Electrical qualification clarification query

[230+]

Question

If a sparky does not have his part 1 or 2 2360 but has 2382 regs and 2391 does this allow him to practise as an electrician on domestic, commercial or industrial

if not does this then make any insurance he has in place void ie public liabilty etc

 

[sbrown2]

This just isn' t true. Testing is vitally important. But I have always, since coming into the domestic sector, queried if the testing requirements are over excessive. I could list the reasons but I think many of us may, potentially agree with this. I appreciate the sensitive overload, shortcircuit and earthfault systems found in industry are not in the domestic sector

 

[trev]

This just isn' t true. Testing is vitally important. But I have always, since coming into the domestic sector, queried if the testing requirements are over excessive. I could list the reasons but I think many of us may, potentially agree with this. I appreciate the sensitive overload, shortcircuit and earthfault systems found in industry are not in the domestic sector

Fair enough mate but we're told what tests we need to do so we do them, interpret the results and use them accordingly. This guy is throwing stuff in, not doing any testing at all then flicking the switch.
No matter what your argument for and against the testing regime is, that's plain wrong.

 

[Zeno]

Testing is important, you realise that the first time you test and find that you have done something wrong!!!

But there again when DCLG changed Part P in 2006 and took out the legal requirement for DIYers to test, it just proved what a dirty scam Part P is, that the Schemes and DCLG are running.

 

[trev]

The regs apply to everyone Zeno the skilled electrician and the DIYer and as far as I'm aware they still say that an installation will be inspected and tested before energising. Now I appreciate that the DIYer probably is not aware the regs even exist but this isn't what the issue is on this thread, what's at issue here imho is that there are people claiming to be skilled who are running around carrying out dangerous shoddy work and taking payment for doing so.
Sadly, part p did nothing to put these idiots out of business, if anything it helped them not us since, factoring in all the costs of membership etc it often means that the price we submit for domestic jobs is significantly higher than the guy at the pub.
I do agree with you that part p is a dirty scam, hopefully when it the discussion document is published (mid December I believe) it will go some way to righting the wrongs. Somehow I doubt it but we can live in hope

 

[Zeno]

The regs apply to everyone Zeno the skilled electrician and the DIYer and as far as I'm aware they still say that an installation will be inspected and tested before energising. Now I appreciate that the DIYer probably is not aware the regs even exist but this isn't what the issue is on this thread, what's at issue here imho is that there are people claiming to be skilled who are running around carrying out dangerous shoddy work and taking payment for doing so.

Sadly, part p did nothing to put these idiots out of business, if anything it helped them not us since, factoring in all the costs of membership etc it often means that the price we submit for domestic jobs is significantly higher than the guy at the pub.

I do agree with you that part p is a dirty scam, hopefully when it the discussion document is published (mid December I believe) it will go some way to righting the wrongs. Somehow I doubt it but we can live in hope

From, Monitoring of Electrical Safety Competent Person Self-Certification Schemes

In April 2006, Part P of the Building Regulations was amended for the purposes of providing greater clarity of the requirement and to make enforcement more proportionate to the risk.

The statutory requirements P1 (Design, installation, inspection and testing) and P2 (Provision of information) were revoked and replaced with a new requirement P1 which requires only that reasonable provision be made in respect of design and installation.

There is no statutory requirement to provide information, although such provision may be implicit in some cases in order to make reasonable provision for those operating, altering or maintaining installations.
References to inspection and testing are no longer part of requirement P1, but Approved Document P has been amended in consequence to make it clearer when appropriate inspection and testing should be carried out as part​

of demonstrating compliance, and by whom (as this is a requirement of BS 7671, the installation and safety standard with which all registered installers must comply).

The Approved Document has also been amended to make the guidance on inspection, testing and certification of work and provision of information clearer in relation to the nature and extent of the work, and the competence and qualifications of the persons carrying out the work.

