Why is safe electric necesssary ?

sparkfireman

Hi,

Just want to have an honest discussion about reci and the advantages / disadvantages of it.

This is how I see it. Mechanics, carpenters, builders, fitters, plumbers can all do things that can destroy property and kill someone.

Of course So can electricians.

But all these trades need 4+ years to train and get a qualification. There are a lot of exams and training to get through.

So my first point is:
All other trades can purchase insurance, do some work, get a van and start a business. But electricians however have to join “safe electric” and abide by their rules. Surely there’s a bit of discrimination going on there?

My second point:
To become a member of safe electric you have to do a testing course, purchase a meter, register and calibrate said meter, purchase insurance, register a business, apply for member ship to safe electric and take on a job. They then send an inspector to look at your work (that you have taken on) and then they decide whether to accept you or not. (This procedure is from their website).
Why is it electricians have to do it? Surely 2 yearly courses, upskilling etc would suffice.

Third point:
I just think that it’s very unfair on newly qualified lads who now have to wait 4+ years post apprenticeship before being allowed to register and go out on their own. No other rules exist for other trades.

I firmly believe that safe electric should be just in place to bring out regs and handle complaints. It’s shouldn’t be allowed decide if I can or cannot go out on my own.

Anyone got anything to add ?

kramer1

sparkfireman wrote: »

Hi,

Just want to have an honest discussion about reci and the advantages / disadvantages of it.

This is how I see it. Mechanics, carpenters, builders, fitters, plumbers can all do things that can destroy property and kill someone.

Of course So can electricians.

But all these trades need 4+ years to train and get a qualification. There are a lot of exams and training to get through.

So my first point is:
All other trades can purchase insurance, do some work, get a van and start a business. But electricians however have to join “safe electric” and abide by their rules. Surely there’s a bit of discrimination going on there?

My second point:
To become a member of safe electric you have to do a testing course, purchase a meter, register and calibrate said meter, purchase insurance, register a business, apply for member ship to safe electric and take on a job. They then send an inspector to look at your work (that you have taken on) and then they decide whether to accept you or not. (This procedure is from their website).
Why is it electricians have to do it? Surely 2 yearly courses, upskilling etc would suffice.

Third point:
I just think that it’s very unfair on newly qualified lads who now have to wait 4+ years post apprenticeship before being allowed to register and go out on their own. No other rules exist for other trades.

I firmly believe that safe electric should be just in place to bring out regs and handle complaints. It’s shouldn’t be allowed decide if I can or cannot go out on my own.

Anyone got anything to add ?

You make some good points. I don’t think that safe electric in itself is a bad idea, keeps standards high, has definitely raised the level of testing being done on domestic installation s , when I started out , nobody did it , I honestly think that’s more of a problem at the training/ Fas level than anything else, they’ll bang on all day about 40 year old motors but don’t teach any real testing.
My belief is that certification and inspection massively increases the chances of a place actually having been tested, I think safe electric a worthwhile for that alone.
As regards other trades, I know plumbers do have to join rgi if they want to work on gas , don’t know anything about mechanics etc.

karlitob

Knowing nothing about trades but a bit on professional standards, qualifications, qualification recognition and regulation I would say that all trades should have a regulatory body than can assess their application to join a register, have protection of title, be regularly monitored for the quality of their work, and be removed from the register in compliance with the law.

That said, this varies significantly between professions. Not knowing your trade or requirements, I would say it’s not particularly onerous when compared to other professions. However, I’m interested to learn more about having to wait 4 years before you can start a business.

A lot of professions, like medicine or law, you’re allowed practice under supervision - a junior doctor. Other professions you can’t practice independently - like nursing. But for things like physio or speech and language, you can practice independently upon qualification (ie open a business). Obviously you won’t be as good as someone with 20 years experience but you’ve been assessed as being competent by your university, that course has been accredited by your regulator - I can’t see what’s stopping your from working privately. That’s a real issue. You’re stopping people from earning a crust by setting a higher bar than other similar trades. If that’s the case that you’re regulator believes new graduates are not safe for 4 more years, then they need to increase the level required to qualify or spend longer in training with more supervised practice to show safety.

But what would I know.

K.Flyer

So just for a comparison...

As a Registered Gas Installer, we have to go through much of the same in order to carry out any work related to Gas.
Have to prove through examination, both written and practical, that you know how to work safely with Gas.
Have to have the correct level of insurance.
Have to have correct analytical equipment.
Have to have it checked and calibrated yearly.
You must have at least one copy of Gas Standards for reference.
Each year you will have an on site inspection to demonstrate that you are still working safely.
You must re-sit your written and practical exam every Five Years to prove you still work safely and are up to date with all regulations and work practices.

