Should the IET be employing investigative journalists?

Did you mean generalists ? or journalists ? possibly spell cheque failure.

Thanks. 

Other charities do campaigning on things of social importance.  Particularly environmental charities, homelessness charities and the like.  So there's no reason the IET can't do it within its charitable status.

But I agree that the article was a bit thin on actual evidence.  With a bit more effort, I think they could have come up with much better evidence to bash the certification bodies with.  And I think they deserve a good bash.

Should the IET (or rather E&T magazine, which is slightly different) be employing investigative journalists? Yes please!!! E&T might then be useful rather than, like most industry magazines (and as E&T was last time I looked at it, which was some years ago) a rehash of companies' press releases.

And sometimes we might not like what they find. We should be critical of ourselves and our industry bodies. Ok, I'd also go further and hope they'd be critical of the IET itself when needed, but back in the real world I'm (sadly) not necessarily expecting that.

The IET is not a trade association (much less a trade union), it is there to raise engineering standards, and I believe should do this by challenging where appropriate.

Personally I don't see this article as "political" (although I can see it being read as such), and I don't see it as "publishing hearsay and rumour as fact", I think it's quite clearly stating that the views expressed are opinions. Whether it's an accurate and useful article I wouldn't like to comment (it's not in my field). If it is not accurate, or is misleading, then of course that is not acceptable and should be raised with E&T magazine.

But regarding the general principle, if it means the IET (even if by proxy through E&T) is actually baring it's teeth to raise standards then personally I'm all for it.

Cheers,  

Andy

Should the IET rag do its own research, yes ! Actually I wish the IET was more pro-active generally - its one of the reasons I do not belong !

Is this article the pinnacle of what could be done, maybe not. Personally  I'd prefer a more referenced approach with rather more figues about accidents, numbers of inspections performed and what trends are in fires and electrocutions as the main discussion rather  than interview notes. But that is my style and I do not have the time to do it properly, so I cannot be too critical of others. In any case there is no doubt that the stats show reasonably clearly that regulation and the CP schemes are not really working as originally intended.

The next (and bigger) question then is what are we paying for, and if the answer is we are paying over the odds for not a lot, then if we are to be honest with ourselves, we should also be asking do we need regulation of that style at all. I bet you they would never publish anything quite that controversial though ;- )

Mike.

PS the author, Conor did actually ask for comments on this same topic on this very forum earlier this year

 RE: Exposed: Cash for logos and drive by inspections 

I take it that the OP is embarrassed to find out that the industry is corrupt? This has been covered up in many ways for a long time, and it is time it was stopped. This journalist has done a good job, and it has started a ball rolling that has been held or stopped for many years. Why do you trust a "cash for logo" scheme, when the chap who turns up may be unqualified and very incompetent, and completely unable to carry out an inspection and test of an installation. I suggest you refer to the IET evidence to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, available on the web.

As far as EngTech goes, there is another problem, exactly the same as the CEng one, that is there is no underlying requirement for persons to have specific qualifications for particular jobs in the electrical industry in Law. Anyone may (and quite often do) design complex electrical installations in large buildings, and these are often unsatisfactory. Housing is very simple yet we have electricians who often consider perfectly satisfactory installations unsatisfactory, or unsatisfactory ones OK, because they have no grasp of BS7671 or the basic principles AT ALL! The "gold standard" qualification from the CPS is an open book one with a low pass mark on finding answers from BS7671. With a little skill in using the Index and a day learning a few electrical terms, my partner could pass, and she has no basic knowledge of electricity or installation at all and is totally uninterested. A good number of candidates for the exam could not use an index, and certainly did not know their way around the regulations and therefore could not inspect an installation.

I am sorry that facts upset you, but claiming that these are "political" is ridiculous

David CEng Etc.

A link to the discussion about the article to  this forum,  you will soon realise I think the article is way off the mark.

engx.theiet.org/.../exposed-cash-for-logos-and-drive-by-inspections

Electricians sat in cafes writing out landlords EICRs, when in reality all cafes were closed due to the Covid Lockdowns.

I do wish people would think about what they are saying before putting pen to paper or finger to keyboard. 

Maybe some years ago an electrician did this whilst doing EICRs for an estate with identical houses and installations for a council or the MOD. But not in recent years in buy to let landlord's properties with every property and installation being different. 

Afternoon All,

Interesting post, so will do my best to answer given I was interviewed by the investigative journalist and I was quoted in the article. I have no issues that the I.E.T via its publishing department employ any journalist, in fact are all journalists not indeed "Investigative" as they are there to report on a story and report the facts and findings etc.

