Competent person and EICR

[TaffyDuck]

I`ve just had my annual coffee drinking exercise otherwise known as Part P assessment.

Obviously we discussed the weather, the price of fish and the new regs. No worries there.

One thing that my assessor did say however was that as of next year an electrician would need to prove his competence PRIOR to carrying out an EICR. According to him at least, as of 2016 only those electricians who hold CG 2391 or its new equivalent will be able to carry them out.

It will no longer be OK to just say you are competent, you will have to prove it.

Could be interesting, assuming he`s right,for those of us with 2391.

 

[TaffyDuck]

RG who knows. I did say "if".

I`ll see if the technical dept guys know anything about it later when I get a minute to call them.

 

[Guest125]

Very low pass rate on this course, found out a lot people.

That is what made it worth something.

 

[TaffyDuck]

Very low pass rate on this course, found out a lot people.

That`s true.

 

[Anthony S]

Set up hand in hand with the NIC and City & Guilds

 

[Leesparkykent]

Scams will just run in house training/qualifications with a 100% pass rate if you chuck £500 at them
and the certificate won't be worth the paper it is printed on. Just another way to fill up the board of directors of each scams pension pot. Any way wouldn't affect me as I have my 2391

 

[Octopus]

So how would they Police this?

Sounds like another scheme to prop up their ailing finances..........

 

[Anthony S]

Scams will just run in house training/qualifications with a 100% pass rate if you chuck £500 at them
and the certificate won't be worth the paper it is printed on. Just another way to fill up the board of directors of each scams pension pot. Any way wouldn't affect me as I have my 2391

More and more job adverts are asking for the 2391 along with other papers and the JIB Gold Card etc etc.

I think companies are getting a sick and tired of the wonder Sparks applying for jobs. Another reason why they let Agencies do the donkey work and weed out the Rubbish lol

 

[TaffyDuck]

Scams will just run in house training/qualifications with a 100% pass rate if you chuck £500 at them
and the certificate won't be worth the paper it is printed on. Just another way to fill up the board of directors of each scams pension pot. Any way wouldn't affect me as I have my 2391

Well according to him the schemes wont be running it and no other assessment will be needed. Just concrete proof that you`re competent to complete the EICR.

It just seemed odd that an assessor, and a very knowlegeable one at that, who I`ve known for 5 or 6 years now would just make it up. It doesn`t make sense for him to do that.

 

[Guest125]

More and more job adverts are asking for the 2391 along with other papers and the JIB Gold Card etc etc.

I think companies are getting a sick and tired of the wonder Sparks applying for jobs. Another reason why they let Agencies do the donkey work and weed out the Rubbish lol

Well this is a good thing then. Only those without 2391 would be against this surely. If it is true that is.

 

[TaffyDuck]

***Update***

Just talked to the tech helpdesk and the IET.

This is happening towards the end of this year, possibly early next year. It is being driven by IET and insurance companies.

This is due apparently to the falling standards of EICRs that insurance companies are being sent.

No assessment will be required however you will need to have Professional Indemnity insurance to complete EICRs and in order to get this PI insurance you will need to produce a copy of 2391 to the Insurance companies, or the new version of it. 2392 will NOT be accepted apparently.
New EICR forms will "very probably contain a section where you will need to insert your PI insurance details"

It is what was described to me as "an extension of the change in the new regs from competent person to electrically competent person" and will therefore not need a change to the 2015 ammendment of 17th Edition.

How they police it is another matter

 

[Farmelectrics]

jib card or no electrical work would be agood starting point for me

 

[Anthony S]

jib card or no electrical work would be agood starting point for me

Get in there lol

 

[Guest125]

***Update***

Just talked to the tech helpdesk and the IET.

This is happening towards the end of this year, possibly early next year. It is being driven by IET and insurance companies.

This is due apparently to the falling standards of EICRs that insurance companies are being sent.

No assessment will be required however you will need to have Professional Indemnity insurance to complete EICRs and in order to get this PI insurance you will need to produce a copy of 2391 to the Insurance companies, or the new version of it. 2392 will NOT be accepted apparently.
New EICR forms will "very probably contain a section where you will need to insert your PI insurance details"

It is what was described to me as "an extension of the change in the new regs from competent person to electrically competent person" and will therefore not need a change to the 2015 ammendment of 17th Edition.

How they police it is another matter

I read this with a mixture of feelings.

Great news that finally qualifications are being recognised. Good knows what the DI will do?

PI insurance is expensive and will be difficult for smaller companies surely.

Personally I cannot see this happening.

 

[TaffyDuck]

I read this with a mixture of feelings.

Great news that finally qualifications are being recognised. Good knows what the DI will do?

PI insurance is expensive and will be difficult for smaller companies surely.

Personally I cannot see this happening.

Maybe you`re right. Who knows. My PI insurance that I have for Inspection and Testing and offers cover for £10m costs about £200 a year with Groupon

 

[Guest125]

Maybe you`re right. Who knows. My PI insurance that I have for Inspection and Testing and offers cover for £10m costs about £200 a year with Groupon

Why would you currently need PI insurance for that? Pi insurance is for design or advice that may be incorrect.