Anthony Dicker said:

IEE certificate

The 'IEE Wiring Regulations' as it was has been BS 7671 since 1992 ... and even though the IEE was re-badged during the merger with IIE in 2006, the IEE themselves wouldn't have issued a certificate according to BS 7671 (or the IEE Wiring Regulations before that).

AJJewsbury said:

You might say that the terms "IEE Wiring Regulations" and "IET Wiring Regulations" are interchangeable, although the latter now being the preferred form.

'BS 7671:2018+A2:2022' would be the preferred reference to a specific dated version of the standard, 'BS 7671' if dated version is not important (implying latest at the time of either writing, or at date of contract/agreement unless otherwise specified in the particulars of the agreement), and the title 'Requirements for electrical installations. IET Wiring Regulations 18^th Edition' if you needed to quote that as well.

Perhaps more to the point ... what is a 'current BS 7671 certificate' (even if we use the correct terminology for the standard itself)?

Do they mean evidence that the installation conforms to BS 7671 at its current amendment, or they need either an Installation Certificate, satisfactory EIC or unsatisfactory EICR with evidence via MWC or EIC that defects have been corrected, as appropriate, dated not less than the date of next inspection?

Or if what they wanted was a professional qualification you are a bit stuck, as IET membership does not guarantee any particular level of electrical knowledge, as membership could indeed be entirely due to work in another discipline. Actually I'm not sure that IEE did either, but as the OP alluded, folk felt it did.

Mike

mapj1 said:

IET membership does not guarantee any particular level of electrical knowledge

Well ...as often is the case, there may be multiple views on this.

IEE membership required professional registration, and in turn required the individual registered member not to engage in work they were not competent to undertake.

Now, IET Membership and Professional Registration are "divorced" ... but all IET Members are still obligated to the same commitment in Rule 6 of the IET Rules of Conduct: "6. Members shall not undertake professional tasks and responsibilities that they are not reasonably competent to discharge."

Registered IET members are also bound by this, which supports the 2nd bullet of item 3 of the Engineering Council Statement of Ethical Principals, which is along similar lines.

So, as per the OP, is an IET member an electrically competant person, legally? May well be perfectly capable of course, but not recognised as such. Sadly for that you need to belong to another organisation.

Mike

mapj1 said:

So, as per the OP, is an IET member an electrically competant person, legally?

Which legislation? If they engage in electrical work, they are committed to ensure personal competence. That would be OK for Electricity at Work Regulations, for example.

But 'competent person' in terms of Part P for domestic installations is the competence of an organisation, rather than individuals who might actually be doing a piece of work ...

That confusion is the point I was trying to make,  though perhaps it came across badly -I was not intending to snipe, but there is no assurance of a given level of electrical competence from a membership IET alone.

Perhaps in some cases, asking to see a fist full of City and Guilds certificates may be more relevant, although I suspect the sort of folk requesting "IEE" membership are probably a bit hazy on which qualifications they really wanted anyway.
Note that I do not belong to any of the 'competent person' schemes, and actually I suspect the qualifications I have would now be deemed outmoded and perhaps unsuited. However, I have friends nearer the front line in the trade who assure me that there are plenty of apparently qualified folk out there who come badly unstuck when they leave the beaten track as it were - which is where, at least  to my mind true 'engineering competence' , comes in - the ability to deduce solutions to new problems, not just rinse and repeat old ones. I'm less sure how we prove or demonstrate that sort of ability in the current climate. It may or may not be what  the insurance company wanted to see of course.

Mike

mapj1 said:

That confusion is the point I was trying to make,  though perhaps it came across badly -I was not intending to snipe, but there is no assurance of a given level of electrical competence from a membership IET alone.

Currently, there's no requirement, though, for those carrying out EICRs to belong to a competent person certification scheme.

mapj1 said:

That confusion is the point I was trying to make,  though perhaps it came across badly -I was not intending to snipe, but there is no assurance of a given level of electrical competence from a membership IET alone.

Currently, there's no requirement, though, for those carrying out EICRs to belong to a competent person certification scheme.

True, and probably a good thing it is not the same, as that is a discipline requiring a different skill set to either initial design or installation. However, there maybe maybe should be a requirement of some sort, just not quite the same one.

The inspector of 'anything' has to be able to reverse engineer whatever is in front of him/her, and has in part a detective role. At a basic level there is the walk around and see does it look damaged, and that could be done by almost anyone with a notebook. However. for complex systems, and this problem will increase with automation and complex interlinked systems there can far more to consider. A non-standard design should not be 'failed' because the inspector does not understand it, but of course something that was put in beautifully but is not safe, should not be passed for further use, and that may be a hard call to make.
I also think this will get worse,  and I am fairly sure there are plenty of folk installing who do not understand central heating wiring, let alone what will be needed in a smart house with embedded generation and autonomous load shedding etc.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between what knowledge is needed for a simple visual inspection of systems known to have been 'good' when installed - so just  looking more for damage and decay on one hand,  and a  more comprehensive 'drains up'  engineered analysis reserved for systems of uncertain provenance, on the other.

but we are probably drifting off-thread a bit.

Mike