MCS is it fit for purpose

[whitevanman]

Hi guys

I am looking for a healthy debate on your thoughts on the MCS, Is it truly fit for purpose for small companies and one man bands, I belive that the QMS that is required is completely irrelevant and should be done away with, what are your thoughts

[Ted]

If you get rid of the QMS then you may as well get rid of MCS all together as it is not much more than this in the first place.

MCS/REAL was introduced to stop 'double-glazing' sales tactics from ripping people off. It has only been a partial success from this point of view as there are too many loopholes. But I believe MCS are addressing these at present.

It was needed in the days of LCBP grants (where there were no other ways of preventing taxpayers money being wasted on non-working systems) but with FiTs (and RHI) payments being based on metered results then there is no longer a similar justification. It is only there for consumer protection, as opposed to protecting the taxpayer, and the overall costs have to be justified on those grounds.

The onerous testing requirements for small wind manufacturers has removed a large chunk of that business (some may say for the good!)

I know Mick Williams is campaigning to get some relaxation for small businesses on the QMS side, which is to be welcomed I think.

[Brandon]

As a one man business, I am on the cusp of MCS-ing, and to be frank, what with the navitron installers scheme, and other manufactures in other fields offering similar schemes/programs I am considering going that route.

[desperate]

We are also in the process of the MCS  [s ]bullsh[/s] "accreditation" and like pretty much any other regulatory body it won't do much to dissuade the cowboys other than the fact that a system can't access the FiT/RHI without it. You only have to look at CORGI?Gassafe or NIC or whatnot, all they seem to achieve is higher overhead for the legit traders which gives the cowboys a price advantage, and as we all know money speaks louder than a bit of paper.

 Still why should I care? it's a lucrative gravy train.

Desperate

[Ivan]

I believe MCS isn't doing the business. It's far to cumbersome for small traders who make up the majority of the market, and I have it on good authority from someone very high up in government circles (and on the various committees), that linking FITs to MCS was, apart from convenience, all about generating lots of 'work' in the renewables sector, and ensuring that 'work' was created in civil service, certification and inspection organisations (ie non-work), and with a view to setting up a small number of large players in the industry - ie those who are unlikely to practice 'cowboy' tactics, and also unlikely to avoid paying their taxes. And on the subject of taxes, have you ever tried to do an MCS-installation for cash?!

[jamesingram]

Are these lot MCS registered ?    www.anglianhome.co.uk/solar/    

this may answer the question above.

[GavinA]

no aglian aren't real or fit registered, at least they weren't when which did their report. They'll be making use of the loophole that allows any company to sell MCS certified solar installations regardless of whether they're a member of any scheme at all, as long as they're merely selling the installation, and then sub the work out to an MCS certified company to actually do it.

it's a huge scam, and the government ploppedd up badly by setting the system up in the way it has as it's basically a cowboy sellers charter that leaves legit firms trying to compete with our hands tied behind our backs while the hard selling wideboys are allowed to operate with the sole intention of getting as high a price as possible for the sale, and generating the sale regardless of whether it's sensible or not.

[Ted]

I have got a half-promise from Gideon Richards, Chair of MCS, that this loophole will be fixed.

[mickw]

Ted is right, I am campaigning to get small businesses of less than five employees exempt from the Quality Management System (QMS) part of the MCS accreditation.

Most of the QMS is already covered in the REAL assurance Consumer Code and the few parts that aren't can be covered in the main requirements or the installation standards for individual technologies. (Many thanks to Vaillant for the detailed working of how it van be done!)

I am getting massive support from the industry major players (Vaillant, Baxi, Worcester, CIPHE etc) and almost universal support from individual installers.

The briefing document being used by the industry is exactly the same as the opening post on my blog, if anyone wants to read it.
http://tradeonly.blogspot.com/2011/05/over-regulation-is-biggest-barrier-to.html

I'm happy to answer any questions or just chat about it.

Mick

[brackwell]

If ones co.is already ISO9001 accredited does this absolve one of the QMS ?

Ken

[GavinA]

If ones co.is already ISO9001 accredited does this absolve one of the QMS ?

Ken

nope, you have to have the precise documents they require you to have. It's a paper box ticking excercise, and I can safely say that I've not looked at those documents once since the assessment as they're virtually all a complete waste of time, and virtually none of it's actually useful for keeping track of any of the processes involved in actually scheduling  the work, doing the work, commissioning the work, or doing the paperwork afterwards.

Since being accredited we've spent ages actually getting some systems set up to actually manage all of this properly, ensure that every bit of the reams of paperwork required for each job is submitted to the relevant people on time, deposits are registered, invoices issued for the precise amount allowed no earlier than the 21 days allowed etc etc.

The one thing I would say about the requirement for the quality management system documents within MCS is that it effectively weeds out those who're simply not capable of managing the vast quantities of paperwork that are required for each MCS certified job. It's about the only thing to be said for it.

I've just counted 18 separate bits of paperwork that we produce / copy for each job after completion, several of which need 2-3 copies for the DNO / FIT application, and that's just the post installation paperwork.

If the MCS system is going to be opened up to more companies, then the competent persons schemes really ought to be supplying example spreadsheets like the ones we use to track each job, as well as example folders, and templates for every aspect of the paperwork that's required all in one package. That would be useful, the existing QMS is worse than a waste of space, as it cons people into thinking they've got a workable system in place to manage things, and it's only when they start actually trying to use it to manage jobs that they will realise how useless it actually is and suddenly have to develop one from scratch as they're going along.

it'd also help if companies like SMA treated the UK market properly and ensured there was an english language manual with all their products so we didn't find ourselves having to try to booklet print their manuals for the customers, but that's a different issue.