The worst install ever (maybe?)

[moggy1968]

we don't work in Wales, maybe thats the reason?:smartass2:

 

[JD6400]

In fairness to Drew35 , I have to say that probably somewhere between 35-45% of installs i have seen ( All be it just driving by on a lot of them .) have had glaringly obvious faults with them and quite frankly have taken the shine of being able to call both myself and our company solar pv competent !
Along with the fact that i personally could not trust the government to stand by what had been agreed , so i intern i cold not then tell a client what could quite easily turn out to be a lie in the end , being one of the main reasons for dropping our MCS , it was also the staggeringly vast amounts of chancers and bare face lier's that were coming in to the market every day at one point that also made my mind up !
And if you take in the fact of that i live out around Skeggness and run our company from Buckinghamshire down as far to even the south coast , that is a fair foot print to go from .

 

[SolarCity]

In fairness to Drew35 , I have to say that probably somewhere between 35-45% of installs i have seen ( All be it just driving by on a lot of them .) have had glaringly obvious faults with them

I would say that that figure was a lot more like it from our experience. There IS a lot of rubbish out there but there are also plenty of decent installs.

 

[The Solar King]

What frustrates is seeing installs where I have advised a prospective customer against PV because sufficient panels cannot be fitted in a compliant manner and/or it is simply not viable. I have to conclude that these people have either been lied to by someone else or are just plain stupid.

I am certain that many competitors are not doing wind calcs, not using sufficient mounting brackets, and would not know a non-standard roof construction if it slapped them repeatedly in the face. Shading is something to be ignored or played down. Working to the DTi 3rd Edition that is due this month will make life even more interesting.

Of the the four installs nearest my house (none of which I had any involvement in) three are either non-compliant or completely bonkers. The customers may not know the full consequences until it is too late. They will either not get the FIT payments they were told systems would generate, or several storms down the line the whole lot will be in the garden. This is only the roof side that is visible. What is the electrical side like?

What makes this worse is that my MCS assessment this year is desktop only. This is unbelievable for the very reasons discussed in this thread. This is what is allowing the high level of non-compliant installs to continue. This is in no one's interest.

The only answer I can see to all of this is stiffer assessment with greater site inspection. This is all about outcomes.

I better go and do some work before I get too angry.

 

[SRE]

What do you mean desktop? No site visit at all just QMS? Got ours tomorrow and we've got to do a site visit.

 

[The Solar King]

I mean office and desktop. No site visits. Attached is the Surveillance Plan for later this month. This is Year 3 of Solar Thermal and Year 2 of PV for us.

Draw your own conclusions as to the veracity of this. I have absolutely no problem with being assessed on any or all of the installs we have undertaken. I would think most regular contributors to this site are of a like mind.

 

[SRE]

So as long as your paperwork is fine it doesn't matter about your installation - how does that work? You're right we'd be happy for them to look at any of our jobs, this is our first surveillance visit but it's 10 months ovedue - not that I'm complaining!

 

[SolarCity]

I mean office and desktop. No site visits.

The idea that there should ever be an office and desktop visit and no site visit is beyond staggering in my opinion.

The MCS should be allowed to contact anyone on the installation database and choose where they visit.

 

[finewine]

Braintree Essex. Definitely not the worst install in terms of workman ship but the panels are in full shade all day during the summer and dappled during the winter / spring. God knows what they paid or what return was quoted on these.

 

[Gavin A]

not just allowed, they should be obliged to do random assessments of eg 1-5% of all installations, just as is the case for EPC assessors.

At the moment the only time an MCS company might get a visit outside of the assessment is after a serious complaint, but if the customer doesn't know what to look for then they ain't going to complain.

 

[Eco Deal]

agreed ! I think you should also be watched testing the installation like Part P.

 

[Gavin A]

agreed ! I think you should also be watched testing the installation like Part P.

yep.

tbh as well, I don't think the entire model of full time assessors actually works with this industry, as there simply isn't the base of timeserved installers wanting to hang up their tools after 20-30 years and become an assessor, so we're being assessed by people who've either got no direct industry experience, or very minimal experience in a very fast moving industry with significant technological improvements going on basically on a quarterly basis.

I reckon there needs to be a system whereby experienced installers with eg over 100 installs, firstly get assessed themselves via site checks on 10 random installs, and on site assessment of testing procedures etc, and then get paid to conduct quarterly inspections of a randomly generated list of installations in their area that excluded their own installations (eg in the month after each FIT deadline), with maybe 10 assessors per area, and each company having installs assessed by minimum of 3 assessors, who would then give the company feedback on their installs, any non-conformities, and discuss any suggestions for improvements with them.

Under the new MCS standards I'd suggest those doing the assessment would have to be level 3 installers and a named technical nominee for that company.

Or possibly to avoid conflict of interest, the assessors would do 2-3 day quarterly stints in another area of the country entirely.

Something like that would be a way of rapidly raising standards across the industry without all this petty beurocracy. One thing's for sure, the current system simply isn't fit for purpose, and the training, assessment and guidance systems currently in place are the major cause of widespread bad practice within the industry, rather than companies actually deliberately taking the **** IMO.

Actually, if enough people think there's any milage in this sort of idea I might work it up a bit better and suggest it / maybe see if we can run a voluntary pilot scheme between us or something.

 

[SolarCity]

I think that idea is really interesting. Do you think there would be enough people in the industry that would be happy to do it? It would need quite a lot to make it work.

 

[solarsavings]

Jesus it gets worse. Theres more than enough installers out there waiting to cut their competitions throat and you want you give them the knife. Give me a break.

 

[Gavin A]

I don't know, but I suspect that most companies are in a similar position to us, where it could actually be a bit of a bonus for their experienced installers to have 3 days paid work once a quarter in the period after the cut deadline, and it'd benefit those installers as well in terms of them being able to meet up with the other assessors / see how other companies are doing things, as there's always new tips to pick up and pass on.

As for whether it'd work as a voluntary pilot scheme... erm, well I dunno really, but I suspect the will is there from enough people on this forum at least to make it work. Whether any companies would be happy to subject themselves to voluntary external assessment as a quality assurance system, with the benefit of being given feedback and advice in a way that would have no impact on their accreditation... not sure, but I suspect there'd be enough interest to make it work as a pilot scheme.

Tbh, we'd probably also have to make it that the companies supplying the assessors also had their installs assessed first, both to check the quality of their work first, and also to make it all a bit more equitable.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know that I certainly get and answer a fair few queries from installers I've never met / have no association with via PM's on various boards with technical queries, and happily answered them, so I reckon there are enough installers out there happy to seem out and take advice to make a pilot work.

I do seem to be talking myself into something here though...