irtec Forum

I have to agree this is the way forward. I am looking for views from technicians who are not put through this process by their employers.

The cost is prohibative for someone taking the course on their own, should the industry sponsor these people and enable them to become licensed technicians, rather than un-licensed technicians?

I too am in agreement with the IRTEC licence scheme. If we as an industry promote and encourage the licence, the popular train of thought given by the general public will alter.

After all we are highly skilled individuals who over a period of time gather numerous qualifications and skills that should be recognised.

I been in the industry or involved for over 40 years have taken every exam and training available at the time,C&G Full Technical, National Craftsman, Sec C etc. MOT examiner, owned and run a fleet of trucks. I have to say I don't agree with the concept of "licencing" It is welcomed by individuals because it tries to give a monopolistic accent to the profession. However, looking outside the box it creates a passive carelessness on those who might feel capable of doing many commonsense tasks but then told they can't legally do it.
Drivers are a typical example in our industry - they are the front line and should be encouraged to perform checks and act when they feel confident to do so. Just take note of the plumbing industry - not a plumber to be found anywhere when you need one. You may feel you can solder a pipe but you are not allowed to connect a gas boiler!

As a fully qualified vehicle technician I am concerned that I am unable to gain this qualification because my employer is not interested. I also think that any technician with this licence will be less inclined to obtain other qualifications such as NVQ's or seek full membership of professional bodies. It could be argued that the IRTEC licence devalues City and Guilds qualifications, etc.

Unless primary legislation is changed, and/or the Traffic Commissioners & VOSA stipulate that Operators Licences will not be granted, unless fully registered vehicle technician's of a suitable number were available to maintain the vehicles and trailers. This system of registration will have no real effect on the vehicle maintenance regime of our industry.

Only fully trained VOSA staff/trained police officers are allowed to declare a vehicle or trailer unroadworthy and issue a notice of prohibition to prevent further use until such time as the minimum standards are met.

As many other engineers will agree at one time or another prohibitions have been issued for the most minor infringements of the C&U regs.

It should also be remembered that the MOT test is an examination that ensures that the vehicle or trailer meets the MINIMUM safety requirements stated in the C&U regs. Many people connected with the industry only aim to pass the MOT test and as such are allowing vehicles that only meet the minimum standards one day a year out on the roads.

I have operated my own successful workshops and have found that the customer will apply pressure to have the vehicle or trailer returned regardless of the faults found, promising to return the vehicle or trailer for further work within a couple of days!! When the workshop refuses to return the defective item threats are made to withdraw custom, not pay the bill, etc. This applies to the small operator, the big major players, and the leasing companies.

It should be noted that with the law as it is at the moment the workshop releasing a defective vehicle back to a customer for what ever reason is open to legal investigation and prosecution following an accident. The customer will always claim no knowledge of the defect and unless a disclaimer has been signed the workshop can be held responsible.

It is not sufficient to have a driver sign the disclaimer; the responsible person that booked the vehicle into the workshop in the first place must sign it and return the disclaimer to the workshop prior to the vehicle or trailer leaving.

The industry must train the middle managers as well as the front line staff to achieve a reduction in instances as described above. How many other industries allow untrained persons loose to create a danger to the public and then prosecute the front line person who (as the law says) should have known better? No amount of licencing or qualification will protect the technician or driver in this case it will only serve to make matters worse for the individual concerned.

I wish to emphasise that I totally support the IRTE in it's aim of enhancing the standard and training of technicians and by encouraging everyone to support the industry in a professional manner. My earlier comment is a caution to going down the route of "licencing" that is to legally prevent anyone from attempting to work on a vehicle. For the licenced individual it could be a disaster if for example something were to happen and they had their licence withdrawn - no job. This is the way aviation and other industries have gone and it has not solved the human error problem. For industries where critical performance is essential (life or death) risk. Quality inspection is the only way - where a second check by another is mandatory.

Anyone who whofully endangers life through negligence is and should be prosecuted, licenced or not. I also feel it puts down many fully qualified competant engineer/technicians who simply feel they are qualified enough for the job.

