17th edition design given 18th edition certifcate

I don't think that the NIC can do that and fully comply with BS7671. I want to know who exactly designed the install. When I find a problem of some kind, which I will, I want that person. I want to know who installed it, when that is a problem. I want to know exactly who tested it and passed the rubbish.

None of these persons need any skill or qualification at all, and may well be unaware of the requirements of BS7671.

Had to read that again, but surely you are not saying that the person signing for Design/construct/ I+T on a Installation Certificate does not need to have any skill or qualification and maybe unaware of BS7671 requirements?


NIC do not need to comply with BS7671, they are just a registration scheme. I am sure that the OP has said, in a roundabout way, that there are signatures. Some model form versions allow for multiple "designers", but from the limited info I do not think that has happened here. It is simply an issue of 17/18th forms and someone in error of not crossing out the BS7671:2018 bit and putting in BS7671: 2017 instead. The OP did say they were written certificates. So really just a clerical error; pales into insignificance to some of the grossly outdated cut and paste approach to designs and documents churned out by so called "professional" designers, surveyors, consultants and architects. I still get proposals from Architects and Surveyors referencing the 16th edition. It is the end Electrician that has to sort all this out.


If you want "full compliance with something" you are only going to get that with prescription by law and for there to be a deterrent. That is not going to happen. As with all things, applicable to all trades and contractors in construction and, generally, in provision of services for reward in society, it is a free market . Take Glenfall type cladding as one example of that and some consumer unit manufactures using the cheapest components possible as another. This list will never be exhaustive. It is a market economy where the encouragement is to get away with what you can to maximise profit and avoid being found out, or at a minimum, to have an opportunity to actually have some kind of turnover to tick over. Even if you are found out, you can always claim you were testing your eyesight. You do mostly get what you are prepared to pay for. No one is going to pay for every electrician to be EngTech the same as no one is going to pay gig economy nursing home carer's a living wage and pay for the time they really need for them to do the job correctly.


edited for weird spelling








 

I don't think that the NIC can do that and fully comply with BS7671. I want to know who exactly designed the install. When I find a problem of some kind, which I will, I want that person. I want to know who installed it, when that is a problem. I want to know exactly who tested it and passed the rubbish.

None of these persons need any skill or qualification at all, and may well be unaware of the requirements of BS7671.

Had to read that again, but surely you are not saying that the person signing for Design/construct/ I+T on a Installation Certificate does not need to have any skill or qualification and maybe unaware of BS7671 requirements?


NIC do not need to comply with BS7671, they are just a registration scheme. I am sure that the OP has said, in a roundabout way, that there are signatures. Some model form versions allow for multiple "designers", but from the limited info I do not think that has happened here. It is simply an issue of 17/18th forms and someone in error of not crossing out the BS7671:2018 bit and putting in BS7671: 2017 instead. The OP did say they were written certificates. So really just a clerical error; pales into insignificance to some of the grossly outdated cut and paste approach to designs and documents churned out by so called "professional" designers, surveyors, consultants and architects. I still get proposals from Architects and Surveyors referencing the 16th edition. It is the end Electrician that has to sort all this out.


If you want "full compliance with something" you are only going to get that with prescription by law and for there to be a deterrent. That is not going to happen. As with all things, applicable to all trades and contractors in construction and, generally, in provision of services for reward in society, it is a free market . Take Glenfall type cladding as one example of that and some consumer unit manufactures using the cheapest components possible as another. This list will never be exhaustive. It is a market economy where the encouragement is to get away with what you can to maximise profit and avoid being found out, or at a minimum, to have an opportunity to actually have some kind of turnover to tick over. Even if you are found out, you can always claim you were testing your eyesight. You do mostly get what you are prepared to pay for. No one is going to pay for every electrician to be EngTech the same as no one is going to pay gig economy nursing home carer's a living wage and pay for the time they really need for them to do the job correctly.


edited for weird spelling