I thought this post had concluded 6 weeks ago...
As to your question MEP, I can not answer I am afraid, but all I do know it is far better than it was.
:77:
 
Definitely a bad install, everyone knows you should use hard wood or at least pressure treated timber to hold panels in place.

Wonder if they included the shading in the PV benefit analysis?
 
I think the trapezoid posted by Prince is a far worst install, this one has it's own comedy value, but princes post is wrong on so many levels it will take some beating.
 
When I tought had seen it all...

This is what I saw on Sunday! Sorry, the pic is rather bad, but I didn't dare getting any closer...
2012-08-04-055.jpg
 
That has just got to be your own house , and you have just laid them on the hedge and what ever else you could find , just for the crack !?
Please tell me that is the case .:shocked:
 
I've been holding back comments on PV installs for a long time but I'm finally opening my mouth, and putting my tin hat on.
I am yet to see, in my area, what I would call a good install. And I don't mean I'm being picky over silly things, I mean downright poor installs.
I initially put it down to the "gold rush" of installs, then the rush to start a job and get it notified before the FIT rate dropped, but I'm still seeing them.

Just last week whilst carrying out an EICR, a fault that I've seen several times, the feed in MCB laying inside the consumer unit. I've never yet seen one fitted that's the same make as the CSU, but say a Crabtree board with plug in MCBS, then the standard MCB won't fit so just lay it in there and connect it with cable.

The feed in MCB is fitted on one of the RCD's with no labelling anywhere to say when the RCD's tripped the circuits will all still be live. No duel supply stickers anywhere.

And also last week when going to fit an extra socket for an old guy, I went to turn of the CSU which is in a shoe cupboard in the entrance hall. The cupboard is only about 2ft deep, and the inverter is fitted on the back wall, and to one side. There is a piece of tile batten wedged between the inverter and the door frame, when removing the tile batten (out of interest) the inverter cover falls off?

So many customers complaining about their PV installs, one woman has had a company back eight times, with eight different wireless displays, non of which work. The reason, the walls are 2ft of stone and the signal needs to get through three of them? Luckily I'd rewired that house so I managed to hard wire it without much of a problem, problem solved.

I think the PV thing was seen as a big money maker, and so the worst of the worst thought it was a license to print money. And that's why we're seeing these quality installs. I just know my heart sinks when I turn up at a property to carry out work and see panels on the roof.

Sorry.
 
It's always a mistake to tar everyone with the same brush :sad3: there are thousands of great installations out there as well as a significant number of poor ones. All we can hope to do through the forum is encourage customers to be very careful about their selection of installer. Price shouldn't ever be the only deciding factor.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
What do you mean desktop? No site visit at all just QMS? Got ours tomorrow and we've got to do a site visit.
 
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.
 

Attachments

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!
 
Braintree Essex. Definitely not the worst install in terms of workmanIMAG0585.jpgship 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
 
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 ****ing break.
how else do you suggest the industry can raise the standards overall?

The other way I see it happening is that those installers who've gone bust / been laid off get taken on by Napit etc as assessors and given free reign to assess the rest of the industry that's still in business, with minimal quality control on the actual assessors work prior to them becoming assessors... or we just bumble along as now with minimal assessment of workmanship, as long as the paperwork is in order.

or do you not think that this is an issue?

eta - I'm just throwing this out there as an idea, if there's no support for it, then fair enough.
 
We are not the problem. We need a universal solution to this. We need the toe rags sqeezed out. The people who should be reading this thread are the MCS Working Group. I would really like to see them engage with this discussion and see their responses to our concerns. I doubt if they have the slightest inkling as to the anger that exists about how our industry is being tarnished for no good reason or how much we care about this issue.

This is about outcomes. Outcomes are what is on the roof, in the attic and in the cupboard with the CU. Outcomes are honest and accurate predictions of performance. Outcomes are satisfied and well informed customers. To my mind the rest of it does not matter. This is from someone who used to be a member of the Institute of Quality Assurance. (I left because they were all ---- retentives who didn't understand customers).

I would like to see MCS fit for purpose. There is no reason why this should not be so.

Let me see what I can do tomorrow.
 
Do you lot think installing PV is any different from duoble glazing, plumbing, electrical, or any other trade that can shaft joe public. Its all part of life. PV company in my already made his company dormant and started new company but some kept his MCS number.

They will be lots of work in future doing remedials
 
Sorry, but this is totally the wrong attitude. PV can be different and should be different. We need the mechanism to ensure it is different. We need a better level of professionalism.

