Why should I use a Registered Electrical Contractor?

antiskeptic

alta stare wrote: »

Unqualified is one thing but non reci seems to be the devil's work by some here. There are plenty sparks who are very good at what they do but arent reci so they should not do any work???. To me it is a bit ott to say they cannot do electrical work just because reci have not received money off them. Its a stupid setup.

Now anyone body who isnt a qualified sparks should not be allowed no where near electrical systems, this we all agree on. I have worked with lads who arent sparks who have tapped into immersion circuits, consumer units, lighting circuits etc when they shouldn't of. It is happening all the time and it is these lads who should be chased not those who are actually qualified but non reci.

Suppose a situation where a rec is brought in to advise what needs to be done and signs off on that advice given.

The onus is now on the person carrying out the work to display competancy. On pain of insurance claim or prosecution.

antiskeptic

Bruthal wrote: »

It has become the absolute driver now, listening every week about how we have had 2 million etc man hours without incident. All lies and cover ups to look good to the client. A person gets injured. Get them to clock in and head off, even though totally unfit for work.

It has become a box ticking exercise alright. But there is no doubt, many involved actually believe it.

I had the secret pleasure of arriving at the gates of a sister company (large multinational) in France. They had a large board up at the entrance gate proudly displaying their health and safety stats.

"Days since last accident = 0"

Knowing the hoops jumped through to massage the stats it must have been a big un.

antiskeptic

Bruthal wrote: »

There definitely is a balance of cost v risk. We often hear that if it saves one life, its worth it. That`s fantasy land stuff.

Everything people do involves risk. Ban drink and lots of lives will be saved. Cars, motorbikes etc all have huge risks compared to the difference between a house wired now with all regulations, compared to a house wired 30 years ago with few or none.

If a non rec wires a house, and it burns down, the blame will be automatic im sure.

Which leads me to suppose the whole reci gig is a vested interest driven idea.

Tuco88

Why have one body as it currently stands? Thats another gimmick. Its was 2 before it should be 3 minimum.

Bruthal

2011 wrote: »

Personally I feel that only a qualified electrician should be permitted to wire an entire installation and they should not need to be registered to wire their own home.

Yes, plumbers wiring the heating controls, which are hardly a minor job, while a qualified person cant swap an MCB, is evidence of what its all about.

Bruthal

Steve wrote: »

I don't agree with non REC but competent persons being disallowed doing work in their own property even though they may have many many years experience in industry (as opposed to rafter monkey domestic) and would only do the work to a much higher standard. e.g. me.

Yes that`s one big one which to me is silly. I would have competent as being qualified and competent, although the latter is harder to ascertain, if a qualified electrician was to be permitted to wire his own home. But no harder than a qualified REC, be it the REC in person, or his employee(s).

Stoner

All, what's with the Rafter Monkey Stuff!!

Its the beginning of the transformation into the Forum Killing Super Sparks

That big green all earthing, all bonding, all bending, all regulation knowing monster that kills the forum!!

Plenty of good domestic guys out there, plenty of industrial guys who have a very limited skill set.

IMO a good trades person will transfer very well to either and a poor one will struggle with both.

On this issue, this is mainly an issue around tax and the customer benifits of dealing with legitimate businesses.

I assume the reasoning around it has many facets.

In theory

One pays tax and is insured. The other is not.

To a degree, in some cases a non REC is like an uninsured driver. You've no comeback should there be an issue.

Paying tax, a nixer person often pays no tax on goods or services, it appears less expensive because the government cut is left out. We even pay tax on most car washes these days, maybe a home car wash will be outlawed, but what's the risk, a scratch on the paintwork?

But qualifications are only a part of it IMO a significant but not dominant part.

On a funny side, at interviews I've often heard people list someone being capable of doing a nixer as being a good sign that they understand a bit about business, can finish a job and are good with people.

2011

I find it quite incredible and worrying that so many people have self assessed themselves and decided that they can produce work to a higher standard than qualified electricians.

The only system that we have to train and assess people's ability to safely carry out electrical installation work in compliance with the rules is a four year full time apprenticeship. Having a relevant technical qualification is a great asset such as an electrical engineering degree goes a long way especially when it comes to fault finding, and testing but just a someone with a PhD / CEng may not be able to "bless themselves". Nothing should be seen as a suitable "alternative qualification" to a four year electrical apprenticeship, end of.

