p.s my username has changed, i forget to read the rules, my bad.. so im now Daffyd :-) cheers

 

Its true that funding is difficult for sole traders. However if you work for a company who are CIS4 cardholders then the funding can be obtained. I'm not sure whether I can give my details, but look for a CPCS test centre in Leeds 9, and I'll see if I can help.

Regards

Steve Vickers

There is increasing annoyance from main players within industry that the ConstructionSkills CPCS scheme is becoming a "cartel" and effectively controlling any competition from other providers who can offer suitable and sufficient training/testing for plant operators in the construction industry. In an attempt to monopolise and corner the market the CPCS are desperate to affiliate with CSCS to get their scheme accepted as the "only" plant scheme, with the exclusion to all others. This is a blatant attempt to ensure that any prospective move by other major providers has a lesser chance in accessing major contractor sites. CSCS appear to be keeping CPCS waiting but it's on the cards. Since the CPCS and CSCS parted ways the CSCS logo has disappeared from CPCS cards and this has rankled the business developers at Bircham Newton. The CPCS will get into bed with the CSCS this year after the political wrangling has stopped. Perhaps, one day, we'll see, NPORS and LANTRA's logos alongside CPCS, on the CSCS cards?

Perhaps we need bigger cards for more logos?

Spot on Sustainer!

It gets better, we recently underwent Professional Discussion with ENTO. I mentioned that our QAA [Ext Verifier] was auditing plant operations and was in a fact a chef in previous life. NO NO NO they shouted. YES YES YES we all shouted back! Can't happen they shouted.... wanna bet we all replied. They appeared exasperated as this has come up in almost all PD seminars? Reading between the lines ENTO are a little peeved at the so called Cartel being formed and their own sets of values and rules?

If the MCG or whats left would only shine some light on this subject a bit of clarity and fair play both for us and the poor man trying to get his cards would be most welcome?

Sonic -exasperated

Are you all aware of the CPCS's "families of categories" policy?

The CPCS have agreed that in order for employers to have a far quicker means of adding individual categories to an operator's card the scheme's categories have been grouped within NVQ family units. e.g. Under, (receive and transport loads), you would have forward tipping dumper, truck mounted concrete pump, dump truck rigid/articulated, trailer mounted concrete pump, and agricultural tractor.

Similarly under, (lift and transfer loads), we have Tower crane, telescopic handler, forklift side loader, crawler tractor side boom, lorry loader and mobile crane as a family group.

The policy works as follows: Say an operator achieves CPCS red card status in Forward Tipping Dumper and Truck Mounted Concrete Pump. The operator then achieves his/her NVQ in Plant Operations at level 2 for the forward tipping dumper which upgrades his red card to full competence "blue".

AS A RESULT OF THE NVQ AWARD FOR FORWARD TIPPING DUMPER AND UPGRADE TO BLUE CARD STATUS HIS/HER RED CARD FOR TRUCK MOUNTED CONCRETE PUMP IS AUTOMATICALLY UPGRADED TO FULL "BLUE" CARD COMPETENCE BECAUSE THE CATEGORY IS WITHIN THE SAME FAMILY UNIT !!! ALL WITHOUT ANY ASSESSMENT ON THE TRUCK MOUNTED CONCRETE PUMP.

Other family units have seen operators receiving automatic blue card status for Tower Cranes after achieving a level 2 NVQ in Telescopic Handler, under, (receive and transfer loads), Trencher, after achieving NVQ level 2 for a Skid Steer and countless other commutations.

Without a care in the world for operator competence the HSE, Construction Skills, Contractors Plant hire Association, (CPA), and other affiliated member associations/federations of the CPCS management committee have not uttered a single concern.

Call me an old cynic but we have an accident waiting to happen for as long as this lunatic policy remains in place.

Square pegs and round holes.

Linking any NVQ to a licence scheme causes serious problems. Making individuals achieve and NVQ just to get a licence and access to site is even worse. This industry pays lip service to the NVQ ethos when all anybody cares about is the piece of plastic. It seriously worries me.

Taddles makes a valid point. An NVQ for Plant Operators, conducted in the correct manner, is the, "true measure of competence." With the construction industry awash with funding for plant operator NVQs there is much abuse with a few greedy organisations paying scant attention to the NVQ code of practice. What these organisations/individuals fail to realise is that they are playing with, "public funding" allocated by the taxpayer. The audit trail for quality seems pathetic. particularly the Construction Awards Alliance, (CAA), who have responsibility for plant operator awards. The ratio of quality checks by CAA to the thousands of awards for plant operators is wholly inadequate and sooner or later they, and the Learning Skills Council, (LSC), will catch a cold. It is not "Train to gain" it's GRAVY TRAIN TO GAIN !