Now the RGI body keep an eye on all of this. They know if you are insured or not, that your certification is up to date and that you have your annual inspection.

This, hopefully, keeps everything straight, both from an operations and regulatory point, ensures those doing the work are checked and qualified to do gas works and offers peace of mind to the house holder that the person walking in their door knows what they should or shouldn't be doing and is not an unqualified cowboy.

In the same way, if I want any electrical work done, I want someone who is qualified in the same way and certified through a regulatory body to carry out safe work..

Gashmuncher

See link to Decision Paper from CER, now CRU with full explanation of why it was felt necessary to Regulate Electrical Works and restrict certain works to Registered Electrical Contractors.This followed Voluntary regulation which had operated since 1992. There was full advertised public consolation and this was the time to have your say.
There is Incorrect information above regarding having to wait 4 years to register, any person can register as long as they employ at lest one qualified electrician who has completed a QC course, have test equipment and are insured.

https://safeelectric.ie/contractors/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/restrictedWorks.pdf

Bad electricians dislike Safe Electric the same as criminals dislike the police

2011

sparkfireman wrote: »

I just think that it’s very unfair on newly qualified lads who now have to wait 4+ years post apprenticeship before being allowed to register and go out on their own. No other rules exist for other trades.

I don't think this is correct. Have you a link to support this?

All other trades can purchase insurance, do some work, get a van and start a business. But electricians however have to join “safe electric” and abide by their rules. Surely there’s a bit of discrimination going on there?

As above, what about RGI?

Why is it electricians have to do it? Surely 2 yearly courses, upskilling etc would suffice.

Not a chance.
Apprenticeships are 4 years long, after this many electricians still have a lot to learn. I think that short cuts to this qualification would be detrimental to the trade.

The easier it is to obtain a given qualification the more worthless it is and with this the earning potential reduces.

I firmly believe that safe electric should be just in place to bring out regs and handle complaints.

You are misinformed.
Safe Electric have never "brought out regs" nor should they.
The rules are the national rules for electrical installations, IS10101. These are written by an NSAI technical committee, not RECI / Safe Electric. To my knowledge RECI / Safe Electric never expressed an interest in writing the wiring rules. Having said that they are represented on the technical committee (as are the IET).

It’s shouldn’t be allowed decide if I can or cannot go out on my own.

Are you a competent electrician? If so, what is your concern?

There are aspects of RECI that I am not a fan of but without any sort regulation it would be a race to the bottom. Conscientious electrical contractors would be out priced on every job by cowboys every day of the week.

2011

Gashmuncher wrote: »

See link to Decision Paper from CER, now CRU with full explanation of why it was felt necessary to Regulate Electrical Works and restrict certain works to Registered Electrical Contractors.

In my view Restricted Works was designed on deal with tax evasion specifically in relation to domestic installations, nothing else.
I believe this is blatantly obvious as it precludes installations that inherently carry far higher risk.

Examples of electrical work that Restricted Works does not apply to:
- All commercial installations
- All industrial installations
- All ATEX installation (potentially explosive atmospheres)
- All MV / HV installations

^^^ What other plausible reason could there be not to include the above in the defenition of Restricted Works?

Bad electricians dislike Safe Electric the same as criminals dislike the police

It si not that black and white in my view.
For example, I don't agree with how this REC was treated by Safe Electric, see link:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058182011

sparkfireman

Read that thread about the contractor with the poor IR reading. That’s very unfair. It’s things like that… the grey area…

With regards to the rgi guys. I fully appreciate the hoops needed to jump through to be registered. But on the other hand, plumbers “don’t” need to be rgi to do plumbing on a house. They need it to work on gas. An electrician needs to be safe electric to work on a house. They have no other option.

It just beggars belief that in my own circumstance that I work as an industrial electrician, doing everything from three phase boards, isolators, motors, fire alarms, office lighting, networking etc… but in order to wire my brothers extension I need to be reci. Like it’s completely counter productive. (My works in my job are tested certified)

Like giving someone points for a light too close to a wardrobe is pathetic I think.

godtabh

Why is 4 years before you can register an issue? I doubt the day you qualify you know everything there is to know and would still be learning?

I'm a charted engineer. I had to wait 4 years before I had the experience/competence to be come a chartered engineer. I wouldn't get PI with out becoming chartered. Seems fairly standard.

2011

godtabh wrote: »

Why is 4 years before you can register an issue?

