Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 104 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 4563 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LEGISLATION

John Peckham
The government have produced draft regulations on the periodic inspection and testing of domestic installations.


It can be found here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111191934


I have serious concerns with the proposed definition of "qualified" as it does not require anyone to have any qualifications whatsoever , so it does not do what it says on the tin. It perpetuates the current practice of any knuckle scraping half whit who does not know their amp from the elbow carrying out inspection and testing. Without setting out defined required qualifications it becomes unenforceable.


Unless an MP makes an objection as Secondary it will become law without debate. I have written to my recently Knighted MP this morning to explain my views on the proposed legislation and in particular the definition of "Qualified" that contains no requirement to have any qualifications. 


Unless the government gets any objections these Regulations will become law. Only an MP can get proposed secondary legislation changed.


You may wish to join me in writing to your MP?
Parents
  • 0
    On first read, it does actually seems a vast improvement on the present [dis] arrangement.   The "Qualified " part relates to " a person competent" as opposed to a "competent person [scheme]", so there is a big shift here to individual competency. How you want to measure that is up in the air, but as there is going to be an absolute electronic trail of Reports it may be a little bit more risky to the badgery "inspector" who deal in "oven ready satisfactory EICRs". The fraudulent [ or incompetent] may possibly be more likely to be exposed.
Reply
  • 0
    On first read, it does actually seems a vast improvement on the present [dis] arrangement.   The "Qualified " part relates to " a person competent" as opposed to a "competent person [scheme]", so there is a big shift here to individual competency. How you want to measure that is up in the air, but as there is going to be an absolute electronic trail of Reports it may be a little bit more risky to the badgery "inspector" who deal in "oven ready satisfactory EICRs". The fraudulent [ or incompetent] may possibly be more likely to be exposed.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines