EICR on rental properties , further thoughts

[Evans Electric]

 

[Sidney]

And here's me about to set up just doing PIRs as no scheme registration required and I can do work during quiet telecoms periods, then someone decides I need to join a scheme... 

 

[Murdoch]

its just about the money for the schemes ...............

 

[UNG]

Why are the government asking the incumbent not fit for purpose money hungry CPS companies to create another half baked scheme when what we really need in the industry is a totally independent body to drive up and maintain standards of qualification and workmanship something which has been totally lacking since Part P was introduced

 

[Murdoch]

This begs a question, who in Westminster is organising this?

the DCLG?

we need names to contact ........

 

[kerching]

Here's a thought....wouldn't it be ironic if this new scheme boss was EC , who disappeared VERY quickly from Certsure with NO explanation or notice period and has not been seen or heard of since

 

[Murdoch]

There's absolutely no point in another scheme which doesn't have the "teeth" to follow up on bad practice AND expel members

take a look at this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/building-regulations-advisory-committee/about/membership

 

[Evans Electric]

So thats where she went .   She moved on to avoid a stalker but he'll read this any minute now !! 

 

[kerching]

CLANCY'S ALIVE!!!!!!

 

[Evans Electric]

And so it begins again . 

 

[Sharpend]

Well that’s a typical setup for standards these days more fire chiefs than people who actually know, oh and I see EC is at the heart of it, another meaningless body that will be wrong from the get go, at least she is consistent. 
 

oh and as for Kerch, I really thought the therapy had helped you too move on clearly not!!!

 

[kerching]

Well that’s a typical setup for standards these days more fire chiefs than people who actually know, oh and I see EC is at the heart of it, another meaningless body that will be wrong from the get go, at least she is consistent. 
 

oh and as for Kerch, I really thought the therapy had helped you too move on clearly not!!!

EC has a meaningless body??

not last night she hadn't 

 

[UNG]

There's absolutely no point in another scheme which doesn't have the "teeth" to follow up on bad practice AND expel members

take a look at this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/building-regulations-advisory-committee/about/membership

Just one of her many jobs.

Wouldn't surprise me if she is still involved as a consultant with Certsure or one of it's subsidiary companies although I assume these committees have to have a register of interests

 

[UNG]

There's absolutely no point in another scheme which doesn't have the "teeth" to follow up on bad practice AND expel members

take a look at this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/building-regulations-advisory-committee/about/membership

Having thought about this a bit more

The problem with a scheme for EICR's is how do you quantify bad practice, it is nigh on impossible to register a complaint with any of the existing electrical schemes as it is, so unless there is an independent complaints procedure I don't see any change happening especially given that the proposed scheme is to be set up by Certsure and Napit. I don't recall CORGI being asked to set up the Gas Safe Register so why ask an interested body to set up a PRS EICR scheme

They keep on using the term competent why can't we have a skilled and suitable qualified persons scheme

Listening to all of the usual political waffle programmes of a Sunday morning and you get the usual minimum pay and investing in skills, they bang on about increasing and improving skill levels yet all they seem to promote are woolly training schemes that give minimum or below minimum level training and then say people are skilled above what they are actually qualified for

The make up of the government committee says it all I can't say it covers and comprehensively represents all aspects of the building industry and aspects of it seem to be a closed ranks club to further the aims of select groups with a financial interest

 

[Murdoch]

Having thought about this a bit more

The problem with a scheme for EICR's is how do you quantify bad practice, it is nigh on impossible to register a complaint with any of the existing electrical schemes as it is, so unless there is an independent complaints procedure I don't see any change happening especially given that the proposed scheme is to be set up by Certsure and Napit. I don't recall CORGI being asked to set up the Gas Safe Register so why ask an interested body to set up a PRS EICR scheme

They keep on using the term competent why can't we have a skilled and suitable qualified persons scheme

Listening to all of the usual political waffle programmes of a Sunday morning and you get the usual minimum pay and investing in skills, they bang on about increasing and improving skill levels yet all they seem to promote are woolly training schemes that give minimum or below minimum level training and then say people are skilled above what they are actually qualified for

The make up of the government committee says it all I can't say it covers and comprehensively represents all aspects of the building industry and aspects of it seem to be a closed ranks club to further the aims of select groups with a financial interest

The CPSs now hid behind the excuse that following up on bad practice is outside their remit , and that customers should allow members to put right issues ..... but once a customer loses faith with a trades person, they don’t want them back 

then there are all the other trades doing sparking ....

 

[Sidney]

Most complaints would be against unsatisfactory reports which would just clog the system up.

 

[UNG]

The CPSs now hid behind the excuse that following up on bad practice is outside their remit , and that customers should allow members to put right issues ..... but once a customer loses faith with a trades person, they don’t want them back 

then there are all the other trades doing sparking ....

The CPS's clearly have a problem with complaints which is why their complaints procedure generally fails at the first hurdle because it requires you have to first contact the contractor and give them the opportunity to put it right before they will accept any complaint.

This allows for the contractor to cover up bad workmanship and in some cases serious safety issues which IMO under no circumstance should have ever occurred and there is no formal complaint or black mark recorded against the contractor unless they fail to correct the defects. If the contractor thought the work was acceptable at the time then there has to be some failure of the assessment criteria and / or the certification body

The January 2020 (effective Sept 2020 ) and current Electrotechnical Assessment Specifications  for the CPS's makes interesting reading in how they are changing the CPS assessment

The bottom line is and always seems to be these days driven by money

 

[Sharpend]

I thought that it was a requirement for the contractor to have a Recordable complaints procedure to be registered to a CPS? I always thought that that would be used by the CPS to follow up any complaints- clearly not the case. 

 

[Evans Electric]

I thought that it was a requirement for the contractor to have a Recordable complaints procedure to be registered to a CPS? I always thought that that would be used by the CPS to follow up any complaints- clearly not the case. 

It is a requirement, I have one  from when I joined in 2006  , theres nothing in it .  

 

[UNG]

I thought that it was a requirement for the contractor to have a Recordable complaints procedure to be registered to a CPS? I always thought that that would be used by the CPS to follow up any complaints- clearly not the case. 

With all industry schemes you generally have to have a complaints procedure, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to record customer problems as complaints though

It's a bit like the NACOSS / NSI 4 hour response time for out of hours call outs a lot of companies quite often never attend site within the time but circumvent the rule by calling the customer / keyholder within the 4 hours and make an appointment to meet them onsite some time after the 4 hour time has expired and they are deemed to have met the response time so no non compliance to record

While a complaints procedure remains in house it can be manipulated and serious issues hidden, the CPS's are supposed to verify qualifications and training but judging by some of the faults I and a mate of mine have found over the last few years I'm not sure you would want the original contractor back if they got it so wrong first time round.

It's about time the CPS's took some responsibility for logging complaints or reported problems with their members whose workmanship or knowledge is lacking instead of just taking the money