As above I do not believe that this is a requirement. My understanding is that you can register the day you qualify.

2011

sparkfireman wrote: »

With regards to the rgi guys. I fully appreciate the hoops needed to jump through to be registered.

Yes, becasue just like electricity a gas installer that cuts corners could easily result in a fatality.

But on the other hand, plumbers “don’t” need to be rgi to do plumbing on a house.

This is due to the risk. Poor plumbing is unlikley to kill someone.

It just beggars belief that in my own circumstance that I work as an industrial electrician

.... for a REC I assume? So essentally you as an employee of a REC the work you do is essentially carried out by a REC.

but in order to wire my brothers extension I need to be reci.

Please suggest how you think it should be ensured that the person working on your brother's extension and similar installations complies with the following:

1) Has proper insurance
2) Is a qualified electrican
3) Has calibrated test equipment
4) Is trained in using said test equipment
5) Certifies the electrical work
6) Complies with IS10101

maxamillius

Not sure how solas does things now but they definitely need to emphasise the testing and certification process. I know there is a separate course to do this but it should form a heavy part of the 4 year apprenticeship, they could probably lessen the amount of time spent on motor control etc.

I’ll be the first to admit I wouldn’t be up to speed on testing. I’d be confident with my install skills and would be very detailed however the testing would let me down. To this day I still think about going on the course (Don’t work as a REC) but I’d like to be able to say that I can do it confidently should the need ever arise.

aido79

I think one of the main reasons for Safe electric is to stop people who aren't actually electricians from doing electrical work in people's homes which was very common years ago.
It also ensures there is someone who can be held responsible if something goes wrong after the work has been completed. Insurance companies are probably the main reason for safe electric being set up.

Domestic work is targeted because it is more likely for the likes of handymen to take on jobs in people's homes rather than industrial or commercial installations which have always needed to be properly tested and signed off.

I and I'm sure most other electricians have seen work done by handymen which is nothing short of dangerous. Restricting electrical works to Reci registered contractors is a step in the right direction to eliminating this.

Bruthal.

aido79 wrote: »

Domestic work is targeted because it is more likely for the likes of handymen to take on jobs in people's homes rather than industrial or commercial installations which have always needed to be properly tested and signed off.

The main motive was revenue.

2011

aido79 wrote: »

Domestic work is targeted because it is more likely for the likes of handymen to take on jobs in people's homes rather than industrial or commercial installations which have always needed to be properly tested and signed off.

This (the bold part) is definitely not the case!

kramer1

Yeah I’ve seen some fairly horrific commercial work, don’t know about industrial but I assume there’s good and bad in every part of the industry .

Gashmuncher

2011 wrote: »

It si not that black and white in my view.
For example, I don't agree with how this REC was treated by Safe Electric, see link:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058182011

I have seen nothing in this thread that confirms that the Safe Electric inspector was incorrect in determining the OP had not left the Short during original construction. There seems to be an incredible belief by some posters here that Safe Electric is wrong and the OP is right. Incredibly no one asks exactly what caused the dead short , it should have been easy for the OP to provide a photo.

It is my opinion that Safe Electric correctly identified that the OP did not correctly carry out the Insulation Resistance and left a dead short (N-E).
This is not so incredible because as has been identified many times on this forum, most electricians can’t correctly test,

There are two possibilities here
(a) Installer did not correctly test and left a dead short (N-E) behind
(b) Safe Electric Imspector blamed OP for fault created by some unknown person in a nearly new installation which no other electrician had worked on

I know where my money would be, but then I don’t have an axe to grind with Safe Electric

kramer1

Gashmuncher wrote: »

I have seen nothing in this thread that confirms that the Safe Electric inspector was incorrect in determining the OP had not left the Short during original construction. There seems to be an incredible belief by some posters here that Safe Electric is wrong and the OP is right. Incredibly no one asks exactly what caused the dead short , it should have been easy for the OP to provide a photo.

It is my opinion that Safe Electric correctly identified that the OP did not correctly carry out the Insulation Resistance and left a dead short (N-E).
This is not so incredible because as has been identified many times on this forum, most electricians can’t correctly test,

There are two possibilities here
(a) Installer did not correctly test and left a dead short (N-E) behind
(b) Safe Electric Imspector blamed OP for fault created by some unknown person in a nearly new installation which no other electrician had worked on

I know where my money would be, but then I don’t have an axe to grind with Safe Electric

We choose which jobs get inspected, you’d want to be a moron not to test the job that is getting inspected. Insulation resistance test takes minutes, also , why write a post on boards about it if you never tested the place?

