NICEIC Certification Scheme NICEIC Three Part Certificate

[MDJ]

Can I ask then, what is the point in a multi signature certificate then? Surely its so that each person takes responsibility for their bit? As said earlier, I am not looking to sign someone else's work off. I want to know if I can sign to say it tests out ok, and the others accept liability for the installation.

You said you didn't want to sign off anyones work earlier but now you say you want to test someone elses work, I am a little confused hence my initial reply that was all, the 3 part signature forms are usually for an architect or engineer regarding the design. Then the installation signature is from the spark who did the install and the testing bit from the guy who tested. The guy who tested is expected to be from the same company as the installer, usually it is the same guy, but it could be the companies QS, Like I said earlier the NICEIC do not allow you to sign off another companies work. you said in your OP you wanted to test someone elses work, you could only do that with the NICEIC if they were part of the same company. You will have to do an EICR if you want to test someone elses work.

 

[rattlehead85]

I have been reliably informed by an NICEIC area rep that a third party certificate for signing off work carried out by somebody else is currently being compiled, however, they have come across "a few stumbling blocks" God knows what nasties this will bring when it is let loose for download or purchase!!

 

[MDJ]

I have been reliably informed by an NICEIC area rep that a third party certificate for signing off work carried out by somebody else is currently being compiled, however, they have come across "a few stumbling blicks" God knows what nasties this will bring when it is let loose for download or purchase!!

The risk to the party signing off the work is the major stumbling block, who in thier right mind would sign off a new install by a different company installing the work? an EICR is the way forward, you are just saying it looks okay if you give a satisfactory on the form, and are not liable if it is not.

 

[rattlehead85]

I'm sure their will be plenty of participants sitting around the table in ya local writing them out willy nilly for a convenient fistful of 20's and then conveniently loosing the paperwork when inspection time comes a calling.

 

[uksparks]

Ok I see, I suppose I just looked at it in its basic form of if only be responsible for the test results not the rest but how you put it I think all I can offer is an EICR. As I said before I wouldn't give an EIC for someone else's work which is why I wondered if a three part would work in this instance. I'll just tell him he can't have one.

MDJ, I understand what you are saying, I think I perhaps didn't think about the bigger picture. I wasn't aware that a three part was aimed at one company, I thought maybe if could be used for literally three different parties and each takes responsibility for their bit.

anyway, you have cleared it up, it's obviously a non starter, I'll let him know. I did say to him in not 100% as I only have single sig certs.

Thanks for for the input.

 

[uksparks]

The risk to the party signing off the work is the major stumbling block, who in thier right mind would sign off a new install by a different company installing the work? an EICR is the way forward, you are just saying it looks okay if you give a satisfactory on the form, and are not liable if it is not.

That's definitely the way forward.

 

[MDJ]

Thanks for for the input.

No worries, to add one issue that annoys us all is the fact one QS is responsible for all the installation work on one company, the installers signature is the spark doing the work, the tester could be the QS, Imagine how many jobs that one guy is signing off if he works for a large company? still that is the NICEIC S policy lol

 

[uksparks]

There's just too many grey areas around who can do things and who is responsible etc, it should be cut back to basics, one sig, the person who does the work, no QS.

The whole system is too complicated.

 

[MDJ]

If you watched the TV program D skelton a very respected member here attended you will see that a woman on there (forgot her name now) tried to defend the QS system, she failed miserably and I enjoyed the laugh it gave the MPs.

 

[guest119]

The system of QS is abused and not run properly with small businesses.

The big boys running a job like one of the new multi storey hospitals up here would have a QS on site.
As the installation team move up the commissioning team move in. Each floor will then be tested (years gone by would be technician sparks C course lads) by guys deputised by the QS and working under him. The main point being that HE IS THERE and will produce snagging lists for things that are not to his satisfaction.
He then signs for testing and review and the foreman signs for construction.

There can be as many QS guys as required and I believe for the NICEIC it is £600 for the day long visit (was with me last year) to approve each one.

A QS that sits behind a desk and signs anything put in front of him because he is the only one or is pressurised by the owners is a fool.

Boydy

 

[Plonker 3]

A multi part signature is aimed at commercial operations, so for different people within 1 business.

Really?

There is no mention of this in BS7671!

 

[guest119]

A multi part signature is aimed at commercial operations, so for different people within 1 business.

Or the single signature box when it all by the same person.

Boydy

 

[guest119]

Really?

There is no mention of this in BS7671!

NICEIC forms can go beyond regs.
New edition regs often adopt NICEIC ideas.


Boydy

 

[Plonker 3]

They are allowable as they in the BS7671, doesn't matter who's idea it was.

 

[brucelee]

I asked my elecsa assessor about this and 3rd party certifier

the reason I asked was because a mate I know was to get a contract for 50 flats
He asked me could I go and work with them and then sign them off I told him I doubt it as I am sure its for the work carried out by me alone
originally when I contacted Elecsa they said no

But upon speaking to my assessor he says If I was employed by there firm then would have to be a Qs for there company But if they got you in on a sub- contract basis then if as long as i was working with them I could Sign for THE I&T part them the design and construction but I would have to be on site to see the work at the various stages and not just sign for someone elses work when I hadnt seen it as I would be taking responsibility and I guess liabilit along with thereselves

still didnt seem right to me so i am now more confused as ever
was a little peed off to be honest because if this is true then i could have indeed gone and subbied for them and carried out all the I&T and notification even though I dont like the thought of it as it would be myself notifying in my name

At the time didnt think it was possible and felt the risk may be to great unless I did see all work completed so reluctantly declined my friends offer
as It would be them getting the major bucks with me getting a day rate and taking responsibility of I&T and notification
SO UTTERLY CONFUSED WITH THE WHOLE PROCESS
considering they took a large sum of dosh of me for the 3rd year in october and only had my assessment 23rd December
my shiny new certificate of competence as a assessed enterprise arrived the other day and mysteriously is dated November as it was last year
My first assessment 3yrs ago was in October
last year November and this year december
Think they need to hire some more Assessors or better still get rid of the whole sorry mess and start again with one scheme/register, Quals for all

Oh and By the way the 3rd party certifier is still nowhere any nearer but I suppose that will be another cost on top of your annual membership