nic mcs pv installers

[Worcester]

The building regs clearly state that there is a CPS


The Building Regulations 2010

The Regulations also insert into Schedule 3 three new types of work that may be carried out under a self-certification scheme, and revise the list of bodies which are able to register persons for the purposes of self-certification. The three new types of work are the installation of cavity wall insulating material, replacement of roof coverings and installation of systems to produce electricity, heat or cooling by microgeneration or from renewable sources. The authorisation of this last category of work supports the implementation of article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ No. L140, 5.6.2009, p.16).

It's pretty *** clear that they don't know their own area of work.

Tell them also to read this:

The Building Regulations 2010

SCHEDULE 3
Self-certification Schemes and Exemptions from Requirement to Give Building Notice or Deposit Full Plans"

Column 1 section 17 is pretty clear :

17. Installation in a building of a system to produce electricity, heat or cooling—

(a)by microgeneration, or

(b)from renewable sources (as defined in European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources(17)).

===================================

A person registered by Ascertiva Group Limited, Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors (Certification) Limited, Benchmark Certification Limited, British Standards Institution, Building Engineering Services Competence Accreditation Limited, ECA Certification Limited, HETAS Limited, NAPIT Registration Limited, Oil Firing Technical Association Limited or Stroma Certification Limited in respect of that type of work.

NAPIT specifically check your (our) records on structural assessments and calcs, their stance is that all MCS certifying bodies should do so also.

 

[Worcester]

@SRE remember it is the company not the person that is MCS certified, it doesn't nescessarily mean that one person can do it all, in fact you'd have to be superman, or multiple qualified like a few of us

 

[SRE]

Bear with me - there's only 2 of us one installing and me doing the paperwork ... We have structural surveys done on each job, cos as you say I'm not superman. BUT our BC are saying that because there isn't such a thing as a competent persons scheme for Part A they have to have notification. So what you're saying is that our registration under Ascertiva (section 17) is that CPS for Part A required under the first bit you've quoted.

But I'm sure I've read this week that someone else rang NICEIC to see if they were covered and NIC said it was only for part P ...

I think I'm losing the will to live!

 

[Worcester]

Can't comment on Ascertiva as I don't know their processes, NAPIT insist on structural survey records / calcs at their inspections, it seems that NICEIC have slipped up on this (they are really keen to sell MCS to all their members, my supersparks get calls regularly from them and he keeps telling them to go away) and have focussed on the bits they know, and have overlooked this part of the process, and are now covering their a***s by saying that NICEIC MCS certified installers aren't covered for Part A.

NAPIT are happy to challenge any BC that says otherwise about one of their MCS certified installers, and are already taking it up.

 

[Worcester]

PART 5 Self-certification Schemes
Provisions applicable to self-certification schemes

20.—(1) This regulation applies to the extent that the building work consists only of work of a type described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3 and the work is carried out by a person who is described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table in respect of that type of work.

(2) Where this regulation applies, the local authority are authorised to accept, as evidence that the requirements of regulations 4 and 7 have been satisfied, a certificate to that effect by the person carrying out the work.

(3) Where this regulation applies, the person carrying out the work shall, not more than 30 days after the completion of the work—

(a)give to the occupier a copy of the certificate referred to in paragraph (2); and

(b)give to the local authority—

(i)notice to that effect, or

(ii)the certificate referred to in paragraph (2).

(4) Paragraph (3) of this regulation does not apply where a person carries out any building work described in Schedule 4.

Regulation 4 goes on to say

Requirements relating to building work
This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

4.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) building work shall be carried out so that—

(a)it complies with the applicable requirements contained in Schedule 1; and

(b)in complying with any such requirement there is no failure to comply with any other such requirement.

(2) Where—

(a)building work is of a kind described in regulation 3(1)(g), (h) or (i); and

(b)the carrying out of that work does not constitute a material alteration,

that work need only comply with the applicable requirements of Part L of Schedule 1.

(3) Building work shall be carried out so that, after it has been completed—

(a)any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made; or

(b)any building in, or in connection with, which a controlled service or fitting is provided, extended or materially altered; or

(c)any controlled service or fitting,

complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 or, where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out.

And Schedule 1 is where you'll find the Part A...

So you are authorised to say that you carried it out to Part A

 

[Worcester]

Update from MCS themselves:

MCS is not a Competent Persons Scheme (CPS)

Various bodies are authorised to certify organisations (people, companies) for the MCS

Some of those bodies may also run CPS, and they may run CPS schemes for one or more of the parts affected by Building Regulations.

Hence the differences between NAPIT, NIC, Elecsa etc.

Guess when you think about it, what about the plumbers installing heat pumps, the chances of them need any structural work is pretty slim, however they will need to be MCS certified.

Corgi don't do Biomass, Wind or Micro CHP, and NICEIC don't do Micro CHP, so I guess that's where their different interpretations come from.

 

[BruceB]

Is that somewhere on their site? Because elsewhere:

[h=3]How does the MCS affect installers?[/h] The MCS is an internationally recognised quality assurance scheme which demonstrates to your customers that your company is committed to meeting rigorous and tested standards. It was designed with input from installer and product representatives. Similar to the Gas Safe Register, the MCS gives you a mark of competency and demonstrates to your customers that you can install to the highest quality every time.