2011

Gashmuncher wrote: »

I know where my money would be, but then I don’t have an axe to grind with Safe Electric

….and I would bet the other way. The truth is either of us could be correct as there was no definitive conclusion. This is why a reputation damaging judgment should not have been reached.

Like you I have no axe to grind with Safe Electric. I’m not a REC, although I’m a qualified electrician I haven’t worked on my tools since early 2006 and I have no dealings with Safe Electric whatsoever in my work or otherwise.

Gashmuncher

The day of contractors choosing which installation to bring an inspector to went away with ECSSA, and their inspections simply consisted of taking meter serial numbers in the van. No reliable inspection process could let the client being inspected cherry pick where the inspection will occur.

My experience has been that the inspector chooses a recently submitted certificate and that where the inspection happens. This is backed up by the extracts from the Safe Electric Newsletters as below.

Page 8

https://safeelectric.ie/contractors/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/12/Safe-Electric-Newsletter.pdf

The extent of this issue is becoming clear as we
move towards focusing our annual inspections on
actual certificates submitted

Gashmuncher

2011 wrote: »

…. reputation damaging judgment should not have been reached. .

Any details on this "reputation damaging judgement" or explanation how the electricians reputation would be damaged.
The results of the inspection are private between the electrician and Safe Electric. It was the electrician decided to post this information on a public forum.

It is my opinion that the Safe Electric Inspector would have failed in his job is he did not record the Insulation Resistance failure in a nearly new installation.
Note "No other person or electrician worked on the job" who else could have caused the fault but the OP.??

2011

Gashmuncher wrote: »

It is my opinion that the Safe Electric Inspector would have failed in his job is he did not record the Insulation Resistance failure in a nearly new installation.

As addressed in the thread nobody suggested that the fail should not have been acknowledged and recorded.

Note "No other person or electrician worked on the job" who else could have caused the fault but the OP.??

Anyone that put a screw or a nail in a wall or ceiling could have caused that fault.

My experience has been that the inspector chooses a recently submitted certificate and that where the inspection happens.

What experience is that?

aido79

Bruthal. wrote: »

The main motive was revenue.

I think that may be part of it but I don't believe it was the main reason. The amount of revenue missed out on would be negligible.
Do you honestly believe it doesn't make homes safer by ensuring electrical work is done and tested by registered contractors rather than handymen?

aido79

2011 wrote: »

This (the bold part) is definitely not the case!

Are you saying that commercial and industrial work isn't properly tested and signed off...or at least just signed off with someone taking responsibility for it?

Gashmuncher

2011 wrote: »

Anyone that put a screw or a nail in a wall or ceiling could have caused that fault.?

Which is why it amazing that no one asked the original poster to explain and maybe provide photos of what caused the insulation resistance fault

2011 wrote: »

What experience is that?

My experience of being inspected by Safe Elecric, The inspector selects the job from recently submitted certificates at random times of the year. This experience has also been that inspectors are helpful, professional and keen to help with tips and information. Some posters here won't know that as they have no dealings with Safe Electric, but they are quick to reach conclusions from unsubstinated allegations which provide no backup or proof. This is also how I know that defects found during inspections are private between the electrician and Safe Electric and therefore can cause no reputional damage.
By the way my inspector also told me that almost 25% of onsite Insulation Resistance tests uncover a neutral to earth dead short which the original tester did not find.

knipex

2011 wrote:

As above I do not believe that this is a requirement. My understanding is that you can register the day you qualify.

To my knowledge you don't even need to have qualified just passed the inspection course. That was the case a few years back anyway as I know a fitter who registered with RECI..

Victor

One thing amount strict rules for domestic installations. People sleep at home, they tend not to sleep at work. This means domestic fire risks are higher.

Non-domestic installations would likely have a better maintenance regime than domestic installations and subject to less 'ah sure I'll do it myself' behavior.

knipex

maxamillius wrote:

Not sure how solas does things now but they definitely need to emphasise the testing and certification process. I know there is a separate course to do this but it should form a heavy part of the 4 year apprenticeship, they could probably lessen the amount of time spent on motor control etc.

Not all electricans wire houses. Many spend their entire careers doing "motor control etc."

I served my time as an electrician and the only time I wired a socket or a light switch was in phase 2 and 5 or when my employer made me demonstrate before signing off that section of my handbook, and when I installed one in my own house.

I'm far from unique guys (in the non gender specific meaning) served their time in the ESB working as lines men on high voltage. Guys building panels, working facilities or industrial wiring, building panels, in automation houses, machine tool maintenance etc..

