PSA under pressure from EU to reduce fees

2011

I thought that this might interest a few people on this forum.

The PSA (Private Security Authority) is under pressure from the European Commission to reduce its exorbitant fees. The Commission has in fact threatened ”infringement proceedings” unless the fee is reduced, citing it as a “barrier to entry” and pointing out that it is impeding employment creation. This development follows a government report which described the PSA contractor fee as being “unduly Burdensome”.

Thunderbird2

There was something on rte news also.
The Whole thing is a bit of a joke . The amount of licensed installers out there that are cutting corners is unreal .

altor

Thanks 2011.
It is about time. The fee they charge is ridiculous.

2011

altor wrote: »

Thanks 2011.
It is about time. The fee they charge is ridiculous.

I do what I can :):D

Irish Steve

2011 wrote: »

I thought that this might interest a few people on this forum.

Too right. At last, a breath of sanity has crept quietely into the asylum

Might have been even better if the PSA had been chopped completely, the situation as it stands at the moment is a total mess, and it will only get worse with the recent addition of things like CCTV and access control systems.

Can't help thinking that it would be a lot better if there was one regulatory body for gas, (LPG & Natural) Electrics, Oil, Alarms and related LV devices, and probably before too long, things like Heat Pumps and related items. The register would have divisions, so that the specific trades could be covered properly. It's probably not accidental that most of these regulated trades are associated with the construction industry.

Anything where we've been exposed at some stage to smooth talking snake oil salesmen, or their near neighbour cowboys.

Ideally, the registration process would be relatively cheap, so that there's no impediment to registering, but the system would have a much higher level of compliance and performance checking, and for anything that has significant safety implications, a location would have a log system that all visits by any contractor would have to be certified in.

Slightly off topic, a registration for "snaggers" would be a useful thing, they can and should be looking at just about all aspects of systems in a house, and doing proper inspections is pretty much impossible without removing covers and the like, which is becoming problematic with the way some of the new rules are being drafted.

perhaps for new builds, snaggers could be the new inspectors, and if sub standard work is found, not only does it have to be fixed, the person that did it can be sanctioned if appropriate. Hmmmmmmmmm

In the event of an inspection failure, or a later visit finding sub standard work, a "whistle blowers" facility would allow inspection of the work, and if not correct, or whatever, an appropriate sanction system would be used, which in some cases would lead to temporary or permanent revocation of the registration in a particular section, or compulsory retraining in specific areas, with the name remaining on line so that anyone looking at the register would see the names, and be able to see if there was an issue with a particular person.

It's no good having a register if the people that are being removed from it are no longer named, far better to have a register that the general public can access and check the validity of a person who is about to do work that may affect the safety or security of their home, and even better if the ones that don't make the grade are still checkable, so that it's clear that they are not suitable people to do whatever the job is.

Mr. G

I think there should be regulation on these engineer codes. If you own a system you should have full access shouldn't you? The same for mobile phones etc.

2011

Mr_Grumpy wrote: »

I think there should be regulation on these engineer codes. If you own a system you should have full access shouldn't you? The same for mobile phones etc.

Fair enough, but if the user has the engineer code then it would not be possible to hold the alarm company responsible for the alarm if an issue arose. In this case the certification of the alarm would also be called into question.

fred funk }{

Mr_Grumpy wrote: »

I think there should be regulation on these engineer codes. If you own a system you should have full access shouldn't you? The same for mobile phones etc.

I have no problem giving the customer engineer access but they have to sign a disclaimer stating that we the installers are no longer responsible for the alarm.

Its very easy to disable zones etc. in the engineers menu.

KoolKid

+ 1
What people don't realise is the engineer code is also protection for the system. You could have 20 devices in your home that have some form of engineer code . There is also manufacturer codes that wouldn't be accessible also.
Again , engineer codes are not holding you to any installer or company. Any good installer could reset a system anyway.

Jnealon

2011 wrote: »

I thought that this might interest a few people on this forum.

Just another lobby group looking for reduced fees, I will believe it when I see it.

2011

Jnealon wrote: »

Just another lobby group looking for reduced fees

No it is not. Read the link above, it is the European Commission and they have teeth as they have threatened "infringement proceedings".

Mr. G

KoolKid wrote: »

+ 1
What people don't realise is the engineer code is also protection for the system. You could have 20 devices in your home that have some form of engineer code . There is also manufacturer codes that wouldn't be accessible also.
Again , engineer codes are not holding you to any installer or company. Any good installer could reset a system anyway.

Its debatable. I think if I signed a disclaimer than I should have full access. If you own a system you should have access to it.

A previous company we had just blatently refused to give it over. No contract. Fully owned.

I see the reasoning behind it, but would you like to be locked out of something you own because some security firm says so?

altor

Mr_Grumpy wrote: »

Its debatable. I think if I signed a disclaimer than I should have full access. If you own a system you should have access to it.

A previous company we had just blatently refused to give it over. No contract. Fully owned.

