ELECSA Certification Scheme NICEIC ELECSA ( Certsure) Survey 3rd party I&T

[brucelee]

Hi all

Has anyone else had a email with a survey by Certsure ( NicEic and Elecsa ) about 3rd party Certification as was proposed in latest edition of PART P of the building regulations

I dont know if the link will work in here of if its allowed basically its asking for your opinions on it and if you feel it undermines you and will reduce the amount of work you get

Here is the link

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Thir...ent=SurveyImage&dm_i=WCP,2SNEK,9MH7P7,A5W2Q,1

 

[SJD]

Yes, yesterday, takes no more than a couple of minutes to complete.

 

[Octopus]

Yes, yesterday, takes no more than a couple of minutes to complete.

Then a bit longer to constructively pick holes in their approach to the industry in the comments section at the end!

 

[brucelee]

Yeah I have filled it in and picked holes by adding my comments, I was just wondering about peoples opinions on whether they think its good or bad I think Bad and would cause even more incompetent persons to carry out the work along with Part P

I wouldnt want to take responsibility for DIY, Builders or others work which is what seemed to be proposed

 

[telectrix]

done it. here's my comment.


if i were a surgeon,would i allow a DIYer to operate on my child, then check to see if he's done it right? in your dreams.

 

[sparkdog]

Done mine.Told them it was a very BAD idea.

 

[Octopus]

Done mine. Pointed out that a lot of their naughty sparks have been signing off other peoples work for years.

There's more likely hood of me becoming PM than NICEIC/Elecsa taking legal action against a spark for "breaking the rules"

 

[nickblake]

only two prosecutions under part P and that was the same bloke !!!

 

[Silly Sausage]

only two prosecutions under part P and that was the same bloke !!!

What did he do?
Wire someone directly to the mains...twice?!

 

[Richo77]

NICEIC ELECSA ( Certsure) Survey 3rd party I&T

Well said tel. Hit the nail on the head there

 

[Knobhead]

That was comical, to see the questions on page 2 I had to tick the boxes to proceed. It seemed silly not to submit the questionnaire at the end. What you domestic lads do has bugger all to do with me.

I did add this comment.
Unscrupulous electricians will sign work off that is unsafe to get their payment.


I think I’ll get the guys in the pub to fill it in.

 

[Knobhead]

only two prosecutions under part P and that was the same bloke !!!

Nick, have you any details of this?

 

[trev]

My final comment-
No one organisation has done more to damage the image of the trade and to compromise electrical safety in the home than you. After all, it is you who have foisted thousands of ill equipped and poorly trained 5 week wonders on an unsuspecting public.
You should hang your heads in shame"

 

[trev]

Nick, have you any details of this?

The NIC certainly haven't

 

[Plonker 3]

Somone Murdoch I think posted about someone for failure to notify a Part P job. But that only come about due to a bad install hey did which was picked up by trading Ipstandards if I remember correctly.

 

[Knobhead]

My final comment-
No one organisation has done more to damage the image of the trade and to compromise electrical safety in the home than you. After all, it is you who have foisted thousands of ill equipped and poorly trained 5 week wonders on an unsuspecting public.
You should hang your heads in shame"

Tell it as it is Trev. Don't hold back.

 

[trev]

Tell it as it is Trev. Don't hold back.

I thought they got off lightly mate

 

[Silly Sausage]

Tell it as it is Trev. Don't hold back.

And do you think they'll take the slightest notice of any of these comments?
Will they F£$%!!!

Don't waste your time on this rubbish.

 

[trev]

I know they won't Archy. Someone will read them though.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I know they won't Archy. Someone will read them though.

Do you mean, someone will stare gormlessly at them?!
Remember phil d's and Glenn's account of that cronic install they showed the NICEIC guy at ELEX.
The guy couldn't give a ----.

 

[Barry White]

Nick, have you any details of this?