I started this thread with the hope that it could explain to people the benefits of employing the services of a REC and to support my argument that it is best that some electrical work is only carried out by qualified electricians. I feel that this thread has turned into a REC bashing thread which was not my intention.

In red text here are my thoughts on the points that I asked people to contribute to in my opening post:

1) Electrical safety
Qualified electricians spend four years studying the National rules for Electrical Installations during their apprenticeship. They are then formally examined on their understanding and knowledge of same. God only knows what understanding is any a handyman has of essential regulations.

2) Familiarisation with the most current wiring rules.
REC's are kept up to date with changes by newsletters from RECI. They are also informed of issues that inspectors see cropping up regularly.

3) Insurance
REC's have insurance. This is something that you never need until you do! For many of us our homes are the most expensive purchase that we make in our lives. Ask yourself this: Would you be happy driving everyday without insurance?

4) Certification
This is an area that many good electricians have failed to grasp. There is now a legal requirement that only suitable qualified electricians can test installations. They must have an additional recognised qualification (the course for this is mostly un by the ECSSA). This qualification only lasts for a few years and then the course must be repeated. All REC's must have at least one suitably qualified person to certify all electrical works. Most other people may as well be looking up a cow's ar$e.

5) Cost
REC's are expensive. To produce work to a high standard means that they have a lot of overheads. Money can be saved by avoiding using a REC, but it is generally not worth it. This is fine for some wiring such as network cabling, intruder alarm cabling, coaxial satellite cabling, speaker cabling, but that is about it. In life especially with electrical work you tend to get what you pay for.

6) Standard of workmanship / quality / aesthetics
Unfortunately standards vary, always insist on seeing work that the REC has done elsewhere and use a REC that has been recommended by someone that you trust. There is no regulation that states that the finished product has to look good or that the down lighters have to be evenly spaced and in a straight line. However generally a REC / qualified electrician will produce work of a far higher standard than anyone else can.

7) Technical expertise
Does not have to be a REC / electrician this can also be provided by people with other technical qualifications such as an electrical engineer, however they are unlikely to be any cheaper.

8) Recourse should something go wrong
Only a REC can provide this.

9) Design
Does not have to be a REC / electrician this can also be provided by people with other technical qualifications such as an electrical engineer, however they are unlikely to be any cheaper.

10) Impact on the value of the home
Employing the wrong person to rewire a home can devalue it.

I have quick to criticise RECI when I felt it was justified, but I think that it is important that those with some / advanced electrical understanding work within safe limits and understand that practical skills take time and training to master.

I worked with a "great electrical engineer" and was asked to formally check a drawing he produced. I spotted some basic errors in his copy and paste design, when I pointed out this to him the response was "It is fine, we always do it that way and it has always worked". What was actually happening was that his incorrect design was always being fixed by component and experienced REC's at coalface. They were fixing the issued design issues (there were many), as building the drawings an submitting them to the client. Meanwhile this "great electrical engineer" carried on in ignorance.

Stoner

2011 I agree with a lot if what you say.

However regarding appendices spending 4 years studying the regs, they don't

First of all there are a few time served lads out there with no exams.

And lads go in for 22 weeks, then 11 and another 11 weeks. Its significant but its far from 4 years studying. I know the system and requirements very well. There is no need to go into this further about professional development etc, every job has that, studying is studying you can't count it twice.

On your comments about poor drawings, its very easy to trouble shoot a set of drawings, it's unfair to assume that the person looking at them would pick up everything the original guy did, and then some, not that you indicated as much.

The best way imo is the collaborative approach, that's when you pick up the most detail, combining and sharing knowledge.

Anyway over all the REC route is better IMO. However I think that exams in demonstrating competency in certain areas are a good idea.

For example, the person with a CEng, or an electrician with a certificate in commissioning emergency lighting is deemed competent to commission an emergency light system. This opens things up for electricians as it should

It should work the other way too.

I've no time for people who want to move up a level but want to hinder others doing the same.

Entrance to the trades requires a basic junior certificate, there are multiple repeat chances. Let's not over egg it, let's be realistic and not take it personally.

It is evident some electricians are excellent and would be very good natural engineers, but their knowledge and aptitude is not required to get a national craft cert.


