Sign off problem

[JohnW2]

Surely if a BCO says he/she, (must stay politically correct ), wants the test done by one of the people on this list AFTER you have had it done by an independent, that should raise suspicions of 'malpractice', shall we say?

Suspicions of something, yes, although not necessarily 'malpractice'.

If I was put in that position I would refuse and go above his/her head to management and let them know what had happened. If they doubt the qualifications of the tester you employed, they should seek clarification from his scheme. If he is up to standard, then they must surely have a duty to accept his certificate?

That is the "hassle of doing otherwise" to which I referred, and which I think most people probably could do without! There are plenty of situations in which one might be inclined to challenge the decisions/pronouncements of BCOs (e.g. when they demand extractor fans, even if one can argue that the Building Regs are satisfied without the fans) but, again, most people can't be bothered with the hassle, and terefore tend to 'given in', despite the 'principle' involved.

Kind Regards, John

 

[conny]

Malpractice was being diplomatic.

 

[JohnW2]

Malpractice was being diplomatic.

I imagined that it was

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As to @conny comments, if the electrician is doing the EICR as part of the scheme, yes. However in the main although a scheme member, the EICR is not covered, in the end the LABC inspector did accept my degree, but it seemed he had no idea what a C&G 2391 was.

 

[JohnW2]

As to @conny comments, if the electrician is doing the EICR as part of the scheme, yes.

What do you mean by "doing an EICR as part of the scheme"? If the person undertaking an EICR is a member of a CPS scheme, under what circumstances would he/she be doing otherwise?

Kind Regards, John