Would you say the same about your doctor, dentist or lawyer? I doubt it. Why should our sector be any different? Consumers have the right to expect the best. Renewables are brilliant and part of the new economy. This means we need to play by new and better rules.

Restarting under same MCS number would be easy to deal with.

How can you do remedials if it is not your job and the customer doesn't even know they have a non compliant poor quality installation?
 
Money money. Until you stop companies going under and restarting under a new name no chance.
Or start you own installer accreditation scheme like REAL
 
How many customers will thank you for telling them they bought the wrong house, car, holiday, tele or married the wrong woman? How many will thank you for telling them that in your opinion their install isn't up to scratch.

I often wonder what potential customers think when they come on here and see us moaning about installs we've seen, sales tactics we've heard. That we the installers think REAL, the registration bodies and DECC are a joke. Do you think it inspires them to find a decent installer or puts them off because the industry isn't policed well enough at the moment and the chances of them getting ripped off are too high.

I learnt a valuable lesson from a customer many years ago when going to price up a boiler replacement when minutes after entering his home he said "I know all about running down the competition so don't bother trying" We have gone on to install solar thermal and pv along with general plumbing work for them over the years.

I don't run down the competition. I don't lie and if I don't know the answer to a question I tell them( the pc) I'll find out and come back to them. Don't ask a woman whether the children in an obvious photo are her grand children( they won't be ) I have got every job bar 3 that we've priced over the years (going back long before this mcs lark started) one of them I didn't want. One of them they didn't need it. The other one I lost left me gutted.
Remember you are first selling yourself and then the install.


Oh and the worst installer I have ever employed was an clearskies assessor (remember them?) I wonder if he's now an mcs inspector.
 
How many customers will thank you for telling them they bought the wrong house, car, holiday, tele or married the wrong woman? How many will thank you for telling them that in your opinion their install isn't up to scratch.
That's not how I'd envisage the sort of think I was suggesting working - it'd be the installers that were given the feedback in confidence, not the customer, though I'd hope the installers would then do something about it if there were significant issues picked up. I suppose in the event of a dangerous situation being picked up, you'd want evidence that the installer had rectified the situation, otherwise you'd also be liable if the danger became reality and you'd done nothing else to warn the customer / ensure the situation was sorted, but outside of that situation it'd just be feedback for the installer I reckon.

Apart from anything else, you'd need to give the installer chance to explain why they'd done something the way they had, as there can sometimes be valid reasons for doing something that is outside of the general guidance.

The point of this for me wouldn't be pointing fingers, ruining reputations etc, it's the complete opposite - it's about recognising the limitations of the current training, advice, regulations and assessment to cover all possible aspects of the installations fully, and enabling best practice to be spread throughout the industry from installer to installer (probably in both directions a lot of the time), at the same time as helping those companies to conduct a thorough quality assurance system of double checking a proportion of the systems they've installed to ensure that if there are any issue they get picked up before it becomes a serious multiple installation warranty issue a few years down the line for them. For me, that's a large part of why I post on these and other forums is both to learn from others experience in some areas, and pass on my own experience in others.
I often wonder what potential customers think when they come on here and see us moaning about installs we've seen, sales tactics we've heard. That we the installers think REAL, the registration bodies and DECC are a joke. Do you think it inspires them to find a decent installer or puts them off because the industry isn't policed well enough at the moment and the chances of them getting ripped off are too high.
true, which is why I'm trying to make a positive suggestion for a change instead of just having a moan, which tbf I have been guilty of on a few occasions recently, so maybe that is best kept for the lounge.

I learnt a valuable lesson from a customer many years ago when going to price up a boiler replacement when minutes after entering his home he said "I know all about running down the competition so don't bother trying" We have gone on to install solar thermal and pv along with general plumbing work for them over the years.

I don't run down the competition. I don't lie and if I don't know the answer to a question I tell them( the pc) I'll find out and come back to them. Don't ask a woman whether the children in an obvious photo are her grand children( they won't be ) I have got every job bar 3 that we've priced over the years (going back long before this mcs lark started) one of them I didn't want. One of them they didn't need it. The other one I lost left me gutted.
Remember you are first selling yourself and then the install.
I agree, although we will point it out if we know that someone's being told something entirely wrong - eg the company flogging rebadged chinese panels as being UK made, when the customer is telling us they're thinking of preferring them due to their use of UK panels.... we got that job.