If we are going to talk about a poor engineer being put up against you then we should talk about the many poor electricians and put them up against a good engineer and speak about how that reflects on electricians as a whole.

This is relevant since we are discussing competence and there are electricians out there who specialise in bending conduit and are not allowed near cabling.

They have a lot of skills in this area, but would probably be better suited to being a fitter.

antiskeptic

I had a client request professional spec and sign off on a firewall to divide her attic from the neighbours. Thought it was a bit ott since you can't practically create a certifiable firewall in an old attic.

Professional specs stud and double fireboard slabbing. As he was leaving I asked what the point was of double slabbing her side only. Great for protecting her neighbour from a fire starting on her side. Not so great protecting her from a fire starting on the neighbours side. "Oh..er.. best double slab it both sides"

Or the BER cert for a house I bought recently. Said E1 but turned out to be just off G. BER certifiers are audited but its a shabby system that permits such.. er.. error.

A rec reg need say nothing at all about competancy. Its statutory is all. Which mean a vested interest has managed to manoevre/lobby itself into pole position.

So you know a great non-rec electrician. But are forced to take on a paper-weilding guy you don't know.

Progress.

antiskeptic

Much has been said about the merits of a time served electrician vs. someone who has built up a level of expertise otherwise.

No one is arguing that the latter is more proficient than the latter.

The argument has to do with whether there is a clear cost/benefit in demanding that only the former ought be allowed work on electrics.

Given the comparatively miniscule problem of dangerous electrics (dangerous defined as actually causing harm) vs the cost of this supercertifiedsystem to the nation.

I mean, do we RECI car mechanics, chefs, food factory cleaning personnel (given the number of people who have died from Listeria in processed food). RECI every aspect of life in which there are equally miniscule or even more levels of harm caused? How many people have been harmed by cyclists. Do we licence them.

It appears clear that electrics, though potentially harmful fall way down the listof problems. Yet for some reason (which nobody appears to be able to justify) we have this enormously costly system of jobs for the RECI boys going.

Anyone like to focus on this aspect of things?

kramer1

I think a large part of this is down to testing. It wasn't happening before, it is now. That's the main practical advantage of hiring a rec over a sparks who is qualified but not registered, you can be sure that the place has been tested. Although I think that testing should be bet I to lads at every level of the apprenticeship phases rather than being treated as an after thought.

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

Much has been said about the merits of a time served electrician vs. someone who has built up a level of expertise otherwise.

Both are challenging roles although there is cross over they are very different animals. Engineering doe not require the practical skills that a trade does. You don’t seem to acknowledge that engineers have no training in practical skills.

The argument has to do with whether there is a clear cost/benefit in demanding that only the former ought be allowed work on electrics.

Given the comparatively miniscule problem of dangerous electrics (dangerous defined as actually causing harm) vs the cost of this supercertifiedsystem to the nation.

If you want to save on costs you must compromise on labor or materials. Which do you suggest? Remember using unqualified personal can mean no insurance cover.

antiskeptic

2011 wrote: »

Both are challenging roles although there is cross over they are very different animals. Engineering doe not require the practical skills that a trade does. You don’t seem to acknowledge that engineers have no training in practical skills.



If you want to save on costs you must compromise on labor or materials. Which do you suggest? Remember using unqualified personal can mean no insurance cover.

If your doing it yourself (having decided your competant) then insurance isn't an issue. If you decide to use someone insured over someone not insured (the former costing more) then thats your choice.

The issue is whether electrical work ought to have reci/qualified electrican restrictions applied at all. We have insight into the level of damage caused prior to it being regulated and that level is comparatively low.

I don't see any justification for it.

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

If your doing it yourself (having decided your competant) then insurance isn't an issue. If you decide to use someone insured over someone not insured (the former costing more) then thats your choice.

What you decide to do in your own home is one thing, an unqualified builder charging for electrical work is quite another. We had a poster with this very issue recently. Once the poster requested certification changes to the wiring were suddenly required. I think this tells its own story.

The issue is whether electrical work ought to have reci/qualified electrican restrictions applied at all. We have insight into the level of damage caused prior to it being regulated and that level is comparatively low.

So you want a free for all? Just let anybody have a go and hope for the best?
Not much of a plan. Did you ever consider that the reason the statistics are better here (per head) than other countries (like Spain) is because of the regulations, laws and training we have?

