QS and electrical Installation certificates

[Pete999]

Here's a first, I have a question regarding Domestic 3 signature EICs, not having much to do with Domestic for a very long time way before the onset of the introduction of the QS, as I understand it the 3 signatures required are: the Installation designer, the Installer and the QS, before the QS actually signs off the cert, does He/She have to carry out any testing? or is it just a case of checking the cert to ensure it has been filled out correctly?

 

[davesparks]

The three signatures refers to the designer, constructor/installer and the inspector/tester as per the model forms in bs7671.
On scheme members certificates there is an additional position for the qualified supervisor to sign to say that they have reviewed the certificate and all is well. It is up to them to decide what they need to do to confirm that all is well.

 

[Pete999]

The three signatures refers to the designer, constructor/installer and the inspector/tester as per the model forms in bs7671.
On scheme members certificates there is an additional position for the qualified supervisor to sign to say that they have reviewed the certificate and all is well. It is up to them to decide what they need to do to confirm that all is well.

Thanks Dave clears that question up nicely.

 

[Ian1981]

You can have 3 separate signatures for design, install and testing or one signature for all 3 areas design,installed and testing with the qs to counter sign the eic.
That's the niceic ones anyway.

Domestic types certificate or single phase installations upto 100amps is only one signature for installer /tested by and one for qs

 

[Pete999]

You can have 3 separate signatures for design, install and testing or one signature for all 3 areas design,installed and testing with the qs to counter sign the eic.
That's the niceic ones anyway.

Domestic types certificate is only one signature for installer /tested by and one for qs

In that scenario Ian, would the QS have to do any actual testing?, it seems from Dave's reply and Yours the different Schemes have differing views on how to do things, or is it, as you say just a counter signature, with the QS trusting the individual who did the testing, has tested correctly. Thanks for your reply Ian.

 

[Ian1981]

It's upto the QS pete but they aren't required to test on the certificate unless it's them who have tested it, so there's an element of trust involved as it's the operative who's tested it that then signs it
Obviously a QS may check against certain persons who maybe need more guidance than more experience trusted shall I say individuals
The QS will need to check over the certificate regardless to see it's been correctly filled in and all results read right as it where.

It's always a good idea to do spot checks I'd say but that's upto the company duty holder and the individual QS

 

[Pete999]

It's upto the QS pete but they aren't required to test so there's an element of trust involved.
Obviously a QS may check against certain persons who maybe need more guidance than more experience trusted shall I say individuals
The QS will need to check over the certificate regardless to see it's been correctly filled in and all results read right as it where.

It's always a good idea to do spot checks I'd say but that's upto the company duty holder and the individual QS

Thought that might be the case. Confusion reigns again.

 

[Ian1981]

Thought that might be the case. Confusion reigns again.

Yeah I might be wrong but it could be a bit of a poisoned chalice position as you may leave yourself open to be investigated if anything goes wrong on other people's work which you may have signed off the eic
Maybe?

 

[Pete999]

Yeah I might be wrong but it could be a bit of a poisoned chalice position as you may leave yourself open to be investigated if anything goes wrong on other people's work which you may have signed off the eic
Maybe?

A mate of mine was a QS but he was shafted by the firm he worked for, doing OK now I believe. Gone SE.

 

[Ian1981]

A mate of mine was a QS but he was shafted by the firm he worked for, doing OK now I believe. Gone SE.

Good for him.
Been asked before but I have to bite my tounge too much as it is where I'm working so it's a no from me on that position.

 

[Strima]

All the QS is doing is signing to say the cert has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with BS7671 etc. Just acts as a admin/audit trail.

There are no set rules for QS, some like to sit behind a desk and others, like myself, get out on the ground with the lads/lasses and actually look at their standard of work and sort out any issues on the ground.

 

[Pete999]

All the QS is doing is signing to say the cert has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with BS7671 etc. Just acts as a admin/audit trail.

There are no set rules for QS, some like to sit behind a desk and others, like myself, get out on the ground with the lads/lasses and actually look at their standard of work and sort out any issues on the ground.

So in effect if what you are saying is the norm, the QS is the fall guy should the brown stuff hits the fan?

 

[Toneyz]

This was sent to me when my old boss was telling the NICEIC that he did not need to replace the QS that had retired I was only the voluntary additional Q.S. which got him out of the s...t as there was 10 electricians all doing a fix a day (aprox) spread over an area when he started to sign our signatures that the game was up

 

[Pete999]

View attachment 36967
View attachment 36966

From what you have told me Ant, during our conversations of the past months, many firms, not just the small ones, but larger ones like the outfit you were working for, treat both QS and the CP Schemes as a conduit to get more work, and pay lip service to the said CP Schemes, pay their dues and hope all is well, especially the new build housing merchants.
The QS are the fall guys for the managements failures, they would pass the buck in the QS direction without blinking an eyelid, so much for policing this industry.

 

[Toneyz]

The only reason that they managed to keep in the scheme was they could see that I was trying. In the end it all came back to bit him.

 

[Pete999]

The only reason that they managed to keep in the scheme was they could see that I was trying. In the end it all came back to bit him.

Just goes to show that you can be a lone cowboy and get away with it or you can be a posse of cowboys and still get away with it, about time the CPS took a good look at themselves and got their act together, imo

 

[Toneyz]

Just goes to show that you can be a lone cowboy and get away with it or you can be a posse of cowboys and still get away with it, about time the CPS took a good look at themselves and got their act together, imo

There was only one person with the spurs there

 

[Pete999]

There was only one person with the spurs there

If it's rotten at the top then it's rotten through and through, just like an Apple, good job you got out Mate.

 

[hightower]

Can I take this thread a different way slightly for a minute, but based on a theme that has already been mentioned in brief. The model forms state they are for installations up to 100A - in the work I've been involved in this has been sufficient but what forms are used for bigger installs? Has anyone got a 100A+ model form, and where would they typically be used?

Thanks

 

[Strima]

So in effect if what you are saying is the norm, the QS is the fall guy should the brown stuff hits the fan?

This is where the good habit of getting everything in black and white and storing it for future reference comes into play.

Also going around and auditing sites during works and on completion not only ensures the work is being done correctly but also enables me to identify the less conscientious employees and apply a little more pressure on them to get the job done correctly.

My arse is covered if anything does go wrong. It pays to be proactive and be forceful with the management. It does take a lot of hard work to keep on top of things, good job I don't really care about upsetting management...