A question for domestic installers who are with Stroma......

[HappyHippyDad]

I am a domestic installer. I have done the domestic installers course only, so do not have level 3. I have been with Stroma for perhaps 7 years and as most of you know Napit are taking over the competent person scheme. This year I was given the choice of either staying with Stroma for one last year or moving over to Napit now, I choose to stay with Stroma as they were still cheaper.

My question is, have any domestic installers moved over to Napit (or indeed any other scheme) since September 2020? The reason for that date is that new requirements for joining a scheme came in to date then and they now require you to have level 3. Did any one have any problems with the switch?

I have checked the new ELECTROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATION FOR USE BY CERTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION BODIES (EAS) and on page 28 it does say the following:

"It is acceptable to permit new applications from an existing or previously recognised Qualified Supervisor, provided that they have been a Qualified Supervisor within two years of the application; and can provide a letter or similar evidence from the previous scheme provider confirming their Qualified Supervisor status and the scope of work previously assessed, which must be equal to the scope of work being applied for.
An applicant Qualified Supervisor will need to have at least 2 years’ evidence of responsibility for the technical standard of electrotechnical work and evidence of ongoing Continuous Professional Development."

Just wondering if anyone has any first hand knowledge of this or simply any more information about it all? I can't imagine I will be refused next year, but it is a slight concern

Cheers all..

 

[Simon47]

One of the reasons I changed career from a nurse to being an electrician, or rather a domestic installer, was due to all the CPD that came with being a nurse. I can absolutely say 95% of it was such irrelevant nonsense. The healthcare trust HAD to be seen to be offering it though as they use it in their statistics to show how well they train their staff.

As others have said, that's not really "CPD", that's a health trust taking the easy way out by just making everyone do lots of training regardless of whether it's relevant or not. But what it does mean is that if something goes wrong, someone can pull out the records and say "not our fault, we trained the guy properly" before throwing you under the bus.

"sign up with say Schneider for instance or Aico etc. you can collect those points easily"

"Agree, it's not difficult to get CPD points if you understand the process"

Sounds like collecting Green Shield Stamps

It can be.
Where I work, we have a (not too onerous) list of mandatory training, most of it renewed each year. For most people, most fo the content is just common sense - the trouble is that there is a not nearly as small as it should be minority of people who seem to lack it (or just leave it at home).
I also have an accreditation in an entirely different area, and yes, it's a case of "read the journal - 2 points, fill it in online", "attend one of the webinars - 2 points (or however many it's been awarded), fill it in online", and so it goes and hopefully by the end of the renewal period I've enough points to keep the accreditation. Hmm, must catch up on that - missed out on the real-world meeting due to the covid, they were 2 points a pop.