Niceic Certificate very basic?

[JohnW2]

Random inspection of previous work by the assessor (or anyone else) could supposedly check on this but that would lead to much more work (and cost) to the schemes and involve communication and arrangement of visits to customers. ... You, we (and everyone else) may think that is a good idea but it is not likely to happen.

Probably not - but, as I said, it is, in my personal experience, an unusual state of affairs for any regulated area of life. Regulation without proper 'checks' is not really regulation!

Admittedly there would be problems (in addition those of cost and logistics) in that a fair bit of electrical work is not accessible (non-destructively) for inspection/scrutiny after the event - but they could at least inspect what was accessible. It's different in worlds I function in, since everything relevant usually exists either on paper or in computers - so is readily available for as detailed inspection/scrutiny as an inspector may wish to undertake. If actual 'products' are involved, the inspectors then test random samples destructively.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Regulation without proper 'checks' is not really regulation!

Don't forget that the 'regulation' wasn't really required in the first pace.

 

[JohnW2]

Regulation without proper 'checks' is not really regulation!

Don't forget that the 'regulation' wasn't really required in the first pace.

Not really required by whom? I would imagine that a lot of the general public would like to think/know that there was some 'regulation' of work undertaken by electricians (or gas fitters, MOT inspectors, airline pilots, doctors, bankers or whoever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not really required by whom?

Everyone except the DPM and the scheme operators.

Also, not required by the situation at the time which is the same now and made even less effective by removing kitchen fitters from the requirements.

I would imagine that a lot of the general public would like to think/know that there was some 'regulation' of work undertaken by electricians

Is it 86% have never heard of Part P.

I thought you agreed it had had no effect in increasing safety.

 

[JohnW2]

I would imagine that a lot of the general public would like to think/know that there was some 'regulation' of work undertaken by electricians

Is it 86% have never heard of Part P.

Quite probably, but I still think a high proportion would like there to be some regulation of electricians, just as with all the other types of people I mentioned.

I thought you agreed it had had no effect in increasing safety.

I very much doubt that it has had a significant effect on safety (and certainly not now, in England, given that so little remains notifiable), but that does not mean that a proper (and properly policed) system of regulation could not improve safety. If everyone undertaking electrical work for others had to be 'registered' (with minimum qualifications, 'CPD' requirements and/or regular re-assessments), and if all of them were subject to any of their work (forget about 'notifiable'/'non-notifiable') being randomly inspected at any time, then maybe we might be moving in the right direction - but, of course, it won't happen.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not really required by whom?

Everyone except the DPM and the scheme operators.

Ironically the most significant diminution of standards occurred when NICEIC (admittedly followed with varying degrees of alacrity by other scheme organisers) prostituted themselves by abandoning their traditional qualification requirements and allowing the electrickery-by-numbers brigade to call themselves "electricians".

 

[ericmark]

Years ago we had closed shop Union agreements and the Union did all the Policing and people were thrown out of the Union for sub-standard work.

Then the government made closed shop agreements illegal they also removed the Unions power to stop bad electricians from working and since then a number of methods have been tried to stop bad electricians from working and many were later deemed also illegal like the black list.

Even today it would be illegal for scheme operators to exchange information on bad electricians just like when an employer phones up your previous firm they can omit saying your good but can't say your bad.

The only way to stop bad electricians would have been government issued licence or trade list either like the driving licence or doctors list. However the problem now is the free movement of labour agreement with rest of Europe so not only would the UK government need to licence also all other EU states would have to do the same.

There have been many attempts to control tradesmen in the old days the guilds, then Unions and now there are firms which claim to do it such as "rated tradesmen" but many of these are only interested in making money and end up doing the reverse to what was intended so when I see some one is a member of "rated tradesmen" it says to me they are no good so personal recommendation was not working for them so they have joined the sham.

 

[JohnW2]

The only way to stop bad electricians would have been government issued licence or trade list either like the driving licence or doctors list. However the problem now is the free movement of labour agreement with rest of Europe so not only would the UK government need to licence also all other EU states would have to do the same.

If we can do it with driving licences and doctors' registrations (EU or no EU), then ....

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

All that the CPS guy has to do on assessment day is to come armed with a list of the notifications that the electrician has done. The assessor then requires to see and marry up the copies of the installation certificates for each notification.

That what happens during my assessment, I am ask to present all my electrical testing documents, that includes minor works and EICR.

But this only proves I have a record and not the client, and I suppose this is open to fraudulent going ons also.

 

[ericmark]

The question is what happens to the documents when one stops trading? Although I expected minor works would be likely lost I had thought the installation certificate would remain.

I know my son continued paying his insurance after he stopped trading for a year in case there were any problems and went cards in about a year before he sold house and started to live on a narrow boat.

But since EICR is every 10 years then it is possible an error would not become apparent until 9 years after the work is completed and with cars I know we have had a recall 8 years after buying the car.