I see the reasoning behind it, but would you like to be locked out of something you own because some security firm says so?

Most of the newer systems can not be defaulted on site.
Meaning an extra charge would be incurred by the owner as the system needs to be sent back to the factory to be defaulted.
I myself have no problem giving a customer the engineer code.

KoolKid

Mr_Grumpy wrote: »

A previous company we had just blatently refused to give it over. No contract. Fully owned.

Then you just get another company to look after it for you.
I had a customer last week where a company wanted €190 + vat for the call out * €35 + vat for a device battery . As we always say here shop around. I have no problem either giving customers an engineer code for themselves. I will also happily call out & change it when I'm in the area.
There is also certain manufacturers out there charging installers to unlock panels that can be easily unlocked onsite.
I agree with the protection the engineer code provides & I think its important. But I dont agree with the rip off side of it.

altor

KoolKid wrote: »

I had a customer last week where a company wanted €190 + vat for the call out * €35 + vat for a device battery . .

That is cheap compared to others.
€300 plus VAT to change a battery..
Some company's are having a laugh charging this..

KoolKid

They are obviousally getting it though:eek:. People should shop around.

altor

KoolKid wrote: »

They are obviousally getting it though:eek:. People should shop around.

Have to agree.
Shocking to think people would actually pay this amount to have a battery changed :eek:

Thunderbird2

At the end of the day the PSA is just a money making racket .They dont properly inspect installers. The amount of half arsed licensed installers out there is unreal!
All it will take is for some dogy wiring to short and cause a fire and then maybe they'll inspect properly. I did work exp with a company and when home time was in sight everything was flung up . If they don't take pride in their work then why bother ?
If you were to take on lads would you not do spot checks to make sure it's done right ?

altor

Thunderbird2 wrote: »

At the end of the day the PSA is just a money making racket .They dont properly inspect installers. The amount of half arsed licensed installers out there is unreal!
All it will take is for some dogy wiring to short and cause a fire and then maybe they'll inspect properly. I did work exp with a company and when home time was in sight everything was flung up . If they don't take pride in their work then why bother ?
If you were to take on lads would you not do spot checks to make sure it's done right ?

They are not there to inspect installers work, just police the industry.
The EQA, NSAI and so on do that.

I remember a couple of installers that use to work for a company and install 4 alarm systems a day for him. There employer thought they where great till he got a few complaints about devises on windows not working. They where putting the sensors on the windows without wiring them in. Front and back door was as far as they got :eek:

Thunderbird2

Ah I understand now .. So they're still useless ? Haha .
Sure I know of an installer who ran unprotected alarm wire across a felt roof , down under gravel and up along a downpipe to an expander card .

altor

Thunderbird2 wrote: »

Ah I understand now .. So they're still useless ? Haha .
Sure I know of an installer who ran unprotected alarm wire across a felt roof , down under gravel and up along a downpipe to an expander card .

Not if your working in the door security industry. They seem to be doing a good job there

Thunderbird2

Well I suppose that's all they can do since they cannot enter a premises without permission from the owner to check an installer

altor

Thunderbird2 wrote: »

Well I suppose that's all they can do since they cannot enter a premises without permission from the owner to check an installer

They have the law on there side. Surely if they think that something is up they would have the power to do anything....

kub

Isn't it amazing that when things go quite in the electrical game all the lads suddenly get upset about regulations been introduced into the security business.

Just to repeat that electrical business and security business, they are different, it might do electricians well to remember that.

You guys do what ye do best, let us do what we do best.

altor

kub wrote: »

Isn't it amazing that when things go quite in the electrical game all the lads suddenly get upset about regulations been introduced into the security business.

Just to repeat that electrical business and security business, they are different, it might do electricians well to remember that.

You guys do what ye do best, let us do what we do best.

Is it not the E.U. enforcing this?

kub

altor wrote: »

Is it not the E.U. enforcing this?

Sorry Altor what I am reffering to is how the various electrical bodies were all over the media when the PSA assumed licensing of Access Control and CCTV.

I have a hunch if this was in the busy days a few years back, they would not have even mentioned it as all the electricians would have been too busy doing what they do best.

altor

kub wrote: »

Sorry Altor what I am reffering to is how the various electrical bodies were all over the media when the PSA assumed licensing of Access Control and CCTV.

I have a hunch if this was in the busy days a few years back, they would not have even mentioned it as all the electricians would have been too busy doing what they do best.

To be honest if it was the electricians complaining that made the E.U. get the PSA to bring down the fee then I am delighted. They have had it too good making money off the smaller company's charging them the same fee as larger company's who would have more of a turnover.

Irish Steve

And the issue that none of this has addressed is the jobbing repair man who (say) works for a company maintaining their properties, let's call him Paddy for convenience.

Paddy is probably close to retiring age, maybe just beyond it, and has been working in construction for all of his working life, and knows enough about electrics, gas, oil fired heating, alarms, CCTV and access control to be able to do "first fix" work on any and all of these systems, with the specialists only being called in for major projects.