Most of my career (bar 3 years when I did some high voltage panel work) was (and to an extent still is) low voltage controls, automation, signalling etc..

In fact when the new apprenticeship launched back in the mid 90's it was more focused on the "motor control's etc" but the failure rates and demand from unions and construction industry rapidly refocused it. Unions also fought against splitting the trade at the time..

No offence but domestic wiring is only the a small part of the trade, and to be honest if that's all apprentices we're trained to do it wouldn't require 4 full years..

2011

Gashmuncher wrote: »

Which is why it amazing that no one asked the original poster to explain and maybe provide photos of what caused the insulation resistance fault

Not quite.
I did suggest that the OP writes a report and includes photos. At the time of the thread the fault had not been found and the REC had only been given 30 minutes to find it.

I believe that it is possible that once tests were completed an object such as a nail or screw could have been installed which could have caused the fault. You do not seem to share that view, and have yet to state why.
The OP also stated that cupboards had been installed after the wiring was completed.

I accept that the REC may have been responsible but the finding was not conclusive.

I think that the inspector should have recorded the fault and insisted on a return visit during which the REC should have resolve the issue and show his findings.

I was trying to strike a balance in that thread, if you read it you will also see that I was the first to state that getting a solicitor involved was a bad idea. I am also trying to be balanced in this thread, as can be seen most of my posts are supportive of the need for RECI.

My experience of being inspected by Safe Elecric

So do you still have “skin in the game” or are you now in a different line of work?

aido79 wrote: »

Are you saying that commercial and industrial work isn't properly tested and signed off...or at least just signed off with someone taking responsibility for it?

Electrical work in commercial and industrial installations is not always signed off. This happens in particular with maintenance work when it impacts on production.

Victor wrote: »

One thing amount strict rules for domestic installations. People sleep at home, they tend not to sleep at work. This means domestic fire risks are higher.

A few things here:
1) The rules for industrial tend to be more strict than domestic as IS10101 is seen as a minimum and the issued scope of work normally imposes more onerous requirements.
2) People also sleep premises other than houses such as in hotels
3) There are many industrial installations that have a far higher fire risk and even explosion risk. This includes installations with furnaces, solvents, explosive gases, oil refineries etc...

2011

aido79 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe it doesn't make homes safer by ensuring electrical work is done and tested by registered contractors rather than handymen?

There is a third way, which is safer again. I remember how it was, because I am old

Back in the day as non-REC's we arrived at the ESB office and asked for a blank completion certificate, these were free. Then we went and wired the house (I was a very junior "helper" at the time). Once the work was completed we tested the installation, completed the paperwork including the certificate and handed it back to the ESB. Then the ESB would send an inspector out who would thoroughly inspect our work. The result was 100% inspections.

Being a REC does not make one electrician somehow more qualified or more conscientious than an electrician that isn’t a REC.

knipex wrote: »

No offence but domestic wiring is only the a small part of the trade, and to be honest if that's all apprentices we're trained to do it wouldn't require 4 full years..

I think that this depends very much on the house.

aido79

2011 wrote: »

There is a third way, which is safer again. I remember how it was, because I am old

Back in the day as non-REC's we arrived at the ESB office and asked for a blank completion certificate, these were free. Then we went and wired the house (I was a very junior "helper" at the time). Once the work was completed we tested the installation, completed the paperwork including the certificate and handed it back to the ESB. Then the ESB would send an inspector out who would thoroughly inspect our work. The result was 100% inspections.

Being a REC does not make one electrician somehow more qualified or more conscientious than an electrician that isn’t a REC.

This is a good system for wiring new houses but it doesn't provide any accountability for the situations that come up on these threads every other week where someone wants a shed or an extension wired or work done in an old house. Without a system like safe electric anyone who has even a little bit of knowledge of electrical work could "have a go" at it as happened back in the day as well.

If anything goes wrong with any of this type of work where there is no test certificates or proof that the work was actually carried out by a qualified electrician there is no come back. Insurance companies will not pay out if there is a fire in an uncertified installation.

You're right being a REC doesn't make someone a better electrician but having to put their signature on the cert and taking full responsibility for the work is an incentive to do it right.

2011

aido79 wrote: »

Without a system like safe electric anyone who has even a little bit of knowledge of electrical work could "have a go" at it as happened back in the day as well.

I think you have misread my post, I would not support unqualified people having a go either.
What I have described resulted in 100% independent inspection by a technically competent person.
In today's world this could be Safe Electric.

I remember wiring a milking parlour as a qualified electrcian but not a REC.
I paid RECI to inspect my work, that is how I got it certifed.
Would you have an issue with that?

