I find some of these comments very interesting, if a little short-sighted. I have the unenviable task of carrying out PAT work on a regular basis and I would like to speak on behalf of the hitherto unrepresented. Firstly, it is unreasonable to criticise them for lack of experience and qualification when all that is needed to carry out this work is the City and Guilds 2377 Certificate of Competence. This requires a very high percentage to pass the examination and I know of many who have had to look elsewhere following their repeated lack of success in attempting to secure the qualification. Is it their fault that qualification does not require years of training, endless exams and assessments? No. I know only too well that there are those who do little more than slap on a sticker but I feel that to tar them all with the same brush is somewhat harsh. The example of the tester being criticised for doing nothing more than applying the stickers to ceiling-mounted equipment, when he had already stated that it was purely a visual inspection, is unfounded. A visual inspection is exactly that, and does not require opening up or even unplugging the appliance, where conditions dictate that this be the case. As for risk assessment, we all know what H&S regulations mean and I would agree that if he had been told not to work from access equipment then he should not do so. As for planting "modified" equipment to catch someone out? Nothing better to do, perhaps. I trust that the time taken attempting to trip others up will not be billed to the client?
Then there is the issue of cost. The so-called "50p a test merchants", cowboys, jokers or whatever else people choose to call them are not all charging this paltry sum because they feel like it. There are those who, admittedly, go in purely on price but the majority of them have been driven to it by a combination of factors including the cheap and cheerful operators but, just as importantly, an increasingly cost-conscious client base who will quite happily play one company off against another until a bargain-basement price is agreed. That, coupled with an employer who demands more and more work from his testers in less and less time has, undoubtedly led to some corner-cutting. Add to this the fact that the reduced cost per test means that they are having to do more work, just to stand still, and you will see why we are finding it very hard to compete on a level footing. As one contributor has suggested, the customer is usually happy with everything being "stickered up" for the right price. Unfortunately, there is an element of truth in this and many of them do not consider the serious implications as deeply as they do the cost. And remember, the company agrees the amount per test, the engineer receives far less!
As a company, we perform visual and full checks and change plugs/fuses included in the cost. We provide the customer with a detailed breakdown of the testing carried out by location/item, with a full list of failures being issued before we leave site and we are charging nowhere near ÂŁ2 per test, nor have we for some time. Had we continued to charge at our previous rates, we would have sunk without trace long ago. Did we instigate this plummet in rates? No, our hand was forced and we are all suffering as a result, not just the "real" electricians. Given the time and fair remuneration, any PAT engineer would be happy to do the job 100% correctly. Unfortunately many of them are lucky to earn ÂŁ50.00 per day. Hardly a get-rich-quick scheme, is it? Place the blame where you see fit, we are all entitled to our opinion, but don't just drop the blame on the guy in the firing line. Look a little deeper into the cause.
Oh, and by the way, we aren't allowed to work overhead either!