I supplied the journalist copies of actual reports/letters and correspondance that I have in my posession that clearly indicated that the inspection reports issued the detail on them was false/wrong and totally inappropriate etc also proof of falsified condition reports where my work on behalf of the installation owner revealed that no inspection work had actually taken place on the premises to which the report was issued for.

I was happy for my name to be printed and quoted as I can back up everything I said and the journalist had access to those records, certificates, reports, emails etc.

Is the OP over sensitive to reading what many of us know or suspect, especially in the domestic sector and more so in the rented/landlord sector that price charged dictates  everything. If somebody says they will do an EICR for £100 a property, the letting agent/landlord seeks somebody to do it cheaper and so it goes on, there is always somebody prepared to do the "work" for whatever cost, the result being a report or cert that has detail on it that was never established or correctly looked at. Perhaps even with the very poor standards of inspection/reporting the few protective devices installed perhaps did save a fatality thru electric shock or fire, we will never know as it may never be reported.

Free standards and documents to members, the IET already offer discounts on the publications and I have obtained early bird discounts etc on many publications in advance of them being published. But people need to join end of story to get membership benefits. I do fully agree the IET should engage far far more at practitioner level, having worked my own way up the career and knowledge ladders from my own craft apprenticeship, that is why I volunteerd for and supported the Electricians Eng Tech, but that needs promoted in the industry by more organisations.

Then again the cynic in me says joining fees means more cost/overhead, that must incorporate into hourly rate and then they cant compete with those doing EICR's for £50.

We all know it, but far less people prepared to stand up or say in print, there always has been and until something changes always will be a rogue element especially in domestic and small retail properties companies and individuals not competant in the work they are undertaking and their workmanship and report/certificates  issued are downright dangerous, and if there was any contract work order in place fraudulant.

That said, Im putting a house on the market for sale that I own and been renting out since 2009, so for the Home report required in Scotland to sell a property, I had to pay a surveyor to carry out that home report at a cost of £550 paid upfront.

On receiving the draft report, which is obviously based on a template document, I picked up on the following:

1) The electrical installation was not inspected as part of the survey but it has been noted electrical installation has not been inspected recently and age would suggest it should be inspected by a competant person and a EICR issued as timescale is 5yrs between inspections.

2) Exact same comment applicable to the gas appliances.

3) There are no fire and Carbon Monoxide detectors installed in the property as required by Scottish Fire Regulations and these should be installed.

Now obviously I had no need to tell the surveyor property had previously been rented, nor what I do for a job. So I sent on Friday a email back to the surveying company with my comments on the draft report, so I indicated regards the above points:

1) Previously the property had been rented out and as such under Scottish Landlords Regs electrical inspections and any defects had been carried out and corrected, in fact if surveyor had looked the appropriate label to comply with BS7671 was affixed to the consumer unit indicating last inspection was in March 2022 and not only the copy of that EICR but all EICRs were in a clear folder next to the consumer unit.

2)  Previously the property had been rented out and as such under Scottish Landlords Regs Gas appliance inspections and any defects had been carried out and corrected, in fact if surveyor had looked in a clear pocket next to the boiler were all the annual gas appliance safety reports the last been dated february 2022.

3) Previously the property had been rented out and as such under Scottish Landlords Regs all required fixed wiring and interlinked fire detection devices and carbon monoxide monitors had been installed, in fact if surveyor had looked on the ceilings he would have seen them.

Now low and behold the final home report has been issued with all those original statements removed and given accepted compliance. Is that right? of course it isnt, was the survey carried out correctly? of course it wasnt. I have asked for money back given survey wasnt completed professionally, and I shall see if that happens, if not I will be reporting that surveyor to his professional body.

Now the surveyor may think he was just unlucky it was my property he inspected and he got caught out, but how many other incorrect/misleading reports has he issued to home owners that will then loose money on the selling price of the house or incurr expense fixing things that dont need done?

Yes, we have minimum standards BS7671 and lots of others, we have legislation but in this deregulated world we only catch the cowboy's out when there is a fire , accident or fatility, my own personal thoughts are if there is no adequate police force either HSE, Local authority then people will simply not do whats expected, the NICEIC/NAPIT etc must control and police their members appropriately ECA/SELECT. Grenfill tower is an example tragically that human beings dont follow the rules.

Investigative journalists? bring them on, maybe some people will then think twice before pulling a dodgy stunt.

Cheers GTB