...... which uses the competency word! However I accept Worcester's point above, but it is moot because (sticking with solar pv installers) in order to become MCS registered, you have to do it via a competent persons scheme (Napit, NIC, BRE etc). And if that CPS scheme body is listed in the schedule that Worcester has explained then you are exempt from the requirement to submit a building notice so you should be competent in all relevent parts of the Building Regs. If you are not then in my view the scheme provider has dropped a -------. It is too late in the day just to say, "We do not assess that part."

It should also make installers ask, "Why on earth have I joined NIC if I cannot self certify?"

Regards
Bruce

 

[Worcester]

NAPIT's view is precisely that, i.e. NICEIC have dropped a b***k on that one and are either interpreting the MCS requirements incorrectly, or operating their scheme incorrectly.

 

[SRE]

Does anyone have a good contact at NICEIC with a brain?

We're quite a few months off our next MCS supervision so I'm not keen to go through all the pain and expense of changing mid year but I would like something in writing from NIC that would clarify their stance. We volunteered the info about our structural engineer so I don't know if we'd have been asked about it or not at registration.

I think it'll be Napit next time they seem a bit more organised, although I do know that they virtually approved a QMS via email for soemone near me....

 

[SRE]

Thanks for this Worcester I've quoted chapter and verse with the help of a proactive loacl councillor and had confirmation that we can self certify provided we have the calcs/approval from our structural engineer. Only from one council though and the one that's stirring everything up hasn't even bothered to respond to the email I sent to the Leader of the Council. MP next, we'll see what he has to say!!!

 

[Worcester]

@SRE

Good news, sometimes it's worth the argument, of course now every other installer in the area benefits from your tenacity, though I'm sure they'll all buy you a beer down at your local.

(You do remember where that is don't you !!!)

 

[johnthesparky]

hi, sorry if this is a bit off topic....

but I've just done my solar PV course for my building/plumbing company, through NICEIC...

the builders are already MCS accreditted to install solar thermal, biomass and heat pumps, and need me, their subbie to be their quality supervisor on PV

I assume therefore that I would be responsible for the electrical installation, and they would be responsible for the roof structure (mainly because they have been installing solar thermal systems to roofs for years and know what they are doing)

but someone said that as quality supervisor I would have to sign off the entire job,

@SRE remember it is the company not the person that is MCS certified, it doesn't nescessarily mean that one person can do it all, in fact you'd have to be superman, or multiple qualified like a few of us

but this comment seems to reinforce what I had already thought, I am responsible for the electrics... and the builder doing the roof will be responsible for the roof work, is this right?


thanks

 

[Worcester]

quality supervisor

Means you are responsible, doesn't mean you have to do it all.

I don't do the electrics, or the roofing, I sign it off though.

Something goes wrong, my problem.

Guess what! - I make sure we use the right people, suitably trained and qualified for every part. If they're not, they're not allowed on the job, from design to mounting an Isolator, no argument.

If you aren't appropriately qualified, you can't do the structural assesment, you can sign it off though for MCS purposes, so lang as you have seen that it has been done by a suitably qualified person. If you haven't seen it, don't sign it off.

Your butt is on the line.

Sounds like a change in job spec, increased reponsibilities, with an employees hat on (haven't worn one of those for a looooong time) seems like an argument for a pay rise!

It's about making sure the job is done properly.

Oh, and you'll need to know the MCS documents inside out, because come audit time, guess who has to be there!

 

[BruceB]

The saga continues. This morning I (my company) had an unsolicited letter from Bath and North East Somerset Council Building Control:

"I am writing to clarify the situation regarding solar panel installations and building regulations........."

"Many solar installers are covered by Competent Persons Schemes which allow the installer to self certify their work, however it has become apparent the most of these schemes do not cover all the necessary parts of the building regulations. Currently the information we have is that only the NAPIT and CORGI schemes cover all the necessary building regulations........."

And it goes on to say if you are not one of those then pay £126 to us and we will see you right guv, or similar words.

Well done NAPIT and CORGI!

Regards
Bruce

 

[SRE]

This is doing me head in!!!!! Nice man from NICEIC at top of tree sends me a very sensible email explaining how NICEIC are covered under competent persons - send it on to our Chair of Building Control - (nice guy just a bit misguided) and look what he's sent through
:19:


I have forwarded your E-mail to XXXX the author of the Labc Guidance for his comment I may be wrong but the Niceic are talking at cross purposes with regard to other regulations What I believe the scope covers are things like cutting into joists to run cables being aware of the requirements of part L thermal insulation removal etc because no one else is checking their work they could if they were not aware of other regulations make things worse with regard to structural elements What we are considering here is adding loads to a roof structure this in itself being work controllable under the building regulations I would be surprised that any electrician would be competent to determine the effects of an increase in loading to any given domestic roof structure but I would expect him to understand that if he makes excessive holes in say floor joists or removes thermal insulation this will have a detrimental effect on other regulations I have copied --- from XX in on this reply so I will have some discussion with him and I will come back to you with any comments from XX from this office was unable to obtain any response from NICEIC when we raised these issues

 

[BruceB]

Some good news, I had an email from one of my local building control bodies today saying that they would cancel a Building Notice I submitted on behalf of a client in early March and refund the application fee. I had only submitted it because they advised me to do so, although I did not think it necessary. They now accept that being NAPIT registered for MCS avoids the requirement for a building notice. They say the refund process takes some time, so I will not quite count my chickens until the cheque arrives!