However, the removal of inspection and testing from the legal requirements has not been popular with industry stakeholders.



I am confident, that the changes to Part P of the Building Regulations, to be put out to consultation in December, will not improve the situation of Electricians.


They have held back Risk based Assessment for the Competent in Schemes, since 2009, so that was (Assesment £200 /year for 2.5 years kerching). The Competent will be assessd every few years, this has been in the EAS Technical requirement document since 2009 but held back, to try and make Part P MK2 seem better.


The new requirement for a Level 3 Qualification, or Member of a Scheme for two years from 1st Jan 2012, will be short lived, as it will hit the profits of the Schemes to much, so they are working on another Level 3 Qualification that will much much easier to pass, but of course it will cost Money.


Sorry for long post!





​

 

[sbrown2]

It will not hit the profits. The schemes now have the levels of membership that they need to sustain themselves profitably. So they can now look at maintaining standards relating to true competency.

 

[Zeno]

It will not hit the profits. The schemes now have the levels of membership that they need to sustain themselves profitably. So they can now look at maintaining standards relating to true competency.

The schemes now have the levels of membership that they need to sustain themselves profitably.
Yes but only by dropping the entry standards to an all time low, and the misuse of the entry scheme, designed for Experienced Electricians for short course entry, which is in breach of DCLG's own rules.

So they can now look at maintaining standards relating to true competency.
Maintain what standards, the Schemes have colluded to use the lowest standards possible to make a profit, in many cases the standard on the Doorstep is almost non existent.


Its not about Competence, its about Money.

 

[trev]

Zeno you're preaching to the choir mate but most on here completely agree with you. Maybe you should take a look at the thread about the campaign for an electricians licence because the more people get behind it the more chance we have of the system being changed.
Personally I think the government should have guys who are at the sharp end on their panel talking about changes to the regulation of the industry ie working sparks who know what is going on ie us.
I nominate Lenny to be our standard bearer hehe

 

[sbrown2]

It was just a view. I think they dropped standards to get masses into the schemes and now they have the said levels they are introducing the NVQ Level 3. I not bothered either way, a scheme or an electricians license or a JIB card. They are all forms of licensing.

 

[230+]

Guys, Whilst i agree with you all the original questions was

Question

If a sparky does not have his part 1 or 2 2360 but has 2382 regs and 2391 does this allow him to practise as an electrician on domestic, commercial or industrial

if not does this then make any insurance he has in place void ie public liabilty etc

is he really allowed to practise also if you had to show proof that you have your electrical quals to do 2382 regs or 2391 he wouldn't have either as he cant provide them am I right!

this is like you can drive a car but you failed your test you can get insurance and drive without a full licence till you get caught then the insurance company drops you as you were not qualified in first place​

 

[Zeno]

Guys, Whilst i agree with you all the original questions was

Question

If a sparky does not have his part 1 or 2 2360 but has 2382 regs and 2391 does this allow him to practise as an electrician on domestic, commercial or industrial

if not does this then make any insurance he has in place void ie public liabilty etc

is he really allowed to practise also if you had to show proof that you have your electrical quals to do 2382 regs or 2391 he wouldn't have either as he cant provide them am I right!

this is like you can drive a car but you failed your test you can get insurance and drive without a full licence till you get caught then the insurance company drops you as you were not qualified in first place​

Quite right +230, we are off topic.

If a person does not have a 236 or 2360 1&2, or 2330 or 2357, they can be still deemed Competent by a Scam to self certify their work. All you need at the moment is a 2382 17th Regs exam, you can still become a QS A/C with with just a regs 2382 exam.


Are qualifications needed for Insurance to trade as an Electrician, well you need to READ the small print, not listen to the salesman.

Hiscox insurance which is quite good cover, used to ask for 5years experience of the work undertaken, then they made it 5years experience unless you were registered with a Scam. It now does not even mention it, HSE require experience, Part P requires experience, BS7671 requires experience, but SCAMS don't. In the small print it says qualified, you can bet that if there was a claim they would want a 236 2360 2330 2357 etc.

