17th Edition Question

[Julie.]

Are you saying commercial premises don't need certifying?

No

Being a member of a scheme is only required for domestic notification.

For everything else you need competency.


Of course he would need to test, although why does he need a MFT?

He is required to test using suitable equipment, which does not mandate a MFT, a lot of people still use separates.

He would also need screwdrivers, perhaps a torque driver etc etc

 

[Eddy Currents]

Ok I am generalising as either the person conducting the work or the business they are working for are NORMALLY in a scheme to issue a certificate so my question was how is this going to be certified
And again an MFT isn't required but to test a new circuit they would need to use suitable test equipment such as an MFT or separates, it doesn't really matter
My point was how is the person installing the new circuits going to test and certify?

 

[westward10]

Ok I am generalising as either the person conducting the work or the business they are working for are NORMALLY in a scheme to issue a certificate so my question was how is this going to be certified
And again an MFT isn't required but to test a new circuit they would need to use suitable test equipment such as an MFT or separates, it doesn't really matter
My point was how is the person installing the new circuits going to test and certify?

We don't know they aren't going to test and certify.

 

[Eddy Currents]

We don't know they aren't going to test and certify.

Which is exactly why I asked the question and could be why H&S doesn't want maintenance to do the work for new circuits

 

[Julie.]

Ok I am generalising as either the person conducting the work or the business they are working for are NORMALLY in a scheme to issue a certificate so my question was how is this going to be certified
And again an MFT isn't required but to test a new circuit they would need to use suitable test equipment such as an MFT or separates, it doesn't really matter
My point was how is the person installing the new circuits going to test and certify?

It is extremely unusual for industrial electricians, or their companies to be in a scheme, as it adds nothing.

There is NO requirement to be in a scheme in order to issue certificates.

Issuing of a certificate, or testing, is completely unrelated to scheme membership - scheme membership is ONLY needed for domestic notification.

If the company doesn't do domestic work, they almost certainly will not be in a scheme.

As for testing, this is no different to any other aspect of the job, you need an assortment of various tools and techniques to do this work, the other equipment is just as important.

We indeed don't know if he has all or any of the correct tools, but if he is competent he will know the correct tools, equipment, and activities he will need to do to complete the job.

 

[Midwest]

If you already employ someone who is 95% of the way to being so, surely it makes sense just to complete the last step (i.e. formally recognised as 18th AM2)?

I guess it might be 'business sense' not to have to pay them any more for having it...

It very much depends on the work you want your staff to do.

Some "maintenance" are well qualified completely capable of new installation work and/or detail design and modification of electrical, PLCs etc etc.

Other "maintenance" are really just capable of changing the occasional lamp and cleaning stuff.

And of course anywhere between the two

So absolutely nothing wrong with a capable person doing appropriate work.

Years ago I worked in the Car Factory in Oxford, British Leyland, as it was then. It's 'maintenance teams' consisted of many different time served trades, in the various fields.

Fast forward to today, and I'm a maintenance operative, not in a manufacturing premise, but nevertheless one that has many different services and systems. When I first started there a few years ago, I used my electrical qualifications & skills. But I soon learnt that was not my role. My new colleague mentioned, he 'done the 17th' as well, so he was an electrician and also done some work there. Well, having seen the work, he's not.

Unfortunately, a lot maintenance operatives think they know everything there is to know about the systems and services in their premises. Truth is, we are the 'Jack of all trades, and the master of none'. What we do well though, are the myriad of simple fixes, compliances and keeping the place going.

So send them on an 18th, HVAC, fire alarm, heating, gas, CHP, warden call, BMS's etc etc courses, and do away with the contractors. But have time for nothing else.

If the OP's premise, is like the car factory, you'll employ an electrician from the beginning, perhaps as an apprentice. If not, you'll employ an appropriate contractor.

So I agree with the H&S Manager, but for different reasons.

 

[Spoon]

Years ago I worked in the Car Factory in Oxford, British Leyland, as it was then. It's 'maintenance teams' consisted of many different time served trades, in the various fields.

Fast forward to today, and I'm a maintenance operative, not in a manufacturing premise, but nevertheless one that has many different services and systems. When I first started there a few years ago, I used my electrical qualifications & skills. But I soon learnt that was not my role. My new colleague mentioned, he 'done the 17th' as well, so he was an electrician and also done some work there. Well, having seen the work, he's not.

Unfortunately, a lot maintenance operatives think they know everything there is to know about the systems and services in their premises. Truth is, we are the 'Jack of all trades, and the master of none'. What we do well though, are the myriad of simple fixes, compliances and keeping the place going.

So send them on an 18th, HVAC, fire alarm, heating, gas, CHP, warden call, BMS's etc etc courses, and do away with the contractors. But have time for nothing else.

If the OP's premise, is like the car factory, you'll employ an electrician from the beginning, perhaps as an apprentice. If not, you'll employ an appropriate contractor.