Maybe we should print the installation certificate on something like Tesco carrier bags which disintegrate after 6 months?

 

[scousespark]

Random inspection of previous work by the assessor (or anyone else) could supposedly check on this but that would lead to much more work (and cost) to the schemes and involve communication and arrangement of visits to customers. ... You, we (and everyone else) may think that is a good idea but it is not likely to happen.

Probably not - but, as I said, it is, in my personal experience, an unusual state of affairs for any regulated area of life. Regulation without proper 'checks' is not really regulation!

Admittedly there would be problems (in addition those of cost and logistics) in that a fair bit of electrical work is not accessible (non-destructively) for inspection/scrutiny after the event - but they could at least inspect what was accessible. It's different in worlds I function in, since everything relevant usually exists either on paper or in computers - so is readily available for as detailed inspection/scrutiny as an inspector may wish to undertake. If actual 'products' are involved, the inspectors then test random samples destructively.

Kind Regards, John

This is a real issue for you. Despite never having been through an assessment, you have a strong opinion of the short comings. It would be a massive cost and a logistical nightmare to have random spot checks. Who would carry out the inspections and who would tell the customer their job was on hold while the electrician is inspected? I have no idea what worlds you function in, so have no clue as to the nspection regimes you are familiar with.

 

[JohnW2]

This is a real issue for you. Despite never having been through an assessment, you have a strong opinion of the short comings.

Good to see you here and responding to my posts again! My comments were not about 'assessments', but of the absence (AFAIAA) of any QA checks on work which has already been done, out of the sight of any assessors/inspectors - so, AFAIAA, no electrician has been routinely subjected to that, let alone me.

It would be a massive cost and a logistical nightmare to have random spot checks.

It would, but in walks of life in which QA is considered necessary, the fact that it's logistically difficult (and costly) has not stopped it being implemented

Who would carry out the inspections and who would tell the customer their job was on hold while the electrician is inspected?

Two or three years ago, I arrived at the appointed time to collect my car after an MOT test to be confronted by some sort of 'super inspector' who told me that he had come to undertake a random check of the MOT Station/Inspector and told (rather than asked!) me that I would have to wait whilst he re-inspected my vehicle. I was not too amused, but I accepted it. In any event, I wasn't actually talking of any work being 'put on hold' - merely that there could be random inspections of those aspects which were still inspectable/testable of previously-completed work. AsI said, less than ideal, but a lot better than nothing.

I have no idea what worlds you function in, so have no clue as to the nspection regimes you are familiar with.

I have spent the last few decades in worlds in which the great majority of the work I did was subject to 'the risk of' random (or, in some cases, 100%) QA checks undertaken by varies bodies or government departments. However, as I said, it's primarily 'intellectual', rather than 'physical', work - which makes the logistics a lot easier.

However, as we both know, it's not going to happen any time soon, if ever, in relation to electrical work. I'm just slightly surprised that the public aren't more demanding - perhaps they don't realise (or think about it), even though they expect safety-related random (or sometimes 'targetted'!) inspections to be made of fast food establishments, food factories, building sites etc. etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Two or three years ago, I arrived at the appointed time to collect my car after an MOT test to be confronted by some sort of 'super inspector' who told me that he had come to undertake a random check of the MOT Station/Inspector and told (rather than asked!) me that I would have to wait whilst he re-inspected my vehicle. I was not too amused, but I accepted it.

Really?

You did not ask him to tell you what his legal authority was to deny you possession of your vehicle, how you could claim compensation for your losses, and just WTF he could do if you told him to SIUHA because you were taking your car?

 

[JohnW2]

Two or three years ago, I arrived at the appointed time to collect my car after an MOT test to be confronted by some sort of 'super inspector' who told me that he had come to undertake a random check of the MOT Station/Inspector and told (rather than asked!) me that I would have to wait whilst he re-inspected my vehicle. I was not too amused, but I accepted it.

Really? ... You did not ask him to tell you what his legal authority was to deny you possession of your vehicle, how you could claim compensation for your losses, and just WTF he could do if you told him to SIUHA because you were taking your car?

No, I didn't. Although the delay was a small inconvenience, I was actually reassured to see that such checking was going on - of course, I would have preferred someone else to have been inconvenienced, but that's just human nature

How would you react if eBay or Amazon told you that they were having to delay completion of a transaction that you had attempted to make (maybe for something you wanted 'urgently'), because they needed time to satisfy themselves that the product you were trying to buy was legal, compliant with relevant regulations, not fake and safe? Any 'checking system', even those you would like to see, comes with its costs and inconveniences.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, I didn't. Although the delay was a small inconvenience, I was actually reassured to see that such checking was going on - of course, I would have preferred someone else to have been inconvenienced, but that's just human nature

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

Any 'checking system', even those you would like to see, comes with its costs and inconveniences.

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.