Niceic Certificate very basic?

[bernardgreen]

Under the system I would like to see the product in question would not have been offered for sale by eBay or Amazon if they had not already satisfied themselves about it.

They could have been satisfied it was OK after examining the first batch of items. Then once the items have the stamp of approval the manufacturer lowers the standards, even changes the internal design to lower costs ( increase profits ) without notifying anyone. Amazon are now unwittingly selling items that are not as tested and approved. On going testing and examination has to be in place, even more so now that Joe Public buys on price rather than quality.

Should self certifying electricians be routinely assessed. ? The majority would pass the assessment as they do good quality work. assessments are needed to identify the minority who self certify poor quality work as being of good standard. If the occasional inconvenience to tradesmen and clients results in just one rogue ( possibly dangerous ) self certifier being discovered and dealt with then I feel it is worth it. At least the inconvenienced client has a double check their installation is to the required ( safe ) standard.

 

[JohnW2]

But they could devise an alternative inspection regime which never inconvenienced any members of the public.

It's hard to see how they could do that without 'blowing their cover' ,thereby undermining the whole concept. The MOT station had told me, in good faith, when they expected their MOT testing to be completed. They (necessarily) did not know that an inspector was going to turn up 'unexpectedly' and delay availability of my car until beyond that time.

Under the system I would like to see the product in question would not have been offered for sale by eBay or Amazon if they had not already satisfied themselves about it.

Yes, I realise that. As you will understand, I was just trying to find some other example of a situation in which some sort of safety-related checking/inspecting/whatever 'inconvenienced' consumers. As I said, some degree of 'inconvenience' is sometimes an acceptable price to pay.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's hard to see how they could do that without 'blowing their cover' ,thereby undermining the whole concept.

We'd need to know how many inspectors cover how many testing stations each and how often they inspect to know if a programme of covert vehicle submissions would work.

 

[JohnW2]

They could have been satisfied it was OK after examining the first batch of items. Then once the items have the stamp of approval the manufacturer lowers the standards, even changes the internal design to lower costs ( increase profits ) without notifying anyone. Amazon are now unwittingly selling items that are not as tested and approved. On going testing and examination has to be in place, even more so now that Joe Public buys on price rather than quality.

Quite so. I realise it was not a terribly good example, since that 'ongoing testing etc' could usually be undertaken without inconveniencing consumers - but I was trying to illustrate to BAS that 'safety measures' do sometimes necessarily result in some inconvenience (anyone boarded an aircraft in recent years?!).

Should self certifying electricians be routinely assessed. ? The majority would pass the assessment as they do good quality work. assessments are needed to identify the minority who self certify poor quality work as being of good standard. If the occasional inconvenience to tradesmen and clients results in just one rogue ( possibly dangerous ) self certifier being discovered and dealt with then I feel it is worth it. At least the inconvenienced client has a double check their installation is to the required ( safe ) standard.

My understanding is that regular 'assessment' of self-certifying electricians does take place. However, as with re-assessments in so many trades/professions (including some 'major professions') I suspect that it is probably not very effective - and is usually falls short of 'audit' of work that has already been undertaken by the person concerned.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It's hard to see how they could do that without 'blowing their cover' ,thereby undermining the whole concept.

We'd need to know how many inspectors cover how many testing stations each and how often they inspect to know if a programme of covert vehicle submissions would work.

Fair enough. If one is to believe what one hears on TV, they use that technique as well.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

An ESC report for 2010 shows there were 6 work related electrocutions and 8 people died in fires attributed to electrical installations. Even if the report under-states the numbers we are nowhere near the situation where a random inspection regime would have a massive impact (and yes any death would better be prevented)

If the DfT want to to check an MOT station they know where to turn up. A DI could be working anywhere on any given day. Also, how would you react to an inspector knocking on your door and stopping your electrician when he is in the middle of a job?

 

[JohnW2]

An ESC report for 2010 shows there were 6 work related electrocutions and 8 people died in fires attributed to electrical installations. Even if the report under-states the numbers we are nowhere near the situation where a random inspection regime would have a massive impact (and yes any death would better be prevented)

As you must know, that is a point I repeatedly make. Surprising though it may be, there are so few electricity-related deaths in the UK (less in a year than occur in a day or two on the roads) that there is almost no scope for any measures to substantially reduce it. For example, the tiny number of deaths due to electricity has not reduced appreciably (and, as we both say/imply, could not reduce very far!) as RCDs have become increasingly more deployed (at incredible cost), let alone the introduction of Part P.

As you say, there's always the argument that 'one death is one death too many', and it's also obviously the case that there are a good few non-fatal incidents which result in serious injury (the number of which is almost impossible to get a handle on), but the fact remains that, in terms of the big picture, deaths and serious injuries due to electricity are numerically 'trivial' in comparison with those due to so many other causes (using ladders, for example!).

However, that does not stop people in places like this being very cautious. For example, despite the fact that I suspect that few, if any, of the tiny number of electricity-related deaths each year are due to DIYers not practising proper safe isolation and/or not 'testing for dead', it can sometimes be a topic which generates appreciable 'excitement'!

Returning to topic, however, I'm not sure that any of this alters the fact that the general public would like to think that professionally-undertaken electric work was 'properly regulated'. I'm far from sure that there is much evidence that regular rigorous re-testing and re-training of airline pilots makes air travel appreciably safer, but I'm sure the public would be unhappy if they didn't know it happened!