If anything goes wrong with any of this type of work where there is no test certificates or proof that the work was actually carried out by a qualified electrician there is no come back.

Again, I think you have misunderstood.
Paperwork is essential, the ESB gave us this for free at the time.

Insurance companies will not pay out if there is a fire in an uncertified installation.

I do not believe this is correct. There are installations up and down the country that have no certification. We often get posters on this forum stating that the home they live in was wired in the 1970's (or thereabouts).

Bedsides, I think you have misread my post.
The work we did back then was:
1) Certified by us and then inspected by the ESB.
2) Had a completion certificate + test record sheets (by us).
3) The work was carried out and tested by a qualified person (us).
4) The paperwork was signed off by the installer who tested (us).

I was just the general dogs body / made the tea etc... I only did basic labouring.
I did not personally test or connect anything (I was just a kid).

You're right being a REC doesn't make someone a better electrician but having to put their signature on the cert and taking full responsibility for the work is an incentive to do it right.

Back in the day, we still had to sign the certificates and needed to be qualified, so no change there.

aido79

2011 wrote: »

I think you have misread my post, I would not support unqualified people having a go either.
What I have described resulted in 100% independent inspection by a technically competent person.
In today's world this could be Safe Electric.

I remember wiring a milking parlour as a qualified electrcian but not a REC.
I paid RECI to inspect my work, that is how I got it certifed.
Would you have an issue with that?



Again, I think you have misunderstood.
Paperwork is essential, the ESB gave us this for free at the time.



I do not believe this is correct. There are installations up and down the country that have no certification. We often get posters on this forum stating that the home they live in was wired in the 1970's (or thereabouts).

Bedsides, I think you have misread my post.
The work we did back then was:
1) Certified by us and then inspected by the ESB.
2) Had a completion certificate + test record sheets (by us).
3) The work was carried out and tested by a qualified person (us).
4) The paperwork was signed off by the installer who tested (us).

I was just the general dogs body / made the tea etc... I only did basic labouring.
I did not personally test or connect anything (I was just a kid).




Back in the day, we still had to sign the certificates and needed to be qualified, so no change there.

I suppose I'm just really talking about the handymen that have a go at electrical work with no paperwork or testing involved.
I would have no problem with a qualified electrician doing work on any installation as long as it tested properly. This is something that a lot of the time when electricians and apprentices do nixers. I would be in favour of allowing a REC test and certify work done by a qualified electrician as used to be common but is now not allowed.

I would imagine insurance companies take into consideration that the wiring in older houses may not be up to current specifications when calculating policies but I just can't imagine them paying out if electrical work that was never properly tested and certified was the cause of a house fire.

The older system you are describing worked well and I think safe electric is probably a step too far in the limitations it places on what a qualified electrician can and can't do if they are not registered but I think something needed to be done to try to eliminate some of the cowboy work that was done previously.

2011

aido79 wrote: »

I would imagine insurance companies take into consideration that the wiring in older houses may not be up to current specifications when calculating policies but I just can't imagine them paying out if electrical work that was never properly tested and certified was the cause of a house fire.

I bought my home in 2006, I have yet to receive a completion certificate. This is despite requesting the certificate directly from the electrical contractor and raising the issue with RECI when the REC refused. It is the same for everyone else in my estate. Each house was wired with a total of 2 socket circuits :eek: but that's another story.

Most people that buy a second hand house would not be able to tell you who wired it never mind find the completion certificate for it. This applies in particular to houses that were built in the eighties or before.

aido79

2011 wrote: »

I bought my home in 2006, I have yet to receive a completion certificate. This is despite requesting the certificate directly from the electrical contractor and raising the issue with RECI when the REC refused. It is the same for everyone else in my estate. Each house was wired with a total of 2 socket circuits :eek: but that's another story.

Most people that buy a second hand house would not be able to tell you who wired it never mind find the completion certificate for it. This applies in particular to houses that were built in the eighties or before.

I think you've just answered the question in the thread title there.
How many people who bought houses that were built after safe electric was established would not have RECI certs for their homes do you think?

2011

aido79 wrote: »

I think you've just answered the question in the thread title there.

I think I answered before this, but I was entitled to a completion cert before Safe Electric existed.

How many people who bought houses that were built after safe electric was established would not have RECI certs for their homes do you think?

I have no idea, I would like to think that this problem has reduced.

I think that the significant change since is that now an unsatisfactory response from RECI / Safe Electric can be raised the issue with the CRU.
When I was having issues with my house that option was not open to me.

