Dealings with NEICIC..?

[LukeD]

Wow..... Ive always had my doubt about these private schemes and their reluctance to do anything other than take fees. But from yesterdays communications with them /I really question how thinks can be so badly run in this country ? Its like trying to deal with idiots ! They have to be helped through any details and seem to have zero logic when it comes to dealing with Fraudulent EICR "passes"

 

[ipf]

I just think everything needs an overhaul.

Make training very accessible but only let those who have trained touch ANY electrics. No 'you can do non notifiable work', no mushy wording open to interpretation like 'competent'.

So how are you going to stop DIY work?
It's always been there, it's a fact.
You're going to shut all the sheds down, eh?
'Competent' is important but maybe NOT in the trade.
If someone isn't competent they shouldn't do the job.......but they do......no shock, no fire, so who's bothered?.......until!!!!!!!!

 

[rewireIT]

So how are you going to stop DIY work?
It's always been there, it's a fact.
You're going to shut all the sheds down, eh?
'Competent' is important but maybe NOT in the trade.
If someone isn't competent they shouldn't do the job.......but they do......no shock, no fire, so who's bothered?.......until!!!!!!!!

You can't stop DIY work, but what i mean is the whole industry as it's set up for professionals should be changed.

It's all too vague and abstract and ambiguous. If you allow only people who are properly qualified to join a proper list, which is free but regulated by the government/some respected body, then people will know 100% that you're not actually fully qualified to do the job if you're not on it. It would be insanely simple to set up. Have a list for those who are qualified, safe installers who have an NVQ and their AM2, and have a separate list for those who have the NVQ and AM2 and ALSO have their 2391. If you've not got your 2391 you have to employ someone else to do your testing at the end of the job, by law.

But what did they do instead? Introduced some new garbage domestic only qualification which on the face of it only allows you to work in domestic but in reality there's no rule stopping anyone taking on commercial work. Further muddying the waters, dividing the qualifications and making a massive load of spaghetti for potential trainees to wade through.

Clear path, and the ability to actually sign off any work after achieving qualifications which prove you know what you're doing, is what should be brought in.

 

[ipf]

As @ipf has already stated they were respected and along with the ECAoness to what they were doing have turned all scheme providers into an industry joke with them being at the top of the ridicule list.

Supposedly run by a charity.
How long now since Damien S had his run in with the wicked witch?

 

[nicebutdim]

When Part P was in the mixing pot stage there was an understanding this would be governed by a single body but this never came to fruition. The NICEIC was at the forefront of the Domestic Installer Scheme and actively promoted this by way of the short course route, something they are now backtracking on but the damage is done. As @ipf has already stated they were respected and along with the ECA were the industry standard but through their own greed and blindness to what they were doing have turned all scheme providers into an industry joke with them being at the top of the ridicule list.

Just dug out and checked an article that I read last week in a local electrical magazine, regarding experienced worker assessments.

This crowd are now offering separate assessments for domestic electricians and installation electricians, so it would appear as though little has been learnt. The domestic assessment now culminates in a new 'AM2ED' assessment.

Experienced Worker Assessment – TESP

www.electrical-ewa.org.uk

Edit: From their website - "The EWA was developed by an industry group comprising ECA, JIB, NET, Unite, Certsure, ECS, NAPIT, City and Guilds, EAL and the IET."

Interesting.

 

[FatAlan]

Classic example of of privatising a regulatory public safety / industry responsibility. Government abstains from taking responsibility for safety standards, hands over to a private company that is only interested in profit. Cue the political debate The professionals get ripped off & the public get poor or non existent safety regulation!

 

[nicebutdim]

Classic example of of privatising a regulatory public safety / industry responsibility. Government abstains from taking responsibility for safety standards, hands over to a private company that is only interested in profit. Cue the political debate The professionals get ripped off & the public get poor or non existent safety regulation!

I don't see that being the case. Schemes aren't responsible for safety standards and represent only those who choose to become members.

There is no requirement that electricians/electrical contractors join any of these schemes, but they do have a legal obligation to adhere to regulations which are based on statutory documents. There will be obvious reasons why many choose to join one of these registers and obvious reasons why many others choose not to. Membership is voluntary, wheras statutory requirements (handed down by elected legislators) are not.

