Mark I total agree but this is a bit of a floor with MCS and i have used a slightly different reasoning below, what are your thoughts on this.
You are an electrical engineer with 10 years on site experience and you have installed every different type of standard electrical domestic and commercial system and one of your client comes to you to fit his new PV system but he asks do you have MCS. So you read up on it and you know you have your 17th and part P and you put yourself on the necessary course's to ensure you fully understand how to design and calculate the system.
You now have all this in place but your customer wont let you on his house because you do not have MCS but you know without a doubt that you could do it with your hands behind you back. But you do not have an installation to show to complete your assesment
Should the fact that you don't have £5k in the bank to buy a PV system and put it on you house mean that you should not be allowed to get into MCS???? or is it such a bad thing that a mate of yours lets you use his installation which you walk around pointing out any areas required by the assessor e.g labelling isolation etc. And you have at this point shown your 17th certificate along with you manual handling and working at heights and you have been signed of under test conditions that you can do the electrical work during your 17th edition assessment.
I completely agree that using someone else's installation is morally wrong but it is a possibility that people will be forced into especially as the requirement to take a punt on someone who is not MCS accredited becomes less and less. I would much prefer the steering group behind MCS to introduce a UKAS accredited testing facility based solely on the installation with manufactured fault to rectify and on site common issue that will occur from time to time (replacing tiles etc) to ensure competency
This is the only way the number of MCS accredited PV installers will grow in my opinion.
As always your thoughts are appreciated.
Isn't that scenario exactly what we have done to achieve MCS? We've been there done that. Consider what we went through on our first port of call to a potential customer. If it wasn't for us taking what is a huge financial gamble, and trust me I don't run a multi million pound company, as a two man band we wouldn't be where we are today. Our financial outlay is as simple as make or break. The saying speculate to accumulate has never been truer here.
No matter what the purpose of MCS it is seen as a level of competence which also includes installation. If it didn't why inspect an installation on assessment? In my opinion there's no difference in MCS, to Part P, to being NICEIC or alike. Consider if we allowed someone else to use one of our rewires to achieve Part P. I think it would be considered as fraud in my opinion and possible life threatening! You can not confirm the third party is fully aware of all the requirements unless you can witness and inspect what has been done. I kow alot of people who have reams of paper and certificates to show what they are qualified in but when it comes to putting it into practice their as much good as ----- on a fish!! No matter what the advantage the assessed company can not provide evidence of a correct installation so the scenario is with the first customer no different. "Have you actually installed a system?" NO!
The other consideration to the "if they don't have the funds to install to their own property" is it would also be unlikely to have the funds to finance the first commercial installation also. Not many PV suppliers I know of offer credit to newly established installers.
I know the actual installation process isn't taxing but neither is it a job anyone can do. There is a high element of competence required in several fields and trust me when I say I've seen the good the bad and the ugly! By approving companies who have never installed this will increase and like a lot of schemes MCS will lose its importance as it has in other industries.
As a MCS accredited company I find the circumstances allowing people to achieve MCS without even taking any tools off the van totally outrageous. Using sub contracted labour is not the issue. I think this debate will run and run until such time either MCS stands back and agree the system requires improvement or the entire scheme ends up in the scrap bin. The only end result being a lot of companies who have invested in the industry being left out of pocket.
One final question. On one of these "borrowed" installations used for inspection, was the MCS assessor fully aware of the fact that the installation was not conducted by the assessed company and that the system is in no way prove of their ability to conduct an installation?