Am I allowed to test

[Lintay]

Hi all could someone please help me out with the correct information please,
I have my
2360 part 1+2
Am1
Am2
17th edition
Am I allowed to carry out testing work?
I’ve been told I can only test my own work and no one else’s, so this rules out periodic tests?
Also can I test my own 3 phase work? I’m really confused please help
Thx

 

[Octopus]

Thx murdoch but legally am I allowed or not he thinks I’m not it’s not about my strengths and weaknesses it’s about not being insured thx

Its his company - he makes the decisions .......... best person to speak to is him, not "us" on the internet.

We can only speculate.

 

[Lintay]

thx

Simply put, the regulations state you only require competence. Since the regs aren't a statutory document it's not about being legal or illegal, it's just about competence.

Or more precisely, being able to prove competence. It's one thing for you to say "I can test and inspect" and you may well be able to, but what evidence do you have other than your word. On the flipside, someone with a recognised qualification has demonstrated to a third party that they have sufficient knowledge and understanding to pass an exam that sets out to demonstrate the required competence.

Whether or not the qualifications are achieving that is an entirely different debate. Currently they are a recognised means of proving your competence, without them he's taking a risk if he lets you test and inspect. Put yourself in his shoes... would you be willing to take that risk?

that makes sens

 

[Lintay]

To test you need to be competent.Having inspection and testing helps prove competency. It's not always necessary, some qualified supervisors don't have it.

It could be a matter of policy. Your boss's method statement may say that testing will only be under taken by personnel with further testing qualifications. This may be to do with general arse covering when it comes to insurance.

Thx

 

[buzzlightyear]

regulations state you only require competence. Since the regs aren't a statutory document it's not about being legal or illegal, it's just about competence.

try and explain that the health and safety executive if any thing goes wrong

 

[PEG]

Another aspect,with regard to due diligence,is the customers requirement to know the worth of any testing documents.

Private,individual customers,are limited to their ability to investigate competency,beyond,scheme frontage and googling...

Larger hiring bodies,such as local authorities,or large private housing groups,are expected to have more of a handle on things,and their insurers may have minimum standards,or some form of vetting,for the folk whose names grace important documents.

This has been coming about for a while,now,with gas,electric,fire-safety and other issues,forming the backbone of any litigious activity...as recent events in London,will reveal.

Companies who go from 100 to 1000 inspections,in a year,and cope by taking on half a dozen more "inspectors"...yet have the same names appearing on the certs,are obviously going to be under the spotlight,come disaster time.

So,a long-winded way of saying to the OP,as long as those in the chain of cert-staring,are happy with your name at the bottom,and you are confident in it being there...inspect away

 

[buzzlightyear]

well said my good man.

 

[Dave OCD]

I've just done some remedial bits on a flat following an EICR from a 'NAPIT' member- the 'unsatisfactory' EICR was quickly followed by an unnecessary rewiring quote - £6k ! The EICR itself was very entertaining,a small sample was untidy wiring in loftspace- coded C1, unswitched socket coded C2, a circuit couldn't be identified apparently [FI] and so no tests were carried out - I identified this as the bedroom sockets within 10 minutes, honestly it was ridiculous, we sorted out all the defects including broken sockets and dodgy JBs that went unreported and retested everything in 2 days for less than 10% of the rewiring quote. So I'd say there are people who have specific I&T qualifications who shouldn't be anywhere near the work and also competent Sparks without the aforementioned piece of paper who know what they're doing.

 

[WillWX]

So I'd say there are people who have specific I&T qualifications who shouldn't be anywhere near the work and also competent Sparks without the aforementioned piece of paper who know what they're doing.

I would like to think I fall into the latter, I'm no where near as qualified as half of the people on here (one day I'd like to be) but I am certainly competent in what I do, I've been in the trade for over 5 years now and often come across jobs where other electricians have been in and done a poor job and find myself thinking "jeez I'd never leave anything in that state". I never cut corners with testing, I actually enjoy testing and will happily have my name on my certificates.

In some way similar to what Dave OCD has said above, I followed a local "well respected" spark on a job, sockets tripping mcb under certain circumstances, turns out he'd mixed upstairs/downstairs ring legs, yet had certificated previous work....

If you know the limits of your competence, I think you know what you should or shouldn't be carrying out.

 

[buzzlightyear]

when I had apprentice under me once .I told them learn for me it will go a long way .but you don't you will learn by your mistakes .