Couldn't agree more. CAA are fairly poor at this, there are other awarding bodies but ConstructionSkills have it all sewn up and conveniently CAA are recognised (rightly or wrongly) as the awarding body of choice. I have in my posession an email from an advisor at CAA advising a centre that anyone with a background in construction can IV tower cranes.

I took this up with ConstructionSkills and got..... well nowhere. A level playing field is needed as CAA give out duff and conflicting information, wheras other NVQ providers/awarding bodies play by the rules.

The CAA advisor who advocated that anyone in construction can Internally Verify, (IV), Tower Cranes should be sacked. The very same organisation has agreed that any Assessor holding CPCS categories in, Ride on Roller, Forward Tipping Dumper and Mini Excavator is occupationally competent to assess, Loader Securer. They base this rationale on the fact that the assessor designate has the theoretical knowledge and understanding of loading each of the former items onto plant transporters ! Not a single mention of the primary need to ascertain occupational competence in, "load restraint !" The Bircham Newton cartel write the qualification, compose the questions, set the criteria, decide the cost/s, undertake the audit trail and finally make the award !! Incestuous or what !!

 I could write a book on this subject but i will try keep it brief!

Originally i had a City and Guilds Certificate of Competancy for 12 catergories of plant!

Then the CITB/CPCS started to be enforced and i was refused work on a Nuttall site in Glasson Dock!

I did a mountain of research with my training centre that included Lancaster University Student Union, My Local MP, John Prescott, (who was the minister at the time) Terressa May, (who was the shadow minister) The DTI, Construction News, and the man behind the CITB. (who's personal number was kindly donated by a mate at construction news)

The base facts were that the CITB/CPCS issued a draught statement to the MCG (Major Contractors Group) and i think it was page 23 where they stated "We have worked closely with all known card shcemes"

The centre that trained me and had also issued over 27,000 tickets had never been in contact with the CITB/CPCS!

His training centre was not unique!

I found lots of them nationwide thus making one of the key points in the CITB/CPCS draught statement to the MCG a complete lie!

In my phone call to the guy behind it i asked how can City and Guilds qualifications no longer be accepted as the training is identical to the CITB/CPCS?

He answered "You haven't done the touch screen test"

I replied "Cool, Your touch screen test for plant is the same for all catergories of plant so if i do one of your £30 tests you have no reason not to accept my 12 catergories" as my training centre was accreddited to the CITB/CPCS.

Then he said "But you haven't paid us our levvy"

So i said "So basically your not interested in my qualifications its just the money"

Thats when he hung up!

In order to keep working i had to re-doo my test at a cost of £375 even though i had a valid Certificate of Competancy!

I did it with Lakeland training in Cumbria!

Firstly i had to explain to my instructors what Prolec and Safelift was (which kinda dashed my hopes) but then they put me to work on an old JCB JS130 that had been hired from a farmer who took it upon himself the completely change the controls to the point that my two instructors couldn't drive it.

Its also against European legislation now too!

I was told to track it up a hill and back down again!

That was my test!

What made it worse was that they were training a guy who had paid for a 10 day course on this machine too!

When i started work on my new shiny ticket i was mad looking for a way to test its metal!

Soon enough i was on a job where i was asked to drive a dumper which i had no CITB/CPCS for!

I refused and was sacked!

Great!

So now i called the CITB/CPCS and asked what they were going to do about this after i had correctly followed their instructions and they said?????

Wait for it!!!!!!

"We are in no position of power to enforce our card shceme"

Theres your CITB/CPCS

It was started by 9 men most of which were OBE's, MBE'S and CBE's but none of them have ever seen a building site and they started with a budget of £10,000

Is your bum feeling sore because i know mine is!

Thats what they did to us and we let them!

I just got a draft consultation document on these family groups this morning. It seems they are trying to tighten this up (grouping cranes together as distinct from lift trucks etc). I can see what they are trying to do, but at the same time, you can take a test on an agricultural tractor and then add endorsements for ALL catagories of dumper including articulated and massive 100 tonne plus rigids.

 Point A. Licences are not required to demonstrate competence. Although I accept that they are here and here to stay, probably.