The local building control body I am referring to did phone NAPIT to ask directly whether they covered part A and part C aspects when accrediting firms for MCS. They were given an unequivocal yes. Until NICEIC can and does give the same answer, I suspect the mess will continue.

Regards
Bruce

 

[SRE]

They have done this afternoon and Building Control have rejected it - it couldn't have been clearer. I'd have posted the content but I haven't had the ok from the guy I've been speaking to and they've been really helpful. I've suggested that NICEIC have a look at this thread to pick up on what's happening.

 

[BruceB]

Sorry to hear that. Good luck with resolving it - it must be a pain for you. It is critical for NICEIC to sort this out promptly or they will lose renewals. With their clout they ought to be able to do so pretty quickly.
Regards
Bruce

 

[TedM]

I've poked a contact at NICEIC about this as well.

 

[SRE]

Re: nic mcs pv installers - LABC Update

Got this, this morning, my response is below.


I understand you have recently been in contact with a
> colleague of mine, --- concerning work your company has
> recently carrying out in XX. As I think you are aware we (LABC)
> have been struggling to get to grips with the implications of
> installers who use the self certification CPS route for carrying out
> work controlled by the Building Regulations, particularly with respect
> to elements of the work of a structural nature i.e. the stability of
> roof structures post PV installation.
>
> I have recently produced an LABC Best Practice note for surveyors
> which gives the latest position as far as we were aware of what did
> appear to be shortcomings in the limitations many of the CPS
> administrators had with regard to requiring, or otherwise, members of
> their scheme to consider matters of a structural nature.
>
> To further illustrate the position a colleague from ---
> recently had an email exchange with NICIEC who originally very clearly
> stated their scheme did not encompass Part A matters, only to recently
> rescind this and say they did in fact require Part A to be addressed.
> As you can understand this has caused some confusion, not to say
> consternation that such an important factor can so quickly be out then
> in!
>
> I appreciate there are installers who are extremely skilled at
> addressing all relevant matters, but I also know there are many
> installers who have little or no knowledge of structures and how to
> assess them let alone have skilled resources at their disposal to
> assess and design solutions to roofs that require additional
> strengthening works.
>
> There is a meeting in London next week of the Competent Persons
> Forum where LABC will be raising this issue again, in the meantime I
> find myself in a position of not being comfortable to advise my
> members that the NICEIC scheme does properly require ALL its
> installers to deal with Part A. To help me address this are you able
> to advise me of the NICEIC CPS requirements on qualification/skills
> requirements for installers when dealing with any Building Regulation
> matters other than Part P?
>
> I am afraid until such time as this is resolved it is highly likely
> you and other installers will frequently be asked to submit formal
> applications with regard to Part A.
>
> I hope this email does go some way to explaining LABC position in
> this matter.


My response


Thanks for getting in touch - I did express my concerns to --- that the guidance provided in the Best Practice Guide was inaccurate, but I haven't had any feedback since
then so didn't know what had transpired since my comments have been made although I don't think any ammendments have been made to the guide since. I'm not sure if I've
misunderstood the information but the weight of the panels in the guide was wrong, as was the % calculation clearly making solar pv (not thermal) panels outwith the
requirements of Part A as they have less than a 15% impact on the existing roof.

I'm obviously not an expert on Building Regulations but my understanding is that http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/note/made and this
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/3/made clearly identifies that NICEIC as part of the Ascertiva Group is covered under the CPS for renewable energy
measures. NICEIC assess competence of their installers as part of the MCS certification process, the relevant part of which is:

4.4.4 The contractor shall ensure that the roof structure is capable of withstanding the
loads (static and wind loads) that will be imposed by the PV modules and their
mounting arrangements. If there is any doubt, a structural engineer must be
consulted. Guidance on the mechanical installation and wind loads are given in
BRE Digests 495 and 489 or BS 6399.

When we were assessed for the MCS certification by NICEIC we had to provide evidence of how we were assessing structural suitability of the roofs we install pv on - this
was clearly part of the criteria for certification.

I'm not sure where we go from here - the vast majority of installers aren't making applications for Building Notice, the fact that this has just cropped up now after 127
installations of pv up to the end of March 2011 in XX is testament to that. The legislation clearly shows that installation of renewable energy measures by
installers certified by Ascertiva Group do not need to make an application to Building Control, the MCS documentation requires installers to demonstrate that the property
they are installing on is suitable - this is a key part of the certification criteria and the weight of the pv panels fall outside the 15% additional weight load
identified by Part A and so does not need a Building Notice.