

One of my favourite sayings is "Never assume those in charge know what they are doing".
The reason for this is experience.
British Management is and always has been fundamentally poor with appointments made on the old boys' network and, as above, sideways promotion.

I just don't want any more. Perhaps some of those bodies already in position could be deemed redundant.

 

[JohnW2]

If you feel (and could convince me) that there is no problem with a situation in which someone who has little or no training, qualifications or experience can style him/herself as an 'electrician' and offer any/all (paid) electrical services to customers, then I suppose I would have to agree that there is no problem with the trade which requires a solution.

Where are all the cases?

Facts about that are obviously hard to come by, but some of the things we hear here about what 'electricians' have done or said caste serious doubts of the adequacy of their training or competence. Furthermore, do you believe that none of these people who undertake clearly inadequate 'courses' subsequently try to sell themselves as 'electricians'?

However, as I've just written to stillp, why is there all this resistance to the idea? Registration for people like yourself would just be a 'rubber stamping' exercise, and only those who competence might be in question would be likely to have any difficulties.

Alright, maybe it's just me.

It's not just you - others seem to be 'resistant' as well!

One of my favourite sayings is "Never assume those in charge know what they are doing". ... I just don't want any more. Perhaps some of those bodies already in position could be deemed redundant.

At least as the first stage, I'm not really suggesting that 'they' would necessarily have to have much to "know what they are doing". All I'm suggesting is that, in return for examining your evidence of qualifications and/or experience, they would put you on some sort of register, and would issue you with a piece of paper, a card or whatever indicating that you were a "Registered Electrician". Pretty painless for you, maybe a bit more difficult/painful for those with little/no qualifications and experience!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Judging from some of the comments and questions I've read elsewhere from supposedly "qualified electricians" who have passed all the relevant C&G exams, I would also add that I wonder how useful some of these "official" qualifications might be these days.

I suspect that some of the papers now cover a lot about BS7671 specifically, but don't really test for a thorough knowledge and understanding of basic principles deeply enough.

 

[JohnW2]

I am suggesting that it would be desirable for them to be reassured that an 'electrician' had satisfied some official body that they had a reasonable amount of training/ qualifications/ experience/ whatever.

No matter how many "qualifications" a person can show to prospective clients those pieces of paper cannot indicate the attitude the trades person has to the work they do and the customers they are working for.

Of course - that's true in any field - we have all heard of cases (even in the 'major professions') in which 'legitimate' paper qualifications have existed despite a clear absence of competence. However, one has to start somewhere, and whether or not a person has any, or adequate, 'paper qualifications' is an obvious starting point.

The aspects of registration that would go further to address your concerns (periodic 'evaluations', random audits etc.) are not only complex (and costly), but are likely to meet even more resistance from some than does the basic concept of being registered.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

OK. Judging by PBC's pictures on another thread perhaps it is a good idea - in principle.

I just know it wouldn't turn out as intended.



It won't affect me either way as I have retired now, anyway. Really old, now; my little girl is 43.


Edit - recalculation.

 

[JohnW2]

Judging from some of the comments and questions I've read elsewhere from supposedly "qualified electricians" who have passed all the relevant C&G exams, I would also add that I wonder how useful some of these "official" qualifications might be these days. ... I suspect that some of the papers now cover a lot about BS7671 specifically, but don't really test for a thorough knowledge and understanding of basic principles deeply enough.

Lack of teaching / testing / understanding of basic principles does seem to be somewhat of an issue, but I don't know to what extent that applies to the C&G courses/exams we are talking about.

However, as I seem to keep writing today, "one has to start somewhere". If a person has 'all the relevant C&G qualifications' they are surely 'more likely be competent' than if they have no qualifications at all, or only those relating to a 5-day course?

Kind Regards, John

 

[kai]

Bring back dual screw terminals in consumer boards and their main-switches, and ensure DNO's do their job properly, i.e. not turning a blind eye to obviously unsafe workmanship, and maintaining their earth properly and almost all the problems will be eradicated. Not exactly rocket science - M2 and Wylex have just re-introduced twin-screw terminals main-switches that mount on standard din rail modules.

 

[JohnW2]

OK. Judging by PBC's pictures on another thread perhaps it is a good idea - in principle. I just know it wouldn't turn out as intended.