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

I would say it is self-evidently sensible to point a diyer at the safe isolation process.

John, just because the schemes don't work as YOU would want them to, does not mean we are not a 'properly regulated'.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi - back to Monday evenings I see.

I would say it is self-evidently sensible to point a diyer at the safe isolation process.

Of course (when the opportunity arises), but it was you who chose to remind us (because it suited you in relation to your argument about regulation) of how few deaths there are due to electricity (despite the fact that most DIYers are probably never 'pointed at the safe isolation process).

John, just because the schemes don't work as YOU would want them to, does not mean we are not a 'properly regulated'.

My view of the schemes is based primarily on what I hear electricians say (here and elsewhere) about them. It's nothing to do with how I would like the schemes to work - I've merely pointed out how regulation commonly works is other walks of life. In any event, I wasn't talking about just the 'schemes' (which plenty of people doing electrical work for gain don't belong to) - I was talking about regulation (or the lack of it) of the whole industry.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

I posted abut an ESC report that stated few people were electrocuted due to installations. I never mentioned isolation.

You put properly regulated in quotes and regularly post your view that the regulation of the industry is inadequate.

 

[JohnW2]

I posted abut an ESC report that stated few people were electrocuted due to installations. I never mentioned isolation.

Dead is dead. If extremely few people die as a result of domestic electrocutions (which is true), then clearly very few can die because of isolation issues.

You put properly regulated in quotes and regularly post your view that the regulation of the industry is inadequate.

I'm not sure about the significance of the quote marks - I suppose I do it because I know that different people will have different views about what 'proper regulation' actually is.

The main point about 'the regulation of the industry' is not so much that it is 'inadequate' but, rather that (despite what a lot of general public might think) it is actually non-existent. Anyone can set themselves up as 'an electrician' and undertake paid work, but they don't necessarily have to have any more qualifications or experience, and are not subject to much more in the way of rules or laws, than is a pure, totally unqualified, amateur everyone/anyone is required by law to comply with Part P when undertaken any domestic electrical work. I really don't think you can call that a 'regulated industry' - the only people who are in any way 'regulated' (by joining CP Schemes) are those who are being regulated 'by choice' ... try that one in most other trades or professions!

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Anecdotal........

Sam, an academic, bought a house but was "not happy" with the electrics ( among other things ), He sought expert advice from an electrician, a scheme member, who found several faults. The vendor had provided some certificates that showed the electrics met the standard and these were signed by a scheme member.

Both electricians were members of the same scheme......one was not reaching scheme standards or the other one was working above those standards.

To me that suggests schemes are not very good at ensuring their members all work to the same standard.

 

[JohnW2]

Anecdotal........Both electricians were members of the same scheme......one was not reaching scheme standards or the other one was working above those standards.

... or, of course, the latter may have been wrong (or of a legitimately different opinion) in relation to the alleged faults that he detected.

To me that suggests schemes are not very good at ensuring their members all work to the same standard.

To be fair, that is inevitable in any trade or profession - even those who can be shown, by assessment or whatever, to be capable of working to the minimum acceptable standard will not necessarily always do so. The best most regulatory systems can realistically seek to do is to ensure that 'capability' and to have systems in place which attempt to monitor whether people actually do 'work to the standard of their capabilities' when not being assessed. Knowledge of the existence of such a system would, of course, also deter some from working below the standards required of them.

However, as I wrote, if we (society) want the industry to be regulated, the first step would have to be to establish a system of regulation that was 'mandatory' (hence industry-wide) - as I said, one cannot 'regulate an industry' if members of the industry have the choice as to whether or not wish to be 'regulated'. You certainly could not set yourself up as an airline pilot, doctor or even gas fitter and 'elect' not be subject to any of the regulatory systems which exist in those fields. The mere existence of Part P (which does apply to everyone, electricians or not), per se, cannot seriously be regarded as effective 'regulation', since it is essentially not policed.

However, I can but repeat what I wrote to scousemark - namely that it's nothing to do what I want - whether or not electricians should be 'properly regulated' is a decision which society has to make. It really doesn't matter to me personally - I am capable and competent to undertake the electrical work myself if I so wish, and if I choose to employ an electrician I am well able to judge whether the work is being undertaken to an acceptable standard. Society may, of course, decide that they do not want/need any better regulation than now exists (which is their prerogative) - as scousespark pointed out, even with the present system, the number of fatal consequences of electrical work is (in terms of the 'big picture') tiny.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

I should have said that the minimum standard was the self certified installation less than a year before the house was put on the market.

Concerned the new owner called in an other electrician who also considered the work to be poor and in some respects non compliant.

The bottom line is that some "electricians" use membership of a scheme as proof they are good quality tradespeople. The sad thing is that this minority obviously have the knowledge and skill to work in a compliant way when being assessed but seem happy to work to a lower standard when not being assessed.

It applies to other trades and professions.

 

[JohnW2]

The bottom line is that some "electricians" use membership of a scheme as proof they are good quality tradespeople. The sad thing is that this minority obviously have the knowledge and skill to work in a compliant way when being assessed but seem happy to work to a lower standard when not being assessed. It applies to other trades and professions.

Exactly - that's the very point I've been making. Of course, attempts to 'police' work done when not being assessed is often quite (or very) difficult and costly - but some trades/professions do at least make an attempt (and that is, indeed, often used as part of the justification for seemingly high 'registration fees', or whatever).

Kind Regards, John