So I agree with the H&S Manager, but for different reasons.

In this case the OPs maintenance guy works to the current regs and his work is good. See post #4.
All he has missing is a piece of paper saying he knows the regs.
His works should have sent him on the 18th but they haven't as yet. Just get the maintenance guy on the exam and all is good.

 

[Julie.]

Years ago I worked in the Car Factory in Oxford, British Leyland, as it was then. It's 'maintenance teams' consisted of many different time served trades, in the various fields.

Fast forward to today, and I'm a maintenance operative, not in a manufacturing premise, but nevertheless one that has many different services and systems. When I first started there a few years ago, I used my electrical qualifications & skills. But I soon learnt that was not my role. My new colleague mentioned, he 'done the 17th' as well, so he was an electrician and also done some work there. Well, having seen the work, he's not.

Unfortunately, a lot maintenance operatives think they know everything there is to know about the systems and services in their premises. Truth is, we are the 'Jack of all trades, and the master of none'. What we do well though, are the myriad of simple fixes, compliances and keeping the place going.

So send them on an 18th, HVAC, fire alarm, heating, gas, CHP, warden call, BMS's etc etc courses, and do away with the contractors. But have time for nothing else.

If the OP's premise, is like the car factory, you'll employ an electrician from the beginning, perhaps as an apprentice. If not, you'll employ an appropriate contractor.

So I agree with the H&S Manager, but for different reasons.

I understand that may be your experience, however mine has been quite different, so I think it is rather disingenuous to class all maintenance people with a low level of competency.

I have delt with far too many contracting companies and "electricians" with such a low level of ability - it beggers belief.

We see this here, so many EICRs that are bordering on theft from the client - taking money for these "reports" and of course so many photos of disgusting work.

The reality is, there are examples of complete incompetence at all levels and in all sectors of the industry, yet it would be wrong to claim all "maintenance" or "contractors" or "domestic" or "EV installers" etc would be inherently unsuitable.

In fact on here, we have each no true knowledge of the skills, ability or knowledge of other members, sure the fact that they have sufficient interest to spend their spare time involved in "electrics" may indicate that they are the better ones, but we have also seen others on here who we may guess aren't perhaps as good as they think they are.

My view, is if people have passed their G&G + 16th/17th/18th or whatever I.e. are a qualified electrician then we should treat them as competent until indicated otherwise.

It would be wrong to believe that oneself is the only competent person and everyone else is not until they prove it.

(Unless you are assessing them for a job I guess)

 

[littlespark]

All correct above, but as mentioned early on, it is up to the company policy to decide who may be competent, and the only way they can tell is by the guideline of being "up to date with BS7671"
Anything else, even a previous version ie the 17th, would not in that case be "up to date"

We have an H&S guy doing what he believes needs to be done, but we also have the fact that he might be pushing someone out to bring in his own pal.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

The regs exams are not difficult to pass, and don't really indicate competency, so don't put too much value on them. A low pass or fail would indicate incompetency however.

Put it this way, if I had a choice of employing someone who had the 18th ed at 75%, or the 17th at 95%, I know who I'd choose.

 

[nicebutdim]

The regs exams are not difficult to pass, and don't really indicate competency, so don't put too much value on them. A low pass or fail would indicate incompetency however.

Put it this way, if I had a choice of employing someone who had the 18th ed at 75%, or the 17th at 95%, I know who I'd choose.

A very good point. After reading a thread last year, dealing with 18th edition exams, I tried a couple of online practice tests and both times scored in the high 70s. As a first year apprentice that pleased me to a degree, but in no way indicated compentecy.

 

[Midwest]

I understand that may be your experience, however mine has been quite different, so I think it is rather disingenuous to class all maintenance people with a low level of competency.

I have delt with far too many contracting companies and "electricians" with such a low level of ability - it beggers belief.

We see this here, so many EICRs that are bordering on theft from the client - taking money for these "reports" and of course so many photos of disgusting work.

The reality is, there are examples of complete incompetence at all levels and in all sectors of the industry, yet it would be wrong to claim all "maintenance" or "contractors" or "domestic" or "EV installers" etc would be inherently unsuitable.

In fact on here, we have each no true knowledge of the skills, ability or knowledge of other members, sure the fact that they have sufficient interest to spend their spare time involved in "electrics" may indicate that they are the better ones, but we have also seen others on here who we may guess aren't perhaps as good as they think they are.

My view, is if people have passed their G&G + 16th/17th/18th or whatever I.e. are a qualified electrician then we should treat them as competent until indicated otherwise.

It would be wrong to believe that oneself is the only competent person and everyone else is not until they prove it.

(Unless you are assessing them for a job I guess)

I try not to be disingenuous, after all I'm now one of 'maintenance people'.

I've experienced the different types of maintenance operatives. Those I spoke of at the car factory, were fully affiliated & trained for their particular singular trade. Millwrights weren't expected to do electrical work, and visa versa.