Point B. You cannot pidgeon-hole plant types/catagories and then adequately map them to what is a measure of performance for a job function. You either have hundreds of individuals tests for each type/catagory or you go holistic, dump the licence and focus on competence based assessment with recorded, verified CPD.

Simple really, except for the bajiilions of pounds CPCS make for themselves printing out licences. What is that phrase.... 'Licence to print money'?

Yes, the draft consultation document on proposals to change the "families of categories" is doing the rounds in a desperate attempt to sort out the mess. Regardless, the CPCSMC have confirmed that they intend to retain the current, "families of categories" policy with a dispensation to what are considered "specialist" categories. This committee of experts has suddenly realised that there are differences in individual competency requirements for Tower Crane and Telescopic Handler ! Similarly Truck Mounted Concrete Pump and a Forward Tipping Dumper, and many more commutations ! The strategic thinking to retain this disjointed and irrational policy was based, in part, on an amateurish survey undertaken by the Contractors Plant hire Association, (CPA), who trawled 130 of their 1534 members, (8.4% of membership), with a totally loaded singular question, seeking support for CPCS policy. Needless to say 111 CPA members, or 8.2% of the total membership, voted in favour of maintaining the status quo. Sounds a bit like Ireland voting for the EEC constitution !! Interesting to note the CPCSMC are e-mailing federations/associations and others seeking approval for the policy some 9 months after the revamped scheme started in August 2008. There is another claim from the decision makers that the only reason that people are kicking off about the policy is an attempt by training providers to improve their income base. For the latter statement to be expounded is both crass and banal and highlights the desperate measures that the CPCSMC are seeking to cover up the cracks of a misguided concept that compromises site safety and the competence of plant operators. The CITB Construction Skills operating deficit of £13 million for grant year 2008/9 isn't helping and wef 1 August 2009 the £17.50 for the health and safety test, the £100 profiling grant, the removal of the investors in people grant and a lowering of the supplementary grant from 25% to 20% shows that all is not well with Bircham's financiers. That's the problem, here's the solution. Revert to the policy that stated each plant category had its own NVQ. QED.

Been following this thread guys - all very valid and experienced points of view! It's getting worse out there especially with the financial crisis and operators being laid off. We had one poor soul - highly experienced, operating many years - got an extension on his red card and only managed 1 observation [OSAT] for his NVQ. Cant continue as he's not in full time work in plant operations. He was told under new scheme he didnt require a log book so binned it? Our assessor struggling to find additional evidence to support the criteria and in the end told operator that until he can observe him operating machine in real world scenario his NVQ was on hold. He is now unemployed. Assessors are nervous of CAA advisors and some throwing in the towel and reverting back to just training?

I think i will also throw in the towel and just stick to H&S training. Olympics, construction recovery? yeah we will wait and see, in the mean time this cartel should worry as without troops you can't win a battle.

:(

CPCS answers for sale on Ebay!

Had to chuckle at that.

We are in danger of creating a national card scheme for plant operators, (CPCS), that only requires, "a memory test." The misguided Chairman of the scheme, Mr Gamble seems happy that a suite of answers is readily available on e-bay for £4.99 per category, and as if by magic, competence is assured !!! An Essex based training provider has produced, "Course notes" which are advertised as a medium for study but are in fact the CPCS answers embedded in a poorly written series of topics which ironically repeats the CPCS mistakes !!. I'm at the cutting edge with the candidate when he arrives at the "test centre" with his recently purchased answers or course notes, having usually had no formal safety or category specific training whatsoever. He/she are under instructions by their employer to give it their best shot and get the bare minimum of 80% for the theory test and hope the tester will accommodate any discrepancies in the practical testing. Although the theoretical test is well received by practitioners the CPCS are proving painfully slow in sorting the question/answer banks. If and when the downturn in the construction industry reverses there will be a huge demand on CPCS to meet the requirements of employers. A major complaint at present is the cost with CPCS financiers seeking every conceivable avenue to maximise income. e.g. When a candidate is seeking renewal of his CPCS card and has lost his log book or it has no entries, he can seek the "Site based assessment" route. A training provider centre must first notify CPCS of the number of categories/dates/timings etc. Each notified category costs £25 with many operators seeking 5 or 6 categories. Up to 14 x SBAs are allowed per day which is a relatively simple task for any CPCS tester and is easily achieved in a working day. For a client with 6 categories on his/her card the cumulative cost for the 1 day event could amass to excess of £1,000, a massive amount for an employed/unemployed operator seeking to earn a living in his chosen trade.