Having said that I still think that Safe Electric is a good idea, the thread has just veered into other areas.

alan4cult

I have no issue with Safe Electric but I think the definition of minor works needs to be cleared up.

The definition is somewhat vague and allows like for like replacements. This could be actually include a lot of handyman jobs e.g. new light, new light switch, new socket.
I mean a like for like replacement can go wrong e.g. earth not looped to next socket, dropped neutral.

Also POE/IOT wiring is becoming very common and although lower and DC voltage it may involve overlap with existing AC circuits. Is replacing a light switch with a WiFI switch allowed, how about a socket or WiFi controlled relay and you can't say these are specialist items anymore.

maxamillius

knipex wrote: »

Not all electricans wire houses. Many spend their entire careers doing "motor control etc."

I served my time as an electrician and the only time I wired a socket or a light switch was in phase 2 and 5 or when my employer made me demonstrate before signing off that section of my handbook, and when I installed one in my own house.

I'm far from unique guys (in the non gender specific meaning) served their time in the ESB working as lines men on high voltage. Guys building panels, working facilities or industrial wiring, building panels, in automation houses, machine tool maintenance etc..

Most of my career (bar 3 years when I did some high voltage panel work) was (and to an extent still is) low voltage controls, automation, signalling etc..

In fact when the new apprenticeship launched back in the mid 90's it was more focused on the "motor control's etc" but the failure rates and demand from unions and construction industry rapidly refocused it. Unions also fought against splitting the trade at the time..

No offence but domestic wiring is only the a small part of the trade, and to be honest if that's all apprentices we're trained to do it wouldn't require 4 full years..

Two years (year 3 and 4) wiring motor control panels in FAS is too much in my opinion. Why focus on it when the electrical industry is so diverse? Yes domestic is only a small part, but testing and verification spans the entire industry so why put so much effort into motor control, which to be fair is only another small part.

ESB linesmen are a completely different kettle of fish and again would have no particular use for motor control.

Anyway my point is there should be more of a focus on testing and verification, there may be now but there wasn’t when I served my time.

Bruthal.

aido79 wrote: »

I think that may be part of it but I don't believe it was the main reason. The amount of revenue missed out on would be negligible.
Do you honestly believe it doesn't make homes safer by ensuring electrical work is done and tested by registered contractors rather than handymen?

Are plumbers still wiring entire domestic heating control systems these days? I dont keep up with it now as im little more than a handyman myself at this stage.

2011

Bruthal. wrote: »

Are plumbers still wiring entire domestic heating control systems these days? I dont keep up with it now as im little more than a handyman myself at this stage.

Yes, and they are permitted to.

Bruthal.

2011 wrote: »

Yes, and they are permitted to.

Revenue it is so.

aido79

2011 wrote: »

I think I answered before this, but I was entitled to a completion cert before Safe Electric existed.



I have no idea, I would like to think that this problem has reduced.

I think that the significant change since is that now an unsatisfactory response from RECI / Safe Electric can be raised the issue with the CRU.
When I was having issues with my house that option was not open to me.

Having said that I still think that Safe Electric is a good idea, the thread has just veered into other areas.

I think it was poor form for the REC not to issue you with a certificate and would hope that safe electric is a step towards ensuring that certificates are issued when anything other than minor works is undertaken especially wiring a whole house.

aido79

Bruthal. wrote: »

Revenue it is so.

I honestly don't believe so. How much do you think revenue make from safe electric? I imagine that the amount would be negligible in the grand scheme of things compared to what they previously would have made pre safe electric.

I think it's more a case of the person doing the work taking responsibility for it legally.

I have no idea about the plumber installing wiring for a heating system but maybe someone else can provide information on whether or not they have to supply a certificate for the work they do.

Bruthal.

aido79 wrote: »

I honestly don't believe so. How much do you think revenue make from safe electric? I imagine that the amount would be negligible in the grand scheme of things compared to what they previously would have made pre safe electric.

I think it's more a case of the person doing the work taking responsibility for it legally.

I have no idea about the plumber installing wiring for a heating system but maybe someone else can provide information on whether or not they have to supply a certificate for the work they do.

No testing required. I guess once the REC tests as far as the spur, it doesnt matter who installs what after it. It will be safe then. I wonder why plumbers can do that (not minor work in terms of size) but a qualified person cant change an MCB in his own DB. Safety I guess.

I suppose the fact legally I should call in a REC to change an MCB on my DB is safer than me doing it also.

The safest of all was, person installs, and independent person inspects after.