I support John Macartney's view and would like to comment on the topic:

Anyone ever thought of licensing every workshop to ensure all technicians and apprentices receive full manufacturers training? I am including the road haulage / own account area of operations as well those who have their own workshops.

Following 20 years as an operator I have to say it would be nice to apply this concept. In reality the cost does not stack up. I remember when the hazardous packaging regulations came in and I had to send all my drivers for a training course - the course was so simple it was laughable - but brought tears to my eyes when I had to pay £300 for each person. The cost issue of all training is a problem for employer and employees - the fact is that the authorities and customers are blinkered when it comes to operating income.

If IRTEC is the way things are going and some off us don't agree with it and can't afford it, does this mean a Kwik-Fit fitter who has an IRTEC licence is now more up-to-date with what is going on. Also do they get registered with the EC(UK), more to the point, is there any reason to stay registered with the EC(UK) if you have not got an IRTEC licence?

To rid the industry of the "cowboy" image and give technicians the standing they deserve the licensing system is a great step forward.

However, it is time that VOSA and other similar bodies together with the motor industry gave it their full support. This sort of scheme is well overdue & any employer & technician, who believes in the importance of what they do, should support it.

It really should be only the "cowboys" in our industry who should be complaining & fearful.

Of course Mr Atkins is entitled to his opinion; however, it is customary to back up an opinion with some credible facts.

First and foremost is the need to be qualified and we are only referring to the absurdity of qualifying the qualified. Many years ago the National Craftsman Certificate was thought as the panacea of good practice, alas that faded and fell by the wayside since almost all the qualified engineers that took it passed - a no brainer but it looked good on a CV.

The one difference today is the overbearing nanny state that will screw up the industry just like they have done with the NHS if they see another avenue of control.

Somehow, we need to certify/rank/classify the repairing agent (which would include the likes of tail lift repairers), making them responsible for the skill levels of their staff and quality of work produced (the way any good business is run). John is right, in that we do not want to qualify the qualified, nor do we want to burden industry with any more red tape. Maybe the Institute starts with a Code of Practice?

We probably need the likes of VOSA to lead the charge, by focusing on those agents that are not performing (publishing the number of MOT failures by repair agent, may cause a few sleepless nights).

No licensing or certification can eliminate the risk of an in-service failure or a human oversight. This should not brand an operator as incompetent or criminalise them. A licensing or certification examination is the same as an annual test - only good for the day in perfect conditions. We already have a tough regime in place to deal with excesses – VOSA, Roadside checks, annual tests, CPC, O licensing. Where is this extra burden of additional technician licensing leading to - more revenue for the trainers and enforcement bodies? Alas this is a lost cause since the message is clear from the top that licensing is here to stay. We shall then see what impact it has on our industry if it is made a legal requirement.

As part of granting an operators licence, Is there not certain stipulations regarding both ratios and qualified maintenance staff for a size of a given fleet ?
If this is the case then it is clear that the relevant staff have been checked and authorised to carry out the maintenance work,whether in-house or out sourced.
If any staff then leave and new staff are emloyed, it is a simple case of forwarding the new employees creditionals before the traffic commissioner to certify that the terms of the "o" licence has been met

It's a while since my last comments,however, we now have the IMI helping the IRTE cause for licensing. I trained all my drivers on basic maintenance including adjusting brakes if required. This paid back greatly many times, one instance was when one of my drivers was pulled into a test centre where they found one of the trailer slack adjusters had wound off. The driver called me and said they were putting a prohibition on it what should he do. I asked the tester if he would allow the driver to take up the slack which he agreed and allowed a postponed prohibition.
Upon inspection it was found that the adjuster collar had cracked and allowed the nut to wind off. My vehicles had a basic inspection and brake adjustment after every run without fail. You would not believe the hassle I was put through by the test centre when it was subsequently sent in to get the prohibition lifted. -- the first in 15 years of operation. No licensing will ever cover all the things that can happen when you run a vehicle with 44 tonnes up for hundreds of miles in a day.