With the way things are going, Paddy is effectively now unable to earn even a small living doing the work he's been doing all his working life because "the system" has decided that in order to do these jobs, Paddy has to be registered, licensed, qualified with 50 million pieces of paper to show for it, recertified on a regular basis, and carry half a million pieces of specialised test equipment with him just in case he needs it, and the vast bulk of the time, he's doing things like replacing sockets, or switches, or bulbs, maybe the occasional low voltage transformer, or a security sensor battery, maybe even a panel battery, or unblocking a sink, and any one of the myriad of minor repairs that are required on an ongoing basis around property,. Once in a while, he may also have to replace a consumer unit, or even a gas tap, the list is almost endless, about the only thing that's common to them all is that they are construction related work.

If CER and related bodies have their way, Paddy could end up doing time for some of these jobs he's been doing all his working life, and yet there are people out there like Mick and Fergus that have "paper" qualifications, so can apply to ECSSA, or RECI, or RGII, or PSA, or whichever other regulatory body you care to name, and they will be registered, but Paddy is out in the cold, can't work, and deemed "dangerous" or worse, simply because he learnt much of his trade on the job, or from in house training back in the days when getting a piece of paper to prove it was considered unneccessary, if you couldn't do the job, then you were out and had to find a new one, it was that simple.

Problem is, Paddy is the one that quite a few people call because he does a good job, leaves the place looking tidy when he's finished, and will make sure that the customer is happy at the end of the job. They don't call Mick or Fergus because their experience of using them has been bad, the reasons can be many.

So, what does Paddy do. All he wants to do is to carry on working, doing the simple straightforward jobs he's been doing for years without problems. He may even HAVEto carry on working because some gombeen group of politicians have screwed up his pension, and his property value, and his retirement plans by killing the domestic economy, but that's not the subject right now.

So, how does he do that. He either does whatever needs doing, and keeps quiet about the fact that at times, he's on thin ice with CER, or RECI, or whoever, or he tries to find a way to get into the closed club that's been set up for the lucky few that do have the right piece of paper. Likely as not, Paddy will have to do much of his work for cash to make sure the people that he does work for are not at risk, if he changes a battery on an alarm sensor, and issues a bill for doing it, not only is he probably breaking several laws, he's also putting the person that pays him at risk of a massive fine, just for using a person they've known for years and trust to do the job.

Seems to me that a much better way to deal with all of this would be to have a single construction industry registration body, and do away with RECI, ECSSA, PSA, and all the other registration body, and make it possible for people like Paddy, who can show a track record of having done acceptable work in relevant areas to register without having to prostitute themselves to do so. Yes, inspect work, either on a random basis, or on the basis of consumer request, and have logging systems so that work carried out is recorded on each location so that the person responsible can be traced if there is an issue. That concept may mean that Paddy has to be able to have access to people who have detailed knowledge of all the regulations so that he can check that he's using the right size wire, or the correct rating of breaker, or the right pressure gas hose, or whatever. That should be seen as a good thing, in that there is then a source of valid and correct information, and if a person doing a job is not certain of something, they can check exactly what is needed, rather than just relying on their interpretation of information that at times is not well presented.

That way, Paddy can register, do the work, and earn a living without breaking the law, his customers are secure because they have a log of anyone that has worked on their installation, and everyone is happy, and the risk of black economy work is reduced, as it can be traced, the owner has a motivation to ensure they get a certificate of work carried out, and if they don't, then the regulators can look at having sanctions that encourage owners or occupiers to comply.

The present system is a shambles, encourages black economy cash payments without any trace of who did the work, and allows many celtic tiger cowboys to get away with still working in an unsafe and dangerous manner because their training and experience did not equip them to do the job, all it really did was give them a piece of paper that's allowed them to abuse many Irish citizens since it was issued.

I've seen some of the work that they've done, and repaired some of it, and i know I'm not alone, the next 20 or so years are going to be a nightmare as all manner of shortcuts, and other failings, come out of the woodwork and possibly kill people.

Infighting between trades is nothing new, it used to happen years ago, and that was the beginning of the old restrictive practices that were eventually outlawed in most countries. Now, it's all creeping back in again, often under the guise of "Health & Safety".

I could say a lot more, but I won't, I will probably get abuse from some for posting this, but the crunch is that the safest way to police an industry is to make it very easy to get in to the system, and even easier to exclude someone if they are shown to not be worthy of remaining. That has to be better than preventing many from getting in, regardless of their actual skill level, as that leaves it open for a significant rump to remain out or be excluded, thus perpetuating the problem of people using unregistered people to do work for them.

2011

Update:

http://www.neci.ie/2013/02/psa-to-reduce-fee-by-e1000/

fred funk }{

The reduced fee is welcomed. There's a mistake in the article. It states the auditing fee of €1000 is every two years when it's actually every year. So, the actual cost was €4250 and is now €3250 for two years.

Thunderbird2

What exaclty is that money for ?