Show us your installs :)

[Worcester]

Anybody else get this notification today?

Gemserv, is to conduct random inspections of MCS Members’ installation work during September and October.


Although Gemserv will inform all MCS installers as a courtesy and participation will be entirely voluntary for any customers contacted, we advise all members to be aware that these spot-checks are taking place.


Inspections will be carried out as part of a pilot project to assess and determine how installation inspections should be carried out in future.


Around 100 installations will be inspected as part of the pilot. They will be visual and verbal only, no input or information is required from MCS Certified Installers and you will not be informed of the inspection results unless an installation is deemed to be a risk.


If you have any queries about this pilot then please contact us before Friday 23rd August on [email protected] or 020 7090 1082.

 

[Gavin A]

joy.

I wonder what qualifications and experience the assessors will have.

 

[whinmoor]

This could be good news for decent installers if some cowboys are caught. I suspect, however, that the inspector won't bring a ladder or torch so the whole exercise will be limited to counting labels and asking the customer if the installer arrived on time.

 

[Avontech]

Just wondered under what authority Gemserve have to do this?

I am not aware that they have any authority to do this, else why bother appointing Certification Bodies, who in Gemserve's own words: "The Certification Bodies have been accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to assess products and installers to the MCS Standards."

Also according to Gemserve: "Installer certification involves assessing the supply, design, installation, set-to-work, and commissioning of renewable microgeneration technologies. Installers are certified against the MCS standards by a Certification Body."

As such surely this also calls into question the capabilities of and undermines the authority of the Certification Bodies.

Too little too late?

 

[Gavin A]

they may be doing it as more of a survey of standards rather than spot checks on individual companies.

 

[LeckyBill]

Anybody else get this notification today?

no never get that on you had it long

 

[BruceB]

Yes, I got it also. I noticed they will give installers no feedback unless something is wrong and that householders do not have to agree to the inspection.

 

[LeckyBill]

Yes, I got it also. I noticed they will give installers no feedback unless something is wrong and that householders do not have to agree to the inspection.

thats great like make you want to give up doing PV, mite tell elecsa to stick it next visit

 

[jerriais]

Great news as Gavin says. It was ridiculous to ask installers which job they wanted inspected. Just meant that cowboy installers only had to do one proper install a year for the inspector then carry on sticking all the others to the roof with big blobs of blu-tak.

Good news for customers and those of us who want an industry where quality is important.

 

[Worcester]

I don't have an issue with it, as Avontech said above, I would have thought that more than anything it calls into question the quality of the certifying bodies inspection procedures, and how they deal with installers whose installations had NC's on them during the inspections -- what about the other installations?

They say the purpose is to redefine how inspections should be made / done in the future, I'm surprised that with the standards commitees experience that it needs to visit, some of them are highly experienced individuals and installers. Perhaps though they haven't had the opportunity to visit other installers installations like we have over the last 12 months when installing proportional controllers

I could list the top 10 non-conformities quite easily. Number 1 being no schematic at the point of connection, Number 2 being no dual supply labels. Both of these of course put someone working on the system at risk if they don't know there is a PV system installed. On that basis, I wouldn't be suprised if 90% of them are found 'at risk'.