And if that's honestly your success rate that's pretty astonishing, so fair play for that. Out of interest, where abouts in the country are you? I reckon our success rate is about the same for the work we do in Inverness, which is all word of mouth, but around our home base there are now 300 companies MCS certified for solar PV within 30 miles, so there's a hell of a lot more competition, and we're more like 1 job per 2.5 quotes, but 1 in 1.5 or better for recommendations.


Oh and the worst installer I have ever employed was an clearskies assessor (remember them?) I wonder if he's now an mcs inspector.
That's the point I'm making / asking really - how can we (or the industry) make this situation better without it just being another box ticking paperwork exercise.

eta - anyway, that suggestions just my thought for the day. Maybe it's a brilliant idea, maybe it's a total non-starter.... I've no idea which, but I can confidently say it's somewhere on that spectrum.;)
 
Gavin we're basically singing from the same song sheet but coming at it from different angles. I have always voiced the opinion that it should be heard elsewhere as I believe here it does more harm than good.

I'm against the likes of solar king having a word with their friends about thing that are said here in an attempt to change things as it gives the appearance that it is something on which we all agree, we don't.

And if that's honestly your success rate that's pretty astonishing, so fair play for that. Out of interest, where abouts in the country are you? I reckon our success rate is about the same for the work we do in Inverness, which is all word of mouth, but around our home base there are now 300 companies MCS certified for solar PV within 30 miles, so there's a hell of a lot more competition, and we're more like 1 job per 2.5 quotes, but 1 in 1.5 or better for recommendations.


The 3 jobs not done. That's the truth. And there's more than a little competition here in in Cambridgeshire. One of the guy's that has posted on here is always moaning to me about how few jobs he wins from quotes he does but doesn't understand it's the moaning that loses him the work in the first place. He's a nice bloke, his work is good but you don't inspire confidence in people by moaning about others.
 
To be honest, I do like Gavin's idea a lot. It may be flawed in places (or it may not be) but I think a fair few of us do agree that things could be improved with regards to MCS.

It seems glaringly obvious to me that the MCS accreditation process is far too weighted towards the paperwork side of things - something which has been highlighted by the jaw-droppingly stupid situation where an annual MCS inspection could be purely based on paperwork.

It is because of this setup that FAR too many firms are getting in despite having little or, in some cases, zero knowledge of what they are doing. There are firms out there which are MCS accredited that have no technical knowledge of how to install a system. Incidentally, I met a guy a couple of years ago who was starting up a PV business. He was a guy with a sales background and he wanted us on board to do the installs. The figures he was talking about were simply hilarious and we didn't get any further. About 12 months ago, we went back to a guy who had chosen this firm over ourselves (they promised to fit more panels than we could - we refused on the grounds that it wouldn't work.) As expected, this system isn't producing anything like what it should do. The firm had made a royal mess of it - yet, I expect, their paperwork will be absolutely top-notch. Ask this customer if he was more concerned with a company's competence or whether their QMS was in order and he would think you were taking the Micky Twiss.

Surely I am not alone in thinking that this situation cannot continue. The amount of bad installs out there IS alarming and depressing. If the QMS is so important and the MCS is so concerned with it then so be it - but this leaves a glaring gap in the competence side of things that they don't appear to be able to fill. Either they need to sort things out (their new proposals do appear to be a step in the right direction, admittedly) or another body needs to take care of the competency side of things.

Gavin is right that people with know-how and experience are very few and far between (which is why training is also frequently pitiful) so his idea surely has some merit? If people would prefer to discuss this in the Sun Lounge, then so be it. I don't think this is being overly negative - A the very least, it should make any of the general public that are reading this forum more keen to be careful when they choose who they have to install their system.
 
unfortunately, it seems the route to proving competency lies in getting yet more bits of paper rather than actually looking at the quality of work, and that will cause a problem for many of us. The guys I use for roofing for example aren't professional roofers, but they do a better job than the professional roofers I have used in the past.

I also think doing the competition down is a bad approach, it gives a very negative vibe to the proceedings and actually makes a customer subconsiously think negatively about you. It goes on a lot in the electrical industry and I think it's a very bad thing. The furthest I usually go to is to say 'well, I would have probably not done it that way' unless I am being asked to provide a critical appraisal of work.

I would rather talk about why we are so good! Then the customer makes a decision about who is the best, rather than who is not the worst.
 

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go Electrician Workwear Supplier
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Thread Information

Title
The worst install ever (maybe?)
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
160

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
Earthstore,
Last reply from
tiennoeis,
Replies
160
Views
23,655

Advert

Back
Top