I don't know who allowed them to deem people Competent without Experience, I suspect it was, one Scam decided to take a big gamble and the others had to follow. Email DCLG and ask them why experience is not required anymore, is it a breech of their code of authorisation. :shocked3:

Will being a member of a Scam protect you if something went really wrong, I doubt it, you wont see them for dust and small print.

"This is like you can drive a car but you failed your test you can get insurance and drive without a full licence till you get caught then the insurance company drops you as you were not qualified in first place."

Exactly +230, the reduced qualifications were brought in for Electricians that had experience 10years +, but did not have a formal 2360 etc, so they would be allowed to get a short course to check that they were Competent in theory, and then join a Scheme.

But the Scams decided to bend the rules to make a profit on short courses, for people that had no experience, an independent Monitoring exercise was undertaken for DCLG which described this scam as misuse of the entry requirements, guess what happend, yep Nothing. Scam.

Hope that was more on topic +230.

 

[230+]

Now the ultimate question

If this person had an apprentice and an accident happened onsite bearing in mind you assume the qualfied person is responsable for keeping an eye on the apprentice, if the HSE was called in would they then call into question the qualifications of sparkies involved in accident.


I do know of a company where a sparky was killed onsite they then found out he was not qualified and called all their other sparkys to provide proof of quals any who could not were dismissed.


Now if you are a subbie working as a spark should you not be questioned as to wether you are actually qualified as a formal procedure prior to starting onsite would this not just be classed as good practice by an employer, I work onsite no one ever asked for proof of quals all they intrested in is ecs card

 

[Arnold Layne]

230+ if the HSE were called in to the situation you describe ( Heaven forbid it happens) one of the things that the inspectors would look at would be the competence of the Supervision in charge i.e. the qualifications. Other things they would review in the event of an accident would be the Risk Assessments undertaken, prior to commencing work, the Method Statements and any procedures in place.
On your second point concerning the qualifications of subcontractors, no responsible company should employ anyone without seeing their qualifications. The ECS card should carry your grade, your grade is based on achieving certain nationally recognised qualifications therefore some companies just check the grade card as it acts as a proxy for checking the qualifications. Of course this relies on two things. 1 That the grade reflects the qualifications that it should 2 That the person is not asked to undertake work inappropriate to the grade. i.e. you should not be asked to test installs with a Labourers card!!

 

[professional]

You can get assessed with what you have indicated. Use one of the competent person schemes. But you will need to be quick to get to QS status, you will need an NVQ 3 after Jan 2012. You will still be able to be a DI after this but maybe not be able to sign your work off.

Incorrect - you will need an NVQ OR EQUIVALENT i.e. you may actually have to have some TRAINING to be deemed competent - not a 5 day joke of a course and some wishful thinking ....

 

[Zeno]

Now the ultimate question

If this person had an apprentice and an accident happened onsite bearing in mind you assume the qualified person is responsible for keeping an eye on the apprentice, if the HSE was called in would they then call into question the qualifications of sparkies involved in accident.


I do know of a company where a sparky was killed onsite they then found out he was not qualified and called all their other sparkys to provide proof of quals any who could not were dismissed.


Now if you are a subbie working as a spark should you not be questioned as to wether you are actually qualified as a formal procedure prior to starting onsite would this not just be classed as good practice by an employer, I work onsite no one ever asked for proof of quals all they intrested in is ecs card

If there was a serious accident, then the definition of Competence stated in the EAWR would be used, as probably be the BS7671 definition.


If a person was working under the dangerous Qualified Supervisor system, where Supervision hardly ever happens and Qualifications are not required for the operative. Then I doubt it would stand up in court, the system is really there for commercial reasons for the Schemes, to provide Assumed Competence for the customer.


It's all about Money not Competence.