Whilst I have relieved additional training & qualifications in my current work place, NVQ3's in IITEE, and Pool Plant maintenance, we still have contractors in to carry out PAT testing and pool plant repairs etc. I simply wouldn't have the time and current knowledge, to do the job justice.

Presumably, when this person who the OP describes, was employed he/she would of had a job description & role. If this person's job has changed, and the new role fits, retrain them. However, I expect not. It just employee who thinks they should, not what the employer wants them to.

 

[nicebutdim]

I try not to be disingenuous, after all I'm now one of 'maintenance people'.

I've experienced the different types of maintenance operatives. Those I spoke of at the car factory, were fully affiliated & trained for their particular singular trade. Millwrights weren't expected to do electrical work, and visa versa.

Whilst I have relieved additional training & qualifications in my current work place, NVQ3's in IITEE, and Pool Plant maintenance, we still have contractors in to carry out PAT testing and pool plant repairs etc. I simply wouldn't have the time and current knowledge, to do the job justice.

Presumably, when this person who the OP describes, was employed he/she would of had a job description & role. If this person's job has changed, and the new role fits, retrain them. However, I expect not. It just employee who thinks they should, not what the employer wants them to.

Your use of 'presumably' in that last sentence rather makes Julie's point - we have no way of knowing and can not assume.

The OP asked a very specific question and one to which the answer lies not only in qualifications, but also in a company policy to which none of us are privy.

 

[Spoon]

The regs exams are not difficult to pass, and don't really indicate competency, so don't put too much value on them. A low pass or fail would indicate incompetency however.

Put it this way, if I had a choice of employing someone who had the 18th ed at 75%, or the 17th at 95%, I know who I'd choose.

Some people are not good at exams. When I did my 17th, there were 2 electricians there that didn't pass. They both said they don't like exams. Does that make them incompetent and rubbish at their job?? Who knows. Their work may be excellent but they purely hate exams. They may need more time finding the relevant sections in the book and they do great in real life.

 

[Midwest]

Your use of 'presumably' in that last sentence rather makes Julie's point - we have no way of knowing and can not assume.

The OP asked a very specific question and one to which the answer lies not only in qualifications, but also in a company policy to which none of us are privy.

Most job applications I've read have a job description, person specification & service conditions etc.

And to your last point, I'm giving the thread the what the views of my employer are on this subject, as a kind of check.

 

[PangEng]

All interesting points, if it gives any more insight, the person is qualified to the 2330 Level 3, 17th edition regs, worked self employed previously and so far seems to do a good job

When I say "maintenance" I mean more of en electrical maintenance than anything else, and was employed as such

Naturally, I have no problem whatsoever sending him for the 18th, we are pretty good for upskilling here, and I'm a very big advocate of it

The only point of the initial question was to find out of anyone knew of any law or reg that specified you must be up to the 18th to do tasks like new circuit installs, opening CUs, a new spur here and there etc etc so I can assess whether H&S is deliberately blocking work being carried out in house for some reason

 

[nicebutdim]

Most job applications I've read have a job description, person specification & service conditions etc.

And to your last point, I'm giving the thread the what the views of my employer are on this subject, as a kind of check.

I was going to point out that we also don't know what the job in question is described as, but this has since been clarified by the OP and it seems the job description in question is very different to your own.

 

[Midwest]

All interesting points, if it gives any more insight, the person is qualified to the 2330 Level 3, 17th edition regs, worked self employed previously and so far seems to do a good job

When I say "maintenance" I mean more of en electrical maintenance than anything else, and was employed as such

Naturally, I have no problem whatsoever sending him for the 18th, we are pretty good for upskilling here, and I'm a very big advocate of it

The only point of the initial question was to find out of anyone knew of any law or reg that specified you must be up to the 18th to do tasks like new circuit installs, opening CUs, a new spur here and there etc etc so I can assess whether H&S is deliberately blocking work being carried out in house for some reason

I retired from the industry 5 years ago, but was qualified then. I would be happy in carry work in my own house, as I could ask or read here of up to date regs & knowledge. All you need to prove is competency, qualifications are one way of proving that. However, I would not carry out work in other peoples properties, or the work place.

I expect your colleague would need the latest qualifications, to comply with liability insurance your employer has.

 

[MJPD29]

18th edition course means nothing except your making an attempt to keep your paperwork up to date. Anyone can pass it, and it can hardly be considered a qualification. Personally, I think of hes keeping up to date then he's absolutley fine, and if the company considers it nessecary they should pay for it for him.

 

[sparksfly]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has already been answered previously

If one of our maintenance technicians currently has 17th edition, is he still allowed to open CUs and install new circuits?

H&S Manager thinks not

Answers on a postcard!

Hello
If he/she has experience and is competent enough then whats the fuss about ?
As others have said, not having the latest tickets is irrelevant.
However, having the latest copy of the regs and being aware of the necessary changes helps you to fill out a cert with compliances/non-compliances noted.