17th Edition Question

[PangEng]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has already been answered previously

If one of our maintenance technicians currently has 17th edition, is he still allowed to open CUs and install new circuits?

H&S Manager thinks not

Answers on a postcard!

 

[nicebutdim]

The regs exams are not difficult to pass, and don't really indicate competency, so don't put too much value on them. A low pass or fail would indicate incompetency however.

Put it this way, if I had a choice of employing someone who had the 18th ed at 75%, or the 17th at 95%, I know who I'd choose.

A very good point. After reading a thread last year, dealing with 18th edition exams, I tried a couple of online practice tests and both times scored in the high 70s. As a first year apprentice that pleased me to a degree, but in no way indicated compentecy.

 

[Midwest]

I understand that may be your experience, however mine has been quite different, so I think it is rather disingenuous to class all maintenance people with a low level of competency.

I have delt with far too many contracting companies and "electricians" with such a low level of ability - it beggers belief.

We see this here, so many EICRs that are bordering on theft from the client - taking money for these "reports" and of course so many photos of disgusting work.

The reality is, there are examples of complete incompetence at all levels and in all sectors of the industry, yet it would be wrong to claim all "maintenance" or "contractors" or "domestic" or "EV installers" etc would be inherently unsuitable.

In fact on here, we have each no true knowledge of the skills, ability or knowledge of other members, sure the fact that they have sufficient interest to spend their spare time involved in "electrics" may indicate that they are the better ones, but we have also seen others on here who we may guess aren't perhaps as good as they think they are.

My view, is if people have passed their G&G + 16th/17th/18th or whatever I.e. are a qualified electrician then we should treat them as competent until indicated otherwise.

It would be wrong to believe that oneself is the only competent person and everyone else is not until they prove it.

(Unless you are assessing them for a job I guess)

I try not to be disingenuous, after all I'm now one of 'maintenance people'.

I've experienced the different types of maintenance operatives. Those I spoke of at the car factory, were fully affiliated & trained for their particular singular trade. Millwrights weren't expected to do electrical work, and visa versa.

Whilst I have relieved additional training & qualifications in my current work place, NVQ3's in IITEE, and Pool Plant maintenance, we still have contractors in to carry out PAT testing and pool plant repairs etc. I simply wouldn't have the time and current knowledge, to do the job justice.

Presumably, when this person who the OP describes, was employed he/she would of had a job description & role. If this person's job has changed, and the new role fits, retrain them. However, I expect not. It just employee who thinks they should, not what the employer wants them to.

 

[nicebutdim]

I try not to be disingenuous, after all I'm now one of 'maintenance people'.

I've experienced the different types of maintenance operatives. Those I spoke of at the car factory, were fully affiliated & trained for their particular singular trade. Millwrights weren't expected to do electrical work, and visa versa.

Whilst I have relieved additional training & qualifications in my current work place, NVQ3's in IITEE, and Pool Plant maintenance, we still have contractors in to carry out PAT testing and pool plant repairs etc. I simply wouldn't have the time and current knowledge, to do the job justice.

Presumably, when this person who the OP describes, was employed he/she would of had a job description & role. If this person's job has changed, and the new role fits, retrain them. However, I expect not. It just employee who thinks they should, not what the employer wants them to.

Your use of 'presumably' in that last sentence rather makes Julie's point - we have no way of knowing and can not assume.

The OP asked a very specific question and one to which the answer lies not only in qualifications, but also in a company policy to which none of us are privy.

 

[Spoon]

The regs exams are not difficult to pass, and don't really indicate competency, so don't put too much value on them. A low pass or fail would indicate incompetency however.

Put it this way, if I had a choice of employing someone who had the 18th ed at 75%, or the 17th at 95%, I know who I'd choose.

Some people are not good at exams. When I did my 17th, there were 2 electricians there that didn't pass. They both said they don't like exams. Does that make them incompetent and rubbish at their job?? Who knows. Their work may be excellent but they purely hate exams. They may need more time finding the relevant sections in the book and they do great in real life.

 

[Midwest]

Your use of 'presumably' in that last sentence rather makes Julie's point - we have no way of knowing and can not assume.

The OP asked a very specific question and one to which the answer lies not only in qualifications, but also in a company policy to which none of us are privy.

Most job applications I've read have a job description, person specification & service conditions etc.

And to your last point, I'm giving the thread the what the views of my employer are on this subject, as a kind of check.

 

[PangEng]

All interesting points, if it gives any more insight, the person is qualified to the 2330 Level 3, 17th edition regs, worked self employed previously and so far seems to do a good job

When I say "maintenance" I mean more of en electrical maintenance than anything else, and was employed as such

Naturally, I have no problem whatsoever sending him for the 18th, we are pretty good for upskilling here, and I'm a very big advocate of it

The only point of the initial question was to find out of anyone knew of any law or reg that specified you must be up to the 18th to do tasks like new circuit installs, opening CUs, a new spur here and there etc etc so I can assess whether H&S is deliberately blocking work being carried out in house for some reason

 

[nicebutdim]

Most job applications I've read have a job description, person specification & service conditions etc.

