Fuse board - EICR assessment

[Deleted member 142255]

Doesn't that just mean you can read a book?

Haha, pretty much

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I would like to see it as I said, tightened up like gassafe.

You were talking about those who undertake electrical work - and I'm inclined to agree with you in relation to people who claim to be electricians and who undertake paid electrical work.

However, I was talking about who should be allowed to undertake EICRs, and that's rather a different matter - even if electricians had to be 'registered' in the manner you would like, I don't think they should be allowed to undertake EICRs unless the are specifically licensed/whatever so to do.

City and Guilds (or whatever examining body was chosen) should set the standards along with the IET. As the IET publish the regs they should also have access to the appropriate examining body resource to ensure consistency throughout the trade. NICEIC, Elecsa etc should all have to conform to that standard or lose their licenses.

I think you must live in Utopia. In the real world, so many things are not 'black and white', and getting countless individuals and organisations to agree about things is probably only something one can dream of.

 

[Deleted member 142255]

You were talking about those who undertake electrical work - and I'm inclined to agree with you in relation to people who claim to be electricians and who undertake paid electrical work.

However, I was talking about who should be allowed to undertake EICRs, and that's rather a different matter - even if electricians had to be 'registered' in the manner you would like, I don't think they should be allowed to undertake EICRs unless the are specifically licensed/whatever so to do.

I was also talking about anyone carrying out EICR's

I think you must live in Utopia. In the real world, so many things are not 'black and white', and getting countless individuals and organisations to agree about things is probably only something one can dream of.

Gas did it. It isn't impossible, but it would take a lot of work now to introduce and enforce it.

 

[Deleted member 142255]

You were talking about those who undertake electrical work - and I'm inclined to agree with you in relation to people who claim to be electricians and who undertake paid electrical work.

For example, when I was QS the company I worked for had their membership of the NICEIC on my qualifications. I was allowed to self certify work under Part P.

When I left the company I immediately lost that ability, yet the company were allowed 6 months to appoint a new QS. In the meantime any electrical work they carried out was done by people with no electrical qualifications, all because they stumped up the annual membership fee.

The whole system stinks. They should have had their membership suspended on my leaving the company until a replacement was found.

 

[JohnW2]

But like many others his qualifications are well out of date. Mine are reasonably close, I have 18th edition but not the latest.

Over the years and decades I have been 'forced' to undertake far more 'update courses' (in the name of 'Continuing Professional Development') than I care to remember, and they have all invariably been complete jokes, which essentially achieved absolutely nothing - and certainly nothing more than could be achieved by doing a little bit of reading.

These 'update courses' most commonly arise when a set of regulations/whatever are revised. More often than not, the person doing the 'teaching' has just read the new regs once, just as have most/all the people 'attending the course'!

However, these exercise do achieve one thing - they 'tick boxes'!

 

[Deleted member 142255]

Over the years and decades I have been 'forced' to undertake far more 'update courses' (in the name of 'Continuing Professional Development') than I care to remember, and they have all invariably been complete jokes, which essentially achieved absolutely nothing - and certainly nothing more than could be achieved by doing a little bit of reading.

These 'update courses' most commonly arise when a set of regulations/whatever are revised. More often than not, the person doing the 'teaching' has just read the new regs once, just as have most/all the people 'attending the course'!

However, these exercise do achieve one thing - they 'tick boxes'!

I don't disagree, however as far as I am concerned I did the course, I had the certificate and in a court of law could show due diligence.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't disagree, however as far as I am concerned I did the course, I had the certificate and in a court of law could show due diligence.

As I wrote, it ticks boxes, and impresses those (like Courts) who like ticked boxes, but that's about it.

 

[Murdochcat]

For example, when I was QS the company I worked for had their membership of the NICEIC on my qualifications. I was allowed to self certify work under Part P.

When I left the company I immediately lost that ability, yet the company were allowed 6 months to appoint a new QS. In the meantime any electrical work they carried out was done by people with no electrical qualifications, all because they stumped up the annual membership fee.

The whole system stinks. They should have had their membership suspended on my leaving the company until a replacement was found.

To say the QS system is flawed is a massive understatement, as is the self certifying schemes where absolutely no random inspections take place

 

[Deleted member 142255]

To say the QS system is flawed is a massive understatement, as is the self certifying schemes where absolutely no random inspections take place

So very true.

 

[JohnW2]

To say the QS system is flawed is a massive understatement, as is the self certifying schemes where absolutely no random inspections take place

Quite - and particularly given that it seems in some cases that the only real 'competence' someone required in order to become a member of a CPS was "competence to pay the annual subscription"!

 

[Deleted member 142255]

Quite - and particularly given that it seems in some cases that the only real 'competence' someone required in order to become a member of a CPS was "competence to pay the annual subscription"!

Yes, almost.

To join the name and qualifications of the QS had to be submitted, then the fee paid. The assessment followed with their recommendations for improvement. Annual renewal was fee paid then assessment, so if somebody left/leaves mid stream (don't think it;s changed) the membership continues for the company nut the person who's back it was gained on is out of the picture.

Bunch of crooks.

 

[plugwash]

The labelling is on the open flap

Well spotted.

Though unfortunately not all the labels are readable in the photo.

 

[ebee]

Not really. It says that things which were compliant with earlier editions (but not the current one) are "not necessarily unsafe" - but that's very different from 'compliant' (with anything).

Yes Agreed, because something is not compliant on the day of inspection even though it was compliant on the day of completion (by virtue of the day of design) means it did comply but no longer does - whether or not a non compliant installation is Satisfactory for continued use is something else. It might be considered so or not. There is no actual cut off in years or regs edition but is due purely to what it is and any danger that might arise, it is left to the Sound Engineering Judgement of the inspector as to the outcome of that judgement and sometimes certain guides might help form an opinion.

Just because something was actually compliant years ago does not make it compliant nowadays.

If we had two exactly identical installations with exactly the same intended use or very similar intended use then we would not pass one as satisfactory and one as not purely because they were installed at different days and one was compliant back the and the other was not.
They both would attain the same outcome.

 

[ebee]

To join the name and qualifications of the QS had to be submitted, then the fee paid. The assessment followed with their recommendations for improvement. Annual renewal was fee paid then assessment, so if somebody left/leaves mid stream (don't think it;s changed) the membership continues for the company nut the person who's back it was gained on is out of the picture

My understanding is that a change of QS would need an assessment of the replacement QS for membership continues, in some cases it might be accepted as more of a paperwork assessment rather than a physical meeting on site - example if the replacement has recently been assessed by that particular scheme or perhaps an alternative scheme.

 

[ebee]

Not if it was satisfactory yesterday.

probably