Is this junction box installation acceptable?

Who ever they are working  for, which a one man band, arguably might  be the end customer, if they designed the installation, or far more likely in fact themselves - F. A Bloggs signing on behalf of Fred Bloggs Electrics Ltd, sort of idea, but equally it may be signed as Mr A Technician working on behalf of a house-building company or British Gas PLC ....

The exact use of the forms varies a bit, and some companies have their own pre-print  variants . The essential info has to be the same - the test results, what was done, who did it and, critically,  how to get hold of them.

Somewhere the paperwork has to allow you to trace the person or organization doing the work and signing it off as compliant. If the paperwork already  has the company header it may be that info need not be duplicated.

Mike.

It gets better than that

Installer tried to cert that there was a pre-existing open circuit on the PE ring

This wasn't actually the connection causing the issue, these lever terminals suitable for 6 - 25 ², or the top connection might have just been clamped

The correction isn't much better

have to double check these connections too

this should be the name / address / signature and position of the competent person doing the testing?

Who is the for and on behalf of? not the client again surely?

mapj1 said:

I'd agree with you, or even scrap it altogether in favour of some sort of test done by the individual, rather than the company.

I have always found the idea of QS, as opposed to individual responsibility resting with each electrician, distinctly odd. Imagine if the same approach were possible for doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc!

I'd agree with you, or even scrap it altogether in favour of some sort of test done by the individual, rather than the company.  The monkey that turns up with a screwdriver and a box of tools does not actually need to have any qualifications at present, just his supervisor, who probably never visits most of the jobs.  A link to the person doing the job is more relevant. Given the way the fees and inspections work, the current scheme is weighted in favour of larger outfits with one or two QS and a lot of (hopefully trained) monkeys.

Some of the rates of sign off are unbelievable.

From this evidence to parliament . From a few years ago.

In my mind in Firms B and C are really not credible that there is tight supervision and control - it may be that the workers are actually very good and trustworthy, but  I suggest that is in 'spite of' rather then 'because of' the 'competent person' scheme.

Firm A – A typical micro enterprise issuing 412 notifications per annum with 1 QS and 1 employee.

.....
Firm B – A major national company issuing 24,084 notifications per annum  has 7 QS nationwide and 400 employees including sub contractors.

....
 Firm C – 1,850 notifications per annum with 2 QS operating out of one office serving East Anglia and Greater London with 80 employees.

Mike

I wonder how many QS (Quality Supervisor) does a company like Octopus in the UK have?  Also how many domestic installers/labourers do they have?  I am only asking as there have been many pictures online of installs done by Octopus that are absolutely shocking and no doubt probably allow for the end customer to get a shock or even worse electrocuted.  Some picture online show that the install falls way short of complying with BS7671 as a minimum standard. 

Maybe the CPS (Competent Person Schemes) should have a maximum ratio of workers per QS and then ALL the QS should be vetted by their respective CPS providers.

No, the tester does not have to belong to any membership scheme, but legally they do have to be 'competent'.  (Just as well really, or folk like me, cheerfully independent, would not be allowed to pick up a meter...)

If there is any notifiable aspect to the new work - complete new circuits or new CU, or work beside a bath or shower, then either building control or use of a  self certification scheme should be in evidence. For mods to existing circuits, when not within 60cm of the bath or shower, then again, the only legal requirement is 'competence'.

The person's name or business name and address should be on the form.

Mike.

No to both. A 'Competent' person must complete the work and sign the certificate. No need for any Governing Body involvement.

NICEIC do not certify individual employees within a company. There is one Quality Supervisor who signs the certs and should control the work, but it is not unknown for Labourers to be doing the work. It shoudlnt be like that , but in the real world it happens.

JIB membership is individual, but there are little, if any, ongoing check on the Members work quality once the Card has been issued, usually after completing an apprenticeship.

Thanks for your responses Mike.

Does the person issuing the minor works certificate have to be NIC / JIB certified, and where do I confirm this on the certificate?

It must be a statement of the blindingly obvious that cables will converge on a DB. Joists will bunch them up. There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, like that in UK without any problem.