I acknowledge that our system has a lot of flaws and I have ruffed a few feathers on this forum in the past for suggesting that RECI are not infallible, but what we have is far better than the race to the bottom that you are proposing.

2011

@ antiseptic: I see that you have not responded to my point that electrical apprentices receive practical training in college and on site over a four year period. Are you disregarding this completely? Do you see no value in this whatsoever?

I feel that if we were to go down your road standards would plummet and electrical apprenticeships would cease. Is that really what we want?

If we are going to take that view with electricians why not extend this logic to engineers and save even more money?

2011

@ Stoner: I will deal with you later
I need my iMac to respond to you properly

Steve

Just to explain my earlier 'rafter monkey' comment:

There are big differences between COMPETENT, QUALIFIED, and REGISTERED.

In my 30 years in the industry, I met all three groups and permutations of them.

The only group I trust are the competent ones.

e.g being qualified and registered means nothing if all they did was served time doing domestic first fixes during the 'boom' times where - literally - they swung cable over rafters in the minimum possible time and moved to the next house.

Now, I'm not painting all with that brush by any means, I'm just pointing out they exist and they are the weak point in an otherwise sound system. There are also many overqualified RECs that have an industrial background and / or a well founded domestic background that can do an exemplary job.

Point is, you simply need to be qualified, by whatever means, no experience needed, and then pay the (€400ish?) registration tax, and take out insurance to become a REC.

Going back to the original question asked..

"Why should I use a Registered Electrical Contractor?"

Simple answer is "You have to for tax reasons.."

antiskeptic

2011 wrote: »

@ antiseptic: I see that you have not responded to my point that electrical apprentices receive practical training in college and on site over a four year period. Are you disregarding this completely? Do you see no value in this whatsoever?

The question isn't whether I see value. The question is whether the market sees value. And it will, just like it does for a multitude of other areas of expertise.

Apprencticeships and trades did fine before we got to this level of regulation - a builder recognising the cost effectiveness of having folk conversant with the task they were doing.

There was nothing stopping me employing a chef to be a fitter in industry. Other than my recognising the value of someone trained and experienced

I feel that if we were to go down your road standards would plummet and electrical apprenticeships would cease. Is that really what we want?

Standards were adequate before RECI. Where standards = few people were damaged by poor electrical work viz a viz the then cost of meeting those standards.

If we are going to take that view with electricians why not extend this logic to engineers and save even more money?

A case in point. How many opes knocked between living room and dining room collapsed with injury/fatality before someone decided the steel used had to be certified and an engineer had to spec and sign off.

The issue is comparative risk. If you think the dog in the street can perform open heart surgery then I'll listen to your case.

I've merely pointed out an existing objective reality: the level of damage caused by faulty (not old, not overloaded) practices appears to be negligable compared to the costs now applied nationwide.

The cost of perhaps raising the standard* is high. When the standard was pretty fit for use already.

* perhaps. Rec doesn't mean good electrician. And the extra cost might well drive more handyman/home diy, as more and more electricians get swallowed up into the reci fold and charge accordingly. Indeed, this latter is sure to happen. You don't always get the result you predict.

antiskeptic

Steve wrote: »

Just to explain my earlier 'rafter monkey' comment:

There are big differences between COMPETENT, QUALIFIED, and REGISTERED.

In my 30 years in the industry, I met all three groups and permutations of them.

The only group I trust are the competent ones.

e.g being qualified and registered means nothing if all they did was served time doing domestic first fixes during the 'boom' times where - literally - they swung cable over rafters in the minimum possible time and moved to the next house.

Now, I'm not painting all with that brush by any means, I'm just pointing out they exist and they are the weak point in an otherwise sound system. There are also many overqualified RECs that have an industrial background and / or a well founded domestic background that can do an exemplary job.

Point is, you simply need to be qualified, by whatever means, no experience needed, and then pay the (€400ish?) registration tax, and take out insurance to become a REC.

Going back to the original question asked..

"Why should I use a Registered Electrical Contractor?"

Simple answer is "You have to for tax reasons.."

Why do you have to for tax reasons. Which tax?

Steve

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why do you have to for tax reasons. Which tax?

In tax terms, mostly income tax and VAT.

antiskeptic

Steve wrote: »

In tax terms, mostly income tax and VAT.

I don't understand. I decide to rewire my own house. There is no tax impediment in my doing so.