And to your last point, I'm giving the thread the what the views of my employer are on this subject, as a kind of check.

I was going to point out that we also don't know what the job in question is described as, but this has since been clarified by the OP and it seems the job description in question is very different to your own.

 

[Midwest]

All interesting points, if it gives any more insight, the person is qualified to the 2330 Level 3, 17th edition regs, worked self employed previously and so far seems to do a good job

When I say "maintenance" I mean more of en electrical maintenance than anything else, and was employed as such

Naturally, I have no problem whatsoever sending him for the 18th, we are pretty good for upskilling here, and I'm a very big advocate of it

The only point of the initial question was to find out of anyone knew of any law or reg that specified you must be up to the 18th to do tasks like new circuit installs, opening CUs, a new spur here and there etc etc so I can assess whether H&S is deliberately blocking work being carried out in house for some reason

I retired from the industry 5 years ago, but was qualified then. I would be happy in carry work in my own house, as I could ask or read here of up to date regs & knowledge. All you need to prove is competency, qualifications are one way of proving that. However, I would not carry out work in other peoples properties, or the work place.

I expect your colleague would need the latest qualifications, to comply with liability insurance your employer has.

 

[MJPD29]

18th edition course means nothing except your making an attempt to keep your paperwork up to date. Anyone can pass it, and it can hardly be considered a qualification. Personally, I think of hes keeping up to date then he's absolutley fine, and if the company considers it nessecary they should pay for it for him.

 

[sparksfly]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has already been answered previously

If one of our maintenance technicians currently has 17th edition, is he still allowed to open CUs and install new circuits?

H&S Manager thinks not

Answers on a postcard!

Hello
If he/she has experience and is competent enough then whats the fuss about ?
As others have said, not having the latest tickets is irrelevant.
However, having the latest copy of the regs and being aware of the necessary changes helps you to fill out a cert with compliances/non-compliances noted.

 

[ukiri]

He just has to be competant in his job, which his ongoing empolyment by the company would indicate. And fill in IEE pattern forms to record any new installs or minor works in house. I`ve worked maintenance on and off for 40 years for various companies as inhouse or for sub contractor company and that`s all they everdone.

 

[DPG]

He just has to be competant in his job, which his ongoing empolyment by the company would indicate. And fill in IEE pattern forms to record any new installs or minor works in house. I`ve worked maintenance on and off for 40 years for various companies as inhouse or for sub contractor company and that`s all they everdone.

He also needs to keep up to date with new regs and amendments though.

 

[lozarus]

With respect I think it's a bit excessive to start questioning and comparing job roles. Every company is different - massively so. And roles can even adapt and change. Case in point; I started in another role before becoming an Estate Manager with my employer. I undertake my role differently to my predecessor and my successor will likely make it a different role too. My predecessor was much more office/paperwork based. I prefer to be on the tools more than half the time. With an electrical background, it was obviously noted I had a bias this way - I undertake work to this effect and it's now reflected in my terms of empoyment following an annual review.

Obviously I'm in a funny position, because being the Manager, it's ultimately my job to also decide on the competencies required to undertake electrical, and other work at our site (and to this effect I have relevant qualifications, partly supported by my employer) - but my point is, Maintenance in one Employer may be very different to somewhere else.

 

[Midwest]

With respect I think it's a bit excessive to start questioning and comparing job roles. Every company is different - massively so. And roles can even adapt and change. Case in point; I started in another role before becoming an Estate Manager with my employer. I undertake my role differently to my predecessor and my successor will likely make it a different role too. My predecessor was much more office/paperwork based. I prefer to be on the tools more than half the time. With an electrical background, it was obviously noted I had a bias this way - I undertake work to this effect and it's now reflected in my terms of empoyment following an annual review.

Obviously I'm in a funny position, because being the Manager, it's ultimately my job to also decide on the competencies required to undertake electrical, and other work at our site (and to this effect I have relevant qualifications, partly supported by my employer) - but my point is, Maintenance in one Employer may be very different to somewhere else.

Correct there.

Our national estates manager takes the view, that it makes more business sense to employ a contractor, than for me to carry out electrical installation (or any other qualified works). They don't have to send me on courses, provide insurance, and concern themselves on how to do I keep up expertise & knowledge on the subject, doing works perhaps once every 6mths. Unless you can provide a cost benefit analysis, to prove otherwise of course.

No offence meant, but some 'maintenance people' just seem to want to gain qualifications, to show how clever they are to fix things.

 

[mainline]

The regs exams are not difficult to pass, and don't really indicate competency, so don't put too much value on them. A low pass or fail would indicate incompetency however.

Put it this way, if I had a choice of employing someone who had the 18th ed at 75%, or the 17th at 95%, I know who I'd choose.

I agree with you, the guy with the 18th as they will have the newer kit