Inspection&Test and EICR

[UNG]

The semi retired referred to above is much more likely to have the experience to accurately assess the age of an existing installation to determine which things that would now be C2 can be marked as C3.

Hopefully that was the point I was making as experience IMO is a big factor when carrying out EICR's

 

[KashBag]

I've seen good and bad reports by cps and non cps sparks. You need to be confident you are competent to carry them out, imo that would still mean you carry 2391 or equivalent.

Being non cps does mean you won't always be able to actually correct the non compliances you identify yourself though, domestically of course, if board changes etc are required or other things lead to notifiable works then you have the potentially embarrassing conversation of, "this is wrong but im not allowed to fix it". Thus providing only half of the full service really, you'd need to inform your clients of

I wouldn't care to defend the schemes and yes a lot of dross finds it's way past their checks and onto their paperwork, but like it or not they are the industries compliance mechanism so working around them just seems a faff and self restricting and would make people question you.

I don't wholly buy the "oh you can still do industrial innit", if a few more managers etc understood their obligations in law, and what they could potentially be deemed culpable of when they employed dodgy Joe down the road to carry out electrical work they'd also be far keener to use someone who can be fingered should the fit hit the shan.

I certainly have a different view my father was a mechanic and my 2 brothers are recently retired mechanics and they would never go to a garage for an MOT that does repairs as they are quite often looking for work rather than carrying out an honest MOT. The MOT test garage all the family and quite a number of friends currently use and have done for the last 15 or more years does a fair and genuine MOT the fact they don't do repairs does in no way affect what they do it keeps 2 MOT testers busy all day everyday 5 days a week and every other Saturday morning
The big problem these days most vehicles now require expensive specialist tooling and diagnostics so some MOT centres may not be equiped due to the costs involved to repair all vehicles

I don't see any reason why someone who is semi retired couldn't just do test & inspection with maybe some very minor remedial work without all the hassle of doing the more major remedial work

Thanks UNG, that is exactly the point. I am 61 now and I am already planning to do test an inspection when I retire in 3 years' time. I am doing my 2391-52 course in a few weeks' time to refresh my knowledge, just to be on the safe side! I will start already now doing this for some friends (I have 5 that need this service). It will be some good exercise as well. With regards to e.g. change of consumer unit, if required, I could contact the Building Authorities and get permission (perhaps to start with as I am doing this for friends).
My Degrees: MSc, MBA - Additioanl IEng MIET from 2005.
My old qualifications:
NVQ L 4 , Denmark (Domestic, Commercial and Industrial), 20 years experience (10 year Automation).
UK , 17th and 18th Edition, and Part P
Now doing 2391-52

So I hope I will be good enough for the purpose

 

[Simon47]

Probably more about setting a bar, but lay people have little understanding of what it means to be registered with a scheme.

A position carefully cultivated by the scams with their "use our members if you value your life and the lives of your children" style of messaging.

I take my van for an mot fully expecting the garage to be able to fix any identified problems, i wouldn't consider a company that could identify problems and do nothing about them.

Alternatively, as already pointed out, you can be reasonably sure they aren't treating MOTs as work generators for the workshop. In the past I've taken my motors (esp. Land Rovers) for an MOT fully expecting to do any work myself.

 

[Simon47]

A lot of it comes down to how a Dutyholder discharges their Duty of care, but the question then is how to carry out due diligence on a contractor before placing the order do you accept the NICEIC / NAPIT model where it is assumed that they have done it on your behalf ...

Indeed, and given that (in my experience) agents know nothing about electrickery, it's the only way they can do that. When the routine inspaction rule came in, I got an email from the agent which copied verbatin what they'd got from NICEIC. I ripped it to shreds as it had (from memory) 5 false statements in just 2 sentences ! I don't think they like me very much - but when I have to point out basic errors like that, there's some mutuality there !

 

[Teddy Lop]

Your statement seems at odds with your posts that appear to be pro scheme

That is where you are being misled try making a complaint then you will find out that they are far from it

The schemes have been misleading people for years aided and abetted by the media

A lot of it comes down to how a Dutyholder discharges their Duty of care, but the question then is how to carry out due diligence on a contractor before placing the order do you accept the NICEIC / NAPIT model where it is assumed that they have done it on your behalf and what will be delivered is an honest and genuine report which truly reflects the condition of the installation the issue then is can the dutyholder easily validate what is in the report to ensure they have met their duty of care

The part I have never understood is how NICEIC and NAPIT validate a contractors ability and skillset to carry out EICR's when they don't appear to have any assessment procedure for doing so

I'm not sure I've said anything especially pro scheme? I think they're quite flawed and have said such, feel free to highlight anything that contradicts that.

But they are the structure that's in place and I think working around them doesn't make business sense. Only yesterday I was having a conversation with a business owner over his obligations to his employees, that while part P doesn't apply to businesses as (like in purchase protection) business is considered professional purchasers, that doesn't mean they can employ anyone and still have due diligence..

While any bandit can get away with overpricing I think being scheme allows you to justify higher prices.

A lot of shoddy drivers have a licence but would you get in a cab of someone who didn't?

 

[Simon47]

A lot of shoddy drivers have a licence but would you get in a cab of someone who didn't?

How would you know ? And similar with insurance - how would you know they were correctly insured with "for hire" cover ?
As you say, it comes down to assuming that someone else has done some diligence - you have to assume that the local minicab firm or hackney carriage licensing team have checked (Uber were accused of not doing proper checks on insurance at one point).
So it doesn't really matter whether we in here think the scams do a good job, the reality is that for most clients choosing a scam member is the easiest way to tick the "is the person competent ?" due diligence box. I think there's a consensus that being a scheme member isn't necessarily evidence of competence, but if the ---- hits the fan, the client can point to that membership and effectively move the spotlight onto the scheme for admitting someone not competent.
But all that doesn't mean someone who isn't a member can't get work - it just means they will need to do a bit more up front in providing different evidence to allow the client to tick that due diligence box.

 

[KashBag]

How would you know ? And similar with insurance - how would you know they were correctly insured with "for hire" cover ?
As you say, it comes down to assuming that someone else has done some diligence - you have to assume that the local minicab firm or hackney carriage licensing team have checked (Uber were accused of not doing proper checks on insurance at one point).
So it doesn't really matter whether we in here think the scams do a good job, the reality is that for most clients choosing a scam member is the easiest way to tick the "is the person competent ?" due diligence box. I think there's a consensus that being a scheme member isn't necessarily evidence of competence, but if the ---- hits the fan, the client can point to that membership and effectively move the spotlight onto the scheme for admitting someone not competent.
But all that doesn't mean someone who isn't a member can't get work - it just means they will need to do a bit more up front in providing different evidence to allow the client to tick that due diligence box.

I completely agree with Simon. Scam membership is just to satisfy a system by which a few private corporates are making a huge amount of money, making you believe you are better than unregistered people, not necessarliy proves competence.

 

[mainline]

I think the schemes tightened up a few years ago making it a bit more difficult to join now than it was, problem is that all the quick course domestic installers that joined then are just gaining the experience and knowledge to perform the role properly.

 

[Simon47]

... all the quick course domestic installers that joined then are just gaining the experience and knowledge to perform the role properly.

That's a glass half full thought