Bruthal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't understand. I decide to rewire my own house. There is no tax impediment in my doing so.

The restricted works REC thing was brought in for revenue reasons many believe, but under the guise of safety.

So as steve said, in answering why we should use RECs, its to ensure the coffers dont miss out on their cut.

There are tax losses to the revenue dept.

Steve

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't understand. I decide to rewire my own house. There is no tax impediment in my doing so.

The REC fee is a statutory mandated payment, ie. by law payable - ergo in my book it's a tax.

If you have not paid it, you cannot rewire your own house.

On the flip side, you are free to rewire a nuclear power station if you so desire, and the opportunity presents itself, without having to pay it.

antiskeptic

Bruthal wrote: »

The restricted works REC thing was brought in for revenue reasons many believe, but under the guise of safety.

So as steve said, in answering why we should use RECs, its to ensure the coffers dont miss out on their cut.

That ay least makes sense. Bit of a hammer to crack a nut though. And something, like I say, which can be expected to result in 'have a go's'

I don't see the courts sanctioning anyone unless someone is hurt. Indeed how else are they to become aware of non-rec work. Which would, based on historical evidence, mean not a lot of prosecutions.

antiskeptic

Steve wrote: »

The REC fee is a statutory mandated payment, ie. by law payable - ergo in my book it's a tax.

If you have not paid it, you cannot rewire your own house.

On the flip side, you are free to rewire a nuclear power station if you so desire, and the opportunity presents itself, without having to pay it.

But the money goes to RECI doesn't it? A non government body. Isn't it the same as a surgeon having to be registered with the medical council before he can open you up?

Point taken on the nuclear 1st fix. Industry can a far more dangerous electrical environment than a house, yet no such regs there. You would be required to show compentancy but experience would be sufficient. Not trade qualifications.

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see the courts sanctioning anyone unless someone is hurt. Indeed how else are they to become aware of non-rec work. Which would, based on historical evidence, mean not a lot of prosecutions.

That is not the case:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/wicklow-electrical-works-investigation-unsafe-electrical-contractor-naas-district-court-jailed-615352

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't whether I see value. The question is whether the market sees value. And it will, just like it does for a multitude of other areas of expertise.

That does not answer my question. Clearly the market does see the value of electricians as demand is at an all time high. I think that the main reason that someone chooses not to use a qualified electrician / REC is because they can't get one as demand has outstripped supply.

Apprenticeships and trades did fine before we got to this level of regulation - a builder recognising the cost effectiveness of having folk conversant with the task they were doing.

Are you seriously suggesting that demand has dropped off?

Standards were adequate before RECI. Where standards = few people were damaged by poor electrical work viz a viz the then cost of meeting those standards.

In one way the were better as the ESB actually inspected every rewire that a certificate was issued for and the certificates were free. I remember collecting them. I am not a fan of the current self certification at all.

Anyway that is the past we have to deal with the present.

A case in point. How many opes knocked between living room and dining room collapsed with injury/fatality before someone decided the steel used had to be certified and an engineer had to spec and sign off.

You are cherrypicking one example of what one type of engineer does and using this to support the argument that we should allow anyone do whatever they feel is sufficient regardless of their technical expertise. Not a valid argument IMHO.

I've merely pointed out an existing objective reality: the level of damage caused by faulty (not old, not overloaded) practices appears to be negligable compared to the costs now applied nationwide.

That might simply be the result of most of it has been replaced by qualified electricians / RECs, not any random person giving it a go.

The cost of perhaps raising the standard* is high. When the standard was pretty fit for use already.

I agree.

I see far more value in ensuring that the standards we have with the current rules (ET101:2008) are applied than introducing new standards.

* perhaps. Rec doesn't mean good electrician.

In some cases (too many) you are correct. In my view self certification is responsible for this. Proper third party inspections would keep all RECs on their toes and would expose the handyman that has no idea what he is doing. This would make the expense of RECs more palatable.

Turnrew

Testing and compliance are the main improvements

Before regulation the wiring rules and testing were mostly ignored

Andrea B.

2011 wrote: »

That is not the case:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/wicklow-electrical-works-investigation-unsafe-electrical-contractor-naas-district-court-jailed-615352

Was the conviction and sentence here driven in part by the work being wholly unsafe, unqualified and purporting to be RECI, as opposed to not being registered?