There are obvious failings on the part of these schemes, but this failure to implement their own published standards is an entirely separate issue from industry safety standards.

I don't see any reason for political debate, despite my reservations about Tony Blair's government which brought about the 'Part P' situation in England and Wales.

 

[nicebutdim]

I note that Napit claim to "provide seamless routes to trade competence", when in fact it is a statutory requirement that anyone undertaking electrical work already be competent in doing so.

One might take from the above that Napit believe it acceptable to gain competence while on the job and under their stewardship, whereas the law makes clear that would not be the case.

 

[Dustydazzler]

I saw an interesting comment somewhere - someone said why is the assessment yearly? Once they've assessed you as competent the first year, then you're competent, no? Your competence can't suddenly vanish on year 2 so why the yearly assessment?

All a money making scam.

I made the very same point about paying a yearly subscription fee when part Pee first started and how its a sham as competence doesn't only last for 12 months.

My wife is a member of a sport organisiation so she can be liscensed to teach children in her field and her subs last 3 years and that includes 3 years of PL insurance and all for £90. The only thing she has to do is a zoom meeting every year and keep her first Aid and Dbs up to date at her own expense.

 

[rewireIT]

I made the very same point about paying a yearly subscription fee when part Pee first started and how its a sham as competence doesn't only last for 12 months.

My wife is a member of a sport organisiation so she can be liscensed to teach children in her field and her subs last 3 years and that includes 3 years of PL insurance and all for £90. The only thing she has to do is a zoom meeting every year and keep her first Aid and Dbs up to date at her own expense.

Sparks in this country are definitely getting scammed.

 

[DPG]

I saw an interesting comment somewhere - someone said why is the assessment yearly? Once they've assessed you as competent the first year, then you're competent, no? Your competence can't suddenly vanish on year 2 so why the yearly assessment?

All a money making scam.

No, but some people don't keep up to date with changes to the regs and current best practice. Hence regular assessments. No different to the Gas Safe system - they have to do the same. Many careers have similar things in fact - lorry drivers, the medical profession.

 

[rewireIT]

No, but some people don't keep up to date with changes to the regs and current best practice. Hence regular assessments. No different to the Gas Safe system - they have to do the same.

Sorry but this is a cop out excuse - we do our BS7671 exams to prove we know the current regs. If i have to prove to a scheme that i know the current regs via an exam with them then why do i have to have my 18th? Someone with an apprenticeship, an NVQ, an AM2 and testing and inspection shouldn't have to do a 12 monthly exam to prove competency. Competency does not change regardless of best practice which is only a guideline.

The basics of electrics always remain the basics.

 

[DPG]

Sorry but this is a cop out excuse - we do our BS7671 exams to prove we know the current regs. If i have to prove to a scheme that i know the current regs via an exam with them then why do i have to have my 18th? Someone with an apprenticeship, an NVQ, an AM2 and testing and inspection shouldn't have to do a 12 monthly exam to prove competency. Competency does not change regardless of best practice which is only a guideline.

The basics of electrics always remain the basics.

Indeed, but how many sparks still don't fully understand stuff like type A RCDs, usage of RCDs, changes in requirements for bathrooms etc. Some are quite happy just doing what they've done for the last 20 years cos 'nothings changed'.

Not saying the current system solves that, but that's one of the reasons for regular assessments.

 

[Dustydazzler]

This is where the Scam memberships get murky , its not just about competence / checking you are still doing it right.
As DGP says its also to check you are all up to date with the latest guidance and now working to the most recent Regs etc.
Have you got all the most up to date information and or do you know what the latest ammendments are. Is all your paperwork and insurance up to date etc.

Does this require you to pay a hefty yearly sub Fee, probably not But the Scams are in business to make money so yearly Fees are here to stay

 

[rewireIT]

Not saying the current system solves that, but that's one of the reasons for regular assessments.

I'd say every 12 months was waaaay more than required.

Changes in requirements should be covered by your latest edition of the wiring regs...?

 

[Dustydazzler]

I'd say every 12 months was waaaay more than required.

Changes in requirements should be covered by your latest edition of the wiring regs...?

IMO I would say every 3 years for a follow up Scam assesment would be fine