In terms of registration, per se, I can't really see what could go wrong. AFAICS, the 'worst' that could happen is that someone with a "Registered Electrician" card in their pocket might prove to be less-than-competent - but that is currently a risk which exists with anyone self-declaring themselves to be an 'electrician'.

It won't affect me either way as I have retired now, anyway. Really old, now; my little girl is 42.

Fair enough. My 'bigger one' is 35, so I'm a bit behind you!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I did say insulated and sheathed tri-rated cable. I've only got green/yellow to hand for the photo, this bit is 25mm².
View attachment 93677

Brilliant - didn't know that existed. Then I tried to find some, and was going no-where until I hit the magic number 6381Y. Now I find that my local wholesaler (CEF) only does 25mm², and only in Blue and Grey which seems an odd combination of colours, and only by the roll. They do 6181Y tails by the meter in Blue, Brown, and Grey - but no black. Still, there are other suppliers out there.

 

[bernardgreen]

Fair enough. My 'bigger one' is 35, so I'm a bit behind you!

Same as my oldest, fortunately I do not feel as old as I am. Years are just a number people sometimes put on the birthday card...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps they have nothing to gain from another system? Do you really think it would stop the 5-day wonders from undercutting them?

That would depend on a combination of the likelihood of getting caught and the penalty for being found guilty.

There would inevitably be a grey area. If I do some work for a friend, and they give me some money to show their thanks, am I trading? What if I do such work for a friend of a friend?

Give a full and accurate accounting of the event to HMRC. If they want tax then yes, you are trading.

 

[SimonH2]

Give a full and accurate accounting of the event to HMRC. If they want tax then yes, you are trading.

No. It means they want to dip into your money.
Given that they frequently get taken to court and lose, the fact that HMRC want money out of you does not mean all that much. They are notorious for "interpreting" the law and rules in their favour regardless of the merits of the case.
Given your line of work, I assume you'll have at least heard of IR35 and probably know people affected by it. From memory, I believe there have been many cases involving IR35 that have gone to court and HMRC have lost.
And the latest wheeze I've read up on involves people who have used a tax avoidance scheme - and correctly declared both that they have used it and what it is. HMRC have written some small print in a letter to the tax payer which means they've opened an investigation - thus giving themselves an unlimited time to leave it on the shelf before doing anything (and of course, allowing the "disputed" tax to build up), and unless the taxpayer understands the technical meaning of an innocuous sentence then they never knew about it. Then a decade later, HMRC, after having been given the power by the ****wits in Westminster, turn round to the taxpayer and basically say "You owe us this disputed tax, you have to pay it NOW and then we'll discuss the merits of the case" (it's called an Accelerated Payment Notice). How would you stand if you had 90 days to find (say) 100k ? Don't worry, if your case is sound then you'll get it back when you win ... in a few years time. I bet lots of people thought "oh what a great idea" when they heard that HMRC could demand tax off suspected cheats - not realising how the power would be used. People have been forced to sell the family home, it's caused divorces, and even IIRC at least one suicide.
Now, looking at the schemes being talked about, some of them are clearly taking the wee-wee and those using them really couldn't have not known they were bogus. But I cannot believe that not one single scheme caught up in this is not valid. But the injustice is that HMRC knew about them for a decade and did absolutely nothing at all - now they've got the power to simply take the money they think they should be owed and drag it out for a few more years before losing in court and paying it back with a pittance of interest.

So no, don't ever try and tell me that "if HMRC ask for money ..." They've been proven time and time again to be a bunch of thieving scumbags.

And before you ask - no I am not affected*, and I don't personally know anyone who is. But I recognise the injustice of it when I see it.
https://www.dotas-scandal.org/what-is-the-dotas-scandal/apn-f-a-q/

* Though reading some of the reports around - since I do have a business, there is scope for HMRC turning round in a few years and challenging a previous tax return. Since they are able to pull numbers out of their backsides, the fact that any tax due couldn't possibly be a significant amount doesn't mean they can't turn round and demand an amount I don't owe and couldn't pay.
I've also first hand experience of asking HMRC what should be a simple question and finding them either unable or unwilling to answer it.