A former retained fire-fighter from Wales who failed to maintain a fire alarm in a care home will face sentence next week after being the first fire alarm engineer to be prosecuted as a responsible person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Trafford Magistrates Court heard Christopher Morris, 56, of Llandudno, North Wales, plead guilty to two charges of failing to maintain a fire alarm system at a care home in Trafford, Manchester, to a recognised standard and failing to inform the owners of the home of the deficiencies in the system.
Morris will be sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on December 23, after the bench decided it did not have sufficient powers to deal with the case and what they described as ‘culpable neglect’ by the defendant.
The case was brought to court by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority in what is believed to be the first of its kind under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The law allows the fire and rescue authority to prosecute a person who has responsibility for a particular area of premises or, as in this case, maintaining fire equipment that requires specialist knowledge or skills to carry out repairs.
Deputy County Fire Officer Jim Owen said it would send a strong message throughout the fire industry that fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales will not hesitate in taking firm action against anyone that falls short of their obligations under fire legislation.
Mr Owen said: “Whilst many owners have been prosecuted under the Fire Safety Order, this may be the first time a fire and rescue authority has prosecuted someone contracted by the owner of a property to maintain a fire alarm. Taking on such a contract extends the requirements of the order to the fire alarm engineer. Anyone we find who doesn’t carry out their work to recognised standards is a danger and we won’t hesitate to take action.”
The court heard how Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service attended a fire incident at a care home in Trafford in May 2009 in which an elderly woman died. During subsequent investigations into the fire safety arrangements at the premises, fire safety enforcement officers commissioned an examination of the fire alarm system by a specialist consultant who sits on the British Standard committee for fire alarm systems.
The examination report revealed that the system was estimated to have been installed during the late 1980s or early 1990s and that a number of issues were discovered within the panel that demonstrated poor practice remedial work had been carried out at some time during its lifetime. This included:

• A blown fuse over-ridden with a piece of wire
• An electronic component had been suspended between two terminal bocks instead of being attached to the circuit board
• An alarm silence/fault warning buzzer was missing from the circuit board
• The fault warning light on the front face of the panel had been almost covered by paint.

Christopher Morris, an electrician who had taken over the maintenance of the system in 2006, had issued several annual certificates of worthiness to the owner of the home, stating the system was 100 per cent.
During an interview under caution, Morris initially claimed that although the system was old it was compliant with the relevant British Standard. However, when he was challenged about the poor repair issues and shown the specialists photographs he admitted that he was not aware of them.
Morris will appear at Manchester Crown Court for sentencing on Thursday, December 23, 2010.


is this it?

A bathroom fitter has been fined a total of £1,500 after pleading guilty to breaking regulations aimed at preventing unsafe work following an investigation by Bath & North East Somerset Council’s Building Control department.

The section prosecuted Roger Martin Drinkwater, born 1 March, 1956, (who trades as Salles de Bains) from Tarrant Cottage, Great Hinton, Trowbridge, for contravening Building Regulations with regard to the electrics in a replacement bathroom at a private property in the Bath and North East Somerset area.

The charges were brought under Part P of Building Regulations. These rules came into force in January 2005 and are designed to reduce the number of death, injuries and fires caused by faulty electrics. They are also designed to make it harder for contractors to carry out sub-standard work.

In this instance the defendant installed an electric shower but was not a qualified electrician. The method of wiring used was not in accordance with the British Standard. Also, while the installation of the electric shower was incomplete, the complainant was not advised that it should not be used or that it was awaiting checking. The complainant was eventually provided with a certificate from a suitably qualified electrician but only after insisting on this.

Mr Drinkwater pleaded guilty at a hearing at Bath Magistrates Court to three charges. He was fined £1,000 for the Part P offence and £250 each for the remaining two offences. The other two offences were that Mr Drinkwater failed to give a Building Notice to the Council prior to commencement of the work and he failed to give notice of commencement and completion of certain stages of the work. The purpose of these requirements is to enable qualified Building Control Surveyors to visit the site and ensure that the Regulations are being complied with and provide advice if necessary.

The court also ordered Mr Drinkwater to pay £1,066 in costs.

Cllr Vic Pritchard, Executive Member Community Safety and Housing, said: “These regulations are designed to reduce the number of people killed or injured by faulty electrics as well as make sure contractors carry out work to an agreed standard.

“This prosecution is evidence that Bath & North East Somerset Council takes seriously its role in ensuring the safety of residents and enforcing building regulations.”

Philip Mansfield, Building Control Manager, said: “Bath & North East Somerset Council always recommends that people employ electricians who are members of a recognised electrical competent persons scheme to carry out any work for them.

 

[trev]

Do you mean, someone will stare gormlessly at them?!
Remember phil d's and Glenn's account of that cronic install they showed the NICEIC guy at ELEX.
The guy couldn't give a ----.

He still had to listen and toe the party line mate. I'll lay odds that it was discussed when he got back to the office.

 

[Knobhead]

And do you think they'll take the slightest notice of any of these comments?
Will they F£$%!!!

Don't waste your time on this rubbish.

As I said Archy, the only way to see all of the questionnaire is by filling it in. So once I got to the end I thought I may as well submit it.

I doubt anyone will take notice of the replies and comments, most will be criticism of the NIC-EIC and ELECSA. Criticism we all know they won’t accept.

 

[ipf]

Do you mean, someone will stare gormlessly at them?!
Remember phil d's and Glenn's account of that cronic install they showed the NICEIC guy at ELEX.
The guy couldn't give a ----.

I was with Phil, Glenn, tel and Paul that day. He gave a complete show of non commitment.

Got the form yesterday, not bothered reading through it, as yet.