The majority of domestic (nixer) installations were likely done by qualified people, cash in hand. Im sure it was more than a negligible amount.

aido79

Bruthal. wrote: »

No testing required. I guess once the REC tests as far as the spur, it doesnt matter who installs what after it. It will be safe then. I wonder why plumbers can do that (not minor work in terms of size) but a qualified person cant change an MCB in his own DB. Safety I guess.

I suppose the fact legally I should call in a REC to change an MCB on my DB is safer than me doing it also.

The safest of all was, person installs, and independent person inspects after.

The majority of domestic (nixer) installations were likely done by qualified people, cash in hand. Im sure it was more than a negligible amount.

It doesn't make sense really does it that a plumber can do more electrical work in a house than a qualified electrician.

Every trade has people doing nixers and that will always be the case. Domestic installations done as nixers are rarely done for huge amounts of money when the cost of the gear is taken out of it so I would still say the amount is negligible.

Bruthal.

aido79 wrote: »

It doesn't make sense really does it that a plumber can do more electrical work in a house than a qualified electrician.

Not if safety was the primary motive.

Every trade has people doing nixers and that will always be the case. Domestic installations done as nixers are rarely done for huge amounts of money when the cost of the gear is taken out of it so I would still say the amount is negligible.

Negligible is a relative term. The state doesnt like losing any of its its revenue streams, no matter how negligible a particular source is.

maxamillius

Had my boiler replaced recently, Plumber did the internal wiring of the boiler and left flex out of burner and pump for me to connect to mains.

Switched on and burner didn’t fire, I opened up the thermostat on the boiler and there was a link missing and the connections to the thermostats were an absolute disaster.

Plumber was a very capable plumber and I wouldn’t knock him, however there is absolutely no reason a plumber should be allowed carry out any sort of electrical terminations, ahead of me, a qualified electrician (not a REC).

You could go around the houses with this discussion, I do think there has to be a process in place whereby installations are verified to be safe, but also in the same breath I say, I know my capabilities and my limits, if a family member or friend asks for help I wouldn’t say no.

Although I must say I do like telling the vast majority that I cant help them as I’m not a REC. it’s a great excuse to get out of doing nixers, which I absolutely hate doing!!!!

2011

aido79 wrote: »

It doesn't make sense really does it that a plumber can do more electrical work in a house than a qualified electrician.

This is not the case. Anyone can do “minor works”. It is not limited to plumbers. I’m not saying I agree with this I’m say that is how it is. I emailed CER (now the CRU) about this years ago. A link to the email and the official response is in the forum charter.

maxamillius

2011 wrote: »

This is not the case. Anyone can do “minor works”. It is not limited to plumbers. I’m not saying I agree with this I’m say that is how it is. I emailed CER (now the CRU) about this years ago. A link to the email and the official response is in the forum charter.

Apologies yes I stand corrected on that, I suppose it goes for anyone doing minor works. Not much difference in All reality changing a socket and changing an MCB (domestic single phase), both require correct terminations and safe isolation before working on,so i don’t really see why “minor” works can be undertaken by anyone.

aido79

2011 wrote: »

This is not the case. Anyone can do “minor works”. It is not limited to plumbers. I’m not saying I agree with this I’m say that is how it is. I emailed CER (now the CRU) about this years ago. A link to the email and the official response is in the forum charter.

Sorry I phrased that wrong. So in terms of minor works is an unregistered electrician allowed to connect anything to a spur as long as they're not touching the board?

aido79

maxamillius wrote: »

Had my boiler replaced recently, Plumber did the internal wiring of the boiler and left flex out of burner and pump for me to connect to mains.

Switched on and burner didn’t fire, I opened up the thermostat on the boiler and there was a link missing and the connections to the thermostats were an absolute disaster.

Plumber was a very capable plumber and I wouldn’t knock him, however there is absolutely no reason a plumber should be allowed carry out any sort of electrical terminations, ahead of me, a qualified electrician (not a REC).

You could go around the houses with this discussion, I do think there has to be a process in place whereby installations are verified to be safe, but also in the same breath I say, I know my capabilities and my limits, if a family member or friend asks for help I wouldn’t say no.

Although I must say I do like telling the vast majority that I cant help them as I’m not a REC. it’s a great excuse to get out of doing nixers, which I absolutely hate doing!!!!

There really should be some proper training for plumbers if they are going to undertake this kind of work.
I used to work in Australia where all electricians need to be licenced whether contractors or not. A plumber there can apply for a restricted electrical licence to allow them to do work like this but they need to do a course to get the licence.

I also use that excuse to avoid doing nixers as well. They really aren't worth it.