nic mcs pv installers

[Worcester]

@SRE

Good news, sometimes it's worth the argument, of course now every other installer in the area benefits from your tenacity, though I'm sure they'll all buy you a beer down at your local.

(You do remember where that is don't you !!!)

 

[johnthesparky]

hi, sorry if this is a bit off topic....

but I've just done my solar PV course for my building/plumbing company, through NICEIC...

the builders are already MCS accreditted to install solar thermal, biomass and heat pumps, and need me, their subbie to be their quality supervisor on PV

I assume therefore that I would be responsible for the electrical installation, and they would be responsible for the roof structure (mainly because they have been installing solar thermal systems to roofs for years and know what they are doing)

but someone said that as quality supervisor I would have to sign off the entire job,

@SRE remember it is the company not the person that is MCS certified, it doesn't nescessarily mean that one person can do it all, in fact you'd have to be superman, or multiple qualified like a few of us

but this comment seems to reinforce what I had already thought, I am responsible for the electrics... and the builder doing the roof will be responsible for the roof work, is this right?


thanks

 

[Worcester]

quality supervisor

Means you are responsible, doesn't mean you have to do it all.

I don't do the electrics, or the roofing, I sign it off though.

Something goes wrong, my problem.

Guess what! - I make sure we use the right people, suitably trained and qualified for every part. If they're not, they're not allowed on the job, from design to mounting an Isolator, no argument.

If you aren't appropriately qualified, you can't do the structural assesment, you can sign it off though for MCS purposes, so lang as you have seen that it has been done by a suitably qualified person. If you haven't seen it, don't sign it off.

Your butt is on the line.

Sounds like a change in job spec, increased reponsibilities, with an employees hat on (haven't worn one of those for a looooong time) seems like an argument for a pay rise!

It's about making sure the job is done properly.

Oh, and you'll need to know the MCS documents inside out, because come audit time, guess who has to be there!

 

[BruceB]

The saga continues. This morning I (my company) had an unsolicited letter from Bath and North East Somerset Council Building Control:

"I am writing to clarify the situation regarding solar panel installations and building regulations........."

"Many solar installers are covered by Competent Persons Schemes which allow the installer to self certify their work, however it has become apparent the most of these schemes do not cover all the necessary parts of the building regulations. Currently the information we have is that only the NAPIT and CORGI schemes cover all the necessary building regulations........."

And it goes on to say if you are not one of those then pay £126 to us and we will see you right guv, or similar words.

Well done NAPIT and CORGI!

Regards
Bruce

 

[SRE]

This is doing me head in!!!!! Nice man from NICEIC at top of tree sends me a very sensible email explaining how NICEIC are covered under competent persons - send it on to our Chair of Building Control - (nice guy just a bit misguided) and look what he's sent through
:19:


I have forwarded your E-mail to XXXX the author of the Labc Guidance for his comment I may be wrong but the Niceic are talking at cross purposes with regard to other regulations What I believe the scope covers are things like cutting into joists to run cables being aware of the requirements of part L thermal insulation removal etc because no one else is checking their work they could if they were not aware of other regulations make things worse with regard to structural elements What we are considering here is adding loads to a roof structure this in itself being work controllable under the building regulations I would be surprised that any electrician would be competent to determine the effects of an increase in loading to any given domestic roof structure but I would expect him to understand that if he makes excessive holes in say floor joists or removes thermal insulation this will have a detrimental effect on other regulations I have copied --- from XX in on this reply so I will have some discussion with him and I will come back to you with any comments from XX from this office was unable to obtain any response from NICEIC when we raised these issues

 

[BruceB]

Some good news, I had an email from one of my local building control bodies today saying that they would cancel a Building Notice I submitted on behalf of a client in early March and refund the application fee. I had only submitted it because they advised me to do so, although I did not think it necessary. They now accept that being NAPIT registered for MCS avoids the requirement for a building notice. They say the refund process takes some time, so I will not quite count my chickens until the cheque arrives!

The local building control body I am referring to did phone NAPIT to ask directly whether they covered part A and part C aspects when accrediting firms for MCS. They were given an unequivocal yes. Until NICEIC can and does give the same answer, I suspect the mess will continue.

Regards
Bruce

 

[SRE]

They have done this afternoon and Building Control have rejected it - it couldn't have been clearer. I'd have posted the content but I haven't had the ok from the guy I've been speaking to and they've been really helpful. I've suggested that NICEIC have a look at this thread to pick up on what's happening.

 

[BruceB]

Sorry to hear that. Good luck with resolving it - it must be a pain for you. It is critical for NICEIC to sort this out promptly or they will lose renewals. With their clout they ought to be able to do so pretty quickly.
Regards
Bruce

 

[TedM]

I've poked a contact at NICEIC about this as well.

 

[SRE]

Re: nic mcs pv installers - LABC Update

Got this, this morning, my response is below.


I understand you have recently been in contact with a
> colleague of mine, --- concerning work your company has
> recently carrying out in XX. As I think you are aware we (LABC)
> have been struggling to get to grips with the implications of
> installers who use the self certification CPS route for carrying out
> work controlled by the Building Regulations, particularly with respect
> to elements of the work of a structural nature i.e. the stability of
> roof structures post PV installation.
>
> I have recently produced an LABC Best Practice note for surveyors
> which gives the latest position as far as we were aware of what did
> appear to be shortcomings in the limitations many of the CPS
> administrators had with regard to requiring, or otherwise, members of
> their scheme to consider matters of a structural nature.
>
> To further illustrate the position a colleague from ---
> recently had an email exchange with NICIEC who originally very clearly
> stated their scheme did not encompass Part A matters, only to recently
> rescind this and say they did in fact require Part A to be addressed.
> As you can understand this has caused some confusion, not to say
> consternation that such an important factor can so quickly be out then
> in!
>
> I appreciate there are installers who are extremely skilled at
> addressing all relevant matters, but I also know there are many
> installers who have little or no knowledge of structures and how to
> assess them let alone have skilled resources at their disposal to
> assess and design solutions to roofs that require additional
> strengthening works.
>
> There is a meeting in London next week of the Competent Persons
> Forum where LABC will be raising this issue again, in the meantime I
> find myself in a position of not being comfortable to advise my
> members that the NICEIC scheme does properly require ALL its
> installers to deal with Part A. To help me address this are you able
> to advise me of the NICEIC CPS requirements on qualification/skills
> requirements for installers when dealing with any Building Regulation
> matters other than Part P?
>
> I am afraid until such time as this is resolved it is highly likely
> you and other installers will frequently be asked to submit formal
> applications with regard to Part A.
>
> I hope this email does go some way to explaining LABC position in
> this matter.


My response


Thanks for getting in touch - I did express my concerns to --- that the guidance provided in the Best Practice Guide was inaccurate, but I haven't had any feedback since
then so didn't know what had transpired since my comments have been made although I don't think any ammendments have been made to the guide since. I'm not sure if I've
misunderstood the information but the weight of the panels in the guide was wrong, as was the % calculation clearly making solar pv (not thermal) panels outwith the
requirements of Part A as they have less than a 15% impact on the existing roof.

I'm obviously not an expert on Building Regulations but my understanding is that http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/note/made and this
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/3/made clearly identifies that NICEIC as part of the Ascertiva Group is covered under the CPS for renewable energy
measures. NICEIC assess competence of their installers as part of the MCS certification process, the relevant part of which is:

4.4.4 The contractor shall ensure that the roof structure is capable of withstanding the
loads (static and wind loads) that will be imposed by the PV modules and their
mounting arrangements. If there is any doubt, a structural engineer must be
consulted. Guidance on the mechanical installation and wind loads are given in
BRE Digests 495 and 489 or BS 6399.

When we were assessed for the MCS certification by NICEIC we had to provide evidence of how we were assessing structural suitability of the roofs we install pv on - this
was clearly part of the criteria for certification.

I'm not sure where we go from here - the vast majority of installers aren't making applications for Building Notice, the fact that this has just cropped up now after 127
installations of pv up to the end of March 2011 in XX is testament to that. The legislation clearly shows that installation of renewable energy measures by
installers certified by Ascertiva Group do not need to make an application to Building Control, the MCS documentation requires installers to demonstrate that the property
they are installing on is suitable - this is a key part of the certification criteria and the weight of the pv panels fall outside the 15% additional weight load
identified by Part A and so does not need a Building Notice.

 

[Worcester]

This is a right royal pain, and precisiely what you guys pay NICEIC for. NICEIC should be jumping all over LABC with this, and issuing guidance notes and guidlelines to all their MCS accredited installers. - I know that NAPIT sent one out recently to all theirs saying it is all ok.

 

[smiffy_99_uk]

Does Anyone know if NICEIC Have sorted this absolute mess out? Im NICEIC and Just assumed that we were covered by part A. I Keep a record of my wind calcs and get a Structural engineer to advise on the Installations impact on structure. (Not signed off under his PI though.. £££) I hope this is enough as he is my Competent person with ex amount of qualifications in this side of the business. Any Ideas ?? I bet loads have gone up with out a thought for any of the structural side.

 

[SRE]

As I understand it you're covered under Part A as part of your CPS BUT you'd need to demonstrate that you have the qualifications, insurance or farm it out to someone who does. I'm sure there will be a lot of people in your boat, well worse tbh, who haven't done any calcs at all. Maybe at one of your directors meetings you can have it as a concern and move to proper structural calcs with PI supporting it - then you might be ok when you come round for re-assessment.

 

[smiffy_99_uk]

Thanks SRE does your company have PI Insurance or do you use a Structural Engineers PI?

 

[SRE]

We use structural engineers - I'm a numpty with figures!