What about notifying a non existent job in your own home, getting the cert through. Then you have a template what one looks like. From there copy it onto your PC and issue one with your certs. Would anyone ever actually go that far to check?
No they would not.
LABC do not have access to the data that the scams have sent to them over the last 3-4 years - it`s all in holding files.
Notification has only ever been about forcing you to join a scam - if it was about safety, they would require their members (not just a single assessed individual) to be real sparks.
It was noted by the Clive Betts MP, Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee, that the ONLY thing the scams did agree on was that none of them wanted a Gas Safe style system - clearly on "safety" grounds.
Interesting comments in the NICEIC press release :
NICEIC | About Us | Press Releases
[h=3]Select Committee finding needs industry sense check[/h] Plans to overhaul the competent person’s scheme for domestic installers could prove burdensome for electrical contracting firms.
That is the view of NICEIC and ELECSA in response to parliamentary recommendations for all domestic electricians to have a qualification equivalent to NVQ level 3 within the next five years.
“Whilst we welcome many of the recommendations made by the committee we believe the requirement on all individuals, irrespective of the size of the firm or the work the individual undertakes, within a business to be fully qualified places a huge onus on firms,” commented Emma Clancy CEO of Certsure, which operates the NICEIC and ELECSA brands.
“To have all employees up to a Quality Supervisor (QS) level will push up costs and reduce the need for apprentices. The industry will suffer in the long term. It is also no guarantee to raise standards. (No, only those carrying out electrical work ....)
“The QS system, which Part P is based on, is proven to work and as the committee states in its report has actually pushed domestic electrical installation standards up in recent years.”
Under the current QS system, which all competent person scheme operators use, a firm must employ at least one qualified supervisor with a qualification equivalent to NVQ level 3.
The QS is responsible for the final checking of work and the sign off that it has been tested and inspected in accordance with the appropriate standards and regulations.
No, there is no requirement for the QS to check the WORK, merely review it. Under H&S legislation, however, there IS a requirement to supervise unless that individual is competent to work unsupervised - "competent to work unsupervised" is the point of Level 3 qualifications!
“I think we need to be clear that the majority of electricians out there, working in people’s homes, are fully qualified and competent to carry out the work required of them".
Interesting comment, taking into account that the Minister appears to be under the impression that the Schemes do not hold information relating to the qualifications held by their members ....
“Around 80 per cent of the work carried out under Part P is done so by sole traders who have the appropriate qualifications and are able to test and inspect their own work.
See above comment:wink5:
“The view that some firms are sending out unqualified electricians, with just a few weeks training, to carry out jobs such as full rewires, unchecked, is simply not accurate. The majority of firms realise their responsibility to carry out work which is safe and to the required standard.
So how do the untrained, unqualifed and totally inexperienced "short course" sole traders carry out the work then?
“The QS system has worked in the industry for more than 50 years. The QS is legally responsible to ensure the work is carried out to standard -
it is not a simple box ticking exercise.
So what would you call it then? - "supervision by proxy?"
“There are many different roles within a firm, each with varying responsibilities. The QS system allows firms to manage accordingly.
Should you have to be trained to QS level to chase out walls for instance? Where is the evidence of such qualifications needed across the rest of the building sector? NICEIC and ELECSA have welcomed other recommendations in the report. In particular;
- Calls for an annual limit on the number of jobs that a single QS can review
- Action from the government to raise public awareness of Part P - similar to that of Gas Safe
- Proactive enforcement against those who breach Part P and those who work outside of competent person schemes
- A single register for all Part P electricians covering all schemes
It was never even inferred that they should ....
“Our industry is not perfect and we agree the system can be improved so we welcome the committee’s comments,” added Emma. “Indeed
many of the recommendations such as a single register we are already working on and will have in operation by June.
A single register that hides the untrained, unqualified and inexperienced ....
“We have run several public consumer campaigns reminding consumers about their responsibilities in relation to Part P and are
the only scheme operator with a wall of shame which publically names rogue firms that work outside the rules. We work closely with trading standards to ensure these firms are fined accordingly
i.e. those who have not paid them ....
“The competent person scheme was based on our model and we will continue to adapt and evolve our business accordingly to work within the guidelines provided by central government.”
It WAS based on the NICEIC model, and that is the cause of many of the problems we now face as a trade.
Unfortunately, an enterprise can meet the Scheme requirements for running a QS system yet leave the QS wide open to prosecution under H&S requirements .... and a two year custodial sentence and unlimited fine ....
=========================================================================
To all Qualifed Supervisors - you have been warned.
To all those signing the delaration of conformity to BS7671 i.e. those who actually CERTIFY, YOU will be standing in court ALONE, as when the courts are involved th Schemes merely shrug their shoulders and walk away.
If YOU ran a Scheme, would you run the risk of giving evidence under oath? - I certainly wouldn`t.