I know this is gonna upset a lot of people but here goes......

First  theCPCS cards are not required by law.

Therefore in my opinion if you have the basic CPS health and safety card there is enough there to cover the rest is overkill. The earlier comment that plant operators are there because they have no interest in written exams etc is a valid point. Iceman was upset at this but let me tell you I am trained as a civil engineering technician yet in my business I drive everything from a jcb 5052 mini digger to a Cat D9G. I am sick of the excess of rules and regulations we have nowadays, if we had better management with people willing to stand up for themselves I believe we would have less accidents.

Neil

Agree Neil, but remember the MCG pay their levy to CPCS [CITB] and that cartel have shafted every operator since!

£17-50 for the H&S test

£25 for the card

£100's on training [non controlled] and then cost of test ..... only to fail CPCS test

Same with blue card... QAA [External Verifiers] making aname for themselves [and i know what that is!] there again is no conformity. If you are a member of Ento on line, you only got to read the discussions - QAA are very good at citing standards but dont live in the real world! Ours is a chef by trade by the way?

Now i'm not saying all trainers are poor trainers, quite the opposite, what i am saying is as it's now not regulated the poor operator only finds out when he/she attends a testing centre! The sh...e is beginning to hit the fan out there guys.

 

 

Sonic Mabro, If you are at the SED this week make a bee-line for the CPCS stand and get your message direct to scheme managers, Brian Pells and Mark Bodger. Alternatively try Haydn Steele who is on the management committee and will be found in the CPA tent. I would be interested to hear their collective response. I will be there Wednesday and will be bending their "ear" on a few other topics relating to plant operator training!

If either of you are free at one o'clock on Wednesday at SED, it would be great to see you at the first ever ConstructionSpace meetup.

Let me know and I'll send you full details.

Janie, Thankyou for the invite. I'll be at the CJ stand at 1 pm.

Excellent, I look forward to seeing you.

Just one thing, meet us at the food court & bar area next to the pavillion, as that's where we'll be!

 funding will become more difficult from august 1st as cpcs are pulling some of the grant scheme

Plant operators will now be required to take a theory test when they renew their blue CPCS cards.

 Are you all aware of the CPCS's "families of categories" policy?

Hello all,

I am new to this site and have enjoyed reading the wide variety of subjects/debates on the go, i have worked in the construction industry for the past 25 years (23 of them operating plant) and am currently a plant tester and assessor at an accredited training provider,and having read sustainers comments on the CPCS grouping/ families of categories of plant, i am not surprised a lot of people are worried about this hair brained scheme...i did not know how worrying it would be until a recent occurrence involving a colleague of mine and machine operator he was carrying out a plant ops NVQ (360 tracked excavator, above 10t and 180) for.

The operator required the NVQ to upgrade his existing red (trained operator) cards to blue(competence) cards, this was just prior to the CPCS bringing into action the groupings of plant, to cut a long story, the assessor agreed an observation on the 360 first and he was completely happy that the operator met all the criteria both knowledge and practical of the NVQ on this item of plant, a time went by and it was agreed that an observation on the 180 was required, the assessor met the operator on his site and said it was good timing as he was just digging out for some drainage, the existing trench was (assessor said) to a good standard, tidy,level and clean. the operator got in the JCB 3cx and then spent the next 10 minutes trying to get the bucket from its resting position on the ground and into the existing trench........ (and before you say it, it was not because the bucket was too big....) the assessor spent the next despairing 30 minutes watching the operator getting more frustrated at his own lack of operational skills,(and looking for the guy who had actually dug the trench!!!) after a while  the assessor said he was lacking the experience/operational skills for the machine (and was very dubious about the attainment of the red card for the 180-which he explained and is another worrying story)  and  referred him to training and said in the meantime to try acquire some experiance and operating  hours on the levers under the guidance of an experienced operator.

A date was agreed for some training and another assessment but in the meantime got a phone call from the operator on the progress of his NVQ on the 360, the assessor replied he was signed off on the units for this catogorybut obviously not the 180,to which the operator had heard about the groupings of plant, asked the assessor to drop the 180 units and he will get  the 180 on his blue card through the groupings (Plant ops, excavate and extract) this has put the assessor in a very difficult position and put a very inexperianced and (contrary to what his blue card may say) a very incompetent operator on our sites.....