MCS Surveillance

[SRE]

We had our visit yesterday and wondered if someone could explain to me why:

it's more important to have a mission statement than a structural report?
it's more important to have a G83/G59 link in your document control list than 300mm round your installation?
it's more important to have "uncontrollable" written on paper documents than not drilling through slate?
putting a generation meter next to a garage consumer unit isn't good enough, it should be next to the consumer unit even though there isn't space and the garage consumer unit is more accessible for the customer?

Apparently someone else's mission statement (doesn't mater who it belongs to as long as it's at least 2 paragraphs long) which is longer is preferable to the shorter one that reflects the ethos of your company.

Best of all I love the fact that I have to write a process that says if the panels are damaged in the van en route to the job we will replace them - what do they think we're going to do install broken panels on the roof!

Almost everything that was approved on our last visit was highlighted as wrong. I seemed to spend 4 hours saying well this was perfectly acceptable at the last visit what has changed since then and can you show me the changes. Which he couldn't.

Added to that he asked to see DTI guide V 3 because it had been released in April 2012!

and off my soap box - good riddance for another year!

 

[solarsavings]

And that is why in my opinion we need less of this **** not more
Imagine what it will be like when you have another installer (your competition) climbing all over your installs desperate to find fault.

 

[sedgy34]

They have had to endure more training since they last seen you, by the sounds of it it's another ball ache

 

[whinmoor]

Were these all highlighted as non-conformities? Seems rather strange.

 

[Gavin A]

And that is why in my opinion we need less of this **** not more
Imagine what it will be like when you have another installer (your competition) climbing all over your installs desperate to find fault.

it was merely a suggestion. Your dislike of it has been noted.

I would say though that at least they'd be looking at the quality of your work, and not your paperwork.

 

[SRE]

Were these all highlighted as non-conformities? Seems rather strange.

4 hrs of "observations" - he was nearly in the 1 mile expanse of water that sits 30 yards from our house!

 

[SolarCity]

In an uncontrolled environment, I can understand Solarsavings concerns. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done.

The inspecting contractor only points out faults/constructive criticisms that he has noted - which then go on to another inspector who has no attachment to any company? He then either agrees with the assessment or dismisses them. Could that work?

I have no doubt that a competent installer could pick faults with my installs (and I could with theirs) but I really don't think this would bother me. I get picked up on something every single time I have my NICEIC visit - and I always learn and consider myself a better sparky for it.

 

[solarsavings]

it was merely a suggestion. Your dislike of it has been noted.

I would say though that at least they'd be looking at the quality of your work, and not your paperwork.

Good.

But don't take personally because it was meant to be an attack on you.

 

[BruceB]

SRE, Dare we ask which your accrediting organisation is?

I am with NAPIT and next assessment due in Oct. Their people to date have been pedantic, as I expect anyone following a process to do the assessment to be, but they have always been reasonable about it and any minor office issues I was able to sort out on the spot. I have had emails from NICEIC and ELECSA recently trying to poach me, but not inclined to shift at the moment.

Regards
Bruce

 

[solarsavings]

I don't believe the numbers of bad installs/installers are as high as claimed on the main forum. At least not in my area so I don't see the need for tougher inspections. I can't think of a trade, profession or industry that some will claim needs to be better regulated because of a few bad apples but it seldom if ever brings the promised improvement.

I've been corgi and then gassafe registered for far too many years. When gas inspections first started you were asked to provide 3 installs at different addresses , boiler, fire, pipework for inspection on a given date. So you could of course pick those you were certain to pass close inspection and avoid those you had any doubts about. The inspection system was changed when all gas appliance installations had to be registered so that you now you do not get hear about an inspection unless they find fault(s)

It's a good system, keeps you on your toes. It works because the inspectors have all to a man been on the tools for years, they're not unprincipled careerist gone looking for the next big break. They don't make claims about one boiler/fitting being better or cheaper than another all that that concerns them is that it is installed correctly. They remain tight lipped even when stood alongside you watching you work unless they have concerns with the way you're working or want to know why you're doing something the way you are. It puts the customers on edge as well i can tell you

Now if I thought for one minute that this industry could be policed in a similar way to the gas industry I would support it, especially if it were based on the installation and not the paperwork(cos I'm crap with it) But it won't be, the egotist/careerists have laid claim to an industry that should/could have have run perfectly well alongside it's allied trades without the likes of real or the solar trades association and the bpva. What have they done for you or your customers? Logo collectors will believe they have benefited from their membership but I'd bet no one else does.

A day doesn't go by without some email arriving asking me to pay to attend a conference where a load of self serving arseholes will be pontificating about the direction this industry should take, and when it dries up, they will be doing the same over the next big thing. Cynical? you better believe it.


Edit: Sorry SRE I didn't mean to hijack your thread perhaps Chris can move my post to a new one.

 

[SRE]

SRE, Dare we ask which your accrediting organisation is?

I am with NAPIT and next assessment due in Oct. Their people to date have been pedantic, as I expect anyone following a process to do the assessment to be, but they have always been reasonable about it and any minor office issues I was able to sort out on the spot. I have had emails from NICEIC and ELECSA recently trying to poach me, but not inclined to shift at the moment.

Regards
Bruce

Lets just say I'm reviewing my options for next year and NAPIT may well be top of the list ;-)

 

[solarsavings]

Three of us in this area are corgi, napit, elcsa registered and yet all of us have had the same assessor.

 

[whinmoor]

I like Gavin's idea but can't see how it can work on a practical level. It will cost time and money to implement and put those who volunteer to have their work scrutinised at a competitive disadvantage. If it's done in other parts of the country, that further complicates matters. There's also the issue of inconveniencing the householder (again) with a follow-up visit from which they will receive little or no feedback.

I prefer the idea of resolving issues at the planning stage rather than ironing out snags after installation. I think that's what this Sun Lounge is about and I've certainly asked for advice here a few times when I've wanted a second opinion.

 

[whinmoor]

BTW, when we had our MCS assessment last year, the guy was rather large and could hardly get upstairs, let alone up the ladder to look in the loft.

Bending down to look at the consumer unit in the bottom of the kitchen cupboard also proved problematic. :detective:

Needless to say, he was a paperwork dude. :book: