Ask The Trades - The First Part P Prosecution

ChubbyPhaseWire GDPR opt-out	Re: The First Part P Prosecution Reply #34 - Aug 24^th, 2006, 9:36pm Quote: Agreed Ding. Maybe there should be registry of cowboys complete with mug shots so prospective customers can check on them before employing them - a bit like they can with is registered sparks Ray do you still put your photo on the NAPSH1T card? Job done
Back to top	IP Logged

The_Trician Trade Member Offline Posts: 7721 Total Thanks: 8 For This Post: 0 Gender: Trade: Electrician	Re: The First Part P Prosecution Reply #35 - Aug 25^th, 2006, 2:49pm "Maybe there should be registry of cowboys complete with mug shots..." There already is - It's the NIC register - anyone who can stump up the requisite amount of 'readies' is 'in'. Only one Q/S to sign off the rest of their monkies works and yee-haarr! Please leave stirrups & saddles outside - Thank You. TT
Back to top	Thats the trouble with a colostomy - you can never find the shoes to match the bag....... IP Logged

dingbat Trade Member Offline How hard can it be? Posts: 2822 Total Thanks: 2 For This Post: 0 Gender: Trade: Electrician	Re: The First Part P Prosecution Reply #36 - Aug 25^th, 2006, 3:50pm Ah, bless you Dave. You still don't really get it, do you? Never mind, I'm sure all COR sparks are as far from appearing in Westerns as it's possible to get. Congrats on your recent nuptials, by the way - I was away when I heard the news.
Back to top	IP Logged

The_Trician Trade Member Offline Posts: 7721 Total Thanks: 8 For This Post: 0 Gender: Trade: Electrician	Re: The First Part P Prosecution Reply #37 - Aug 26^th, 2006, 11:56pm Many thanks for the kind wishes Ding. The day went very well - it's just the rest of my life I have to think about now! Oh I'm sure there are good & bad eggs in the NIC, just as there are in other walks of life, but surely you can see my problem where NIC credibilty is concerned. TT
Back to top	Thats the trouble with a colostomy - you can never find the shoes to match the bag....... IP Logged

ChubbyPhaseWire

GDPR opt-out

Total Thanks: 8
For This Post: 0

Re: The First Part P Prosecution
Reply #38 - Aug 27^th, 2006, 12:03am

The_Trician wrote on Aug 26^th, 2006, 11:56pm:

Many thanks for the kind wishes Ding. The day went very well - it's just the rest of my life I have to think about now!

Oh I'm sure there are good & bad eggs in the NIC, just as there are in other walks of life, but surely you can see my problem where NIC credibilty is concerned.

Grin

TT

Have you ever been in the NICEIC?

Back to top

IP Logged

ChubbyPhaseWire

GDPR opt-out

Total Thanks: 8
For This Post: 0

Re: The First Part P Prosecution
Reply #39 - Sep 6^th, 2006, 11:30pm

Quote:

The_Trician wrote on Aug 26^th, 2006, 11:56pm:

Many thanks for the kind wishes Ding. The day went very well - it's just the rest of my life I have to think about now!

Oh I'm sure there are good & bad eggs in the NIC, just as there are in other walks of life, but surely you can see my problem where NIC credibilty is concerned.

Grin

TT

Have you ever been in the NICEIC?

DAVE?

Back to top

IP Logged

UltraSpark

GDPR opt-out

Total Thanks: 8
For This Post: 0

Re: The First Part P Prosecution
Reply #40 - Sep 21^st, 2006, 12:20pm

Part P

I think that part p is a good thing in theory. ??????

The way it has been introduced is an absolute disaster. I'm so pissed to say the least at the fact that there is no uniform take on how to administer Part P by LABC's.

Charges for notification by some LABC's are under £50 others are nearer to £300. Some LABC's will inspect the work at 1st fix and then 2nd fix and are happy if you are competent under BS7671 to test and issue certs as long as you can prove it by being qualified to C+G 2391. Then there are the LABC's who dont even inspect just ok to accept cert if you are competent under BS7671 (with 2391). Then there are LABC's who say you are not deemed competent unless you are in a Part P Competent approved persons scheme if I were in a scheme why the hell would I bother notifying LABC direct. Then they say pay LABC to notify and then pay another £100 + VAT or more to have a qualified COMPITENT electrician to certify that work has been designed, installed, inspected and tested in accordance with BS7671 AND PROVIDE AN ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE.

When disscussing this with the ECA and the NICEIC they say that another electrician cant inspect anothers work.

For the system to work and be fair it should be the same accross the entire country.

It seems as though compitence can not be proven even if you have all the qualifications espescially 2391. You are no longer deemed competent under BS7671 now that PART P is here.

I though if i'm deemed compitent under BS7671 it was a CHOICE to join a COMPITENT scheme or not. Notify LABC direct they inspect and test, or you test your own work and issue the certs as we have always done.

Part P will not stop the D I Yer doing dodgy installations and I will be very surprised if Mr or Mrs DIY is ever prosecuted under Part P. Even though that is what to some extent PART P was introduced for.

Also, speek to Jo public and they do not have a clue what your talking about when you mention PART P. After all isnt it supposed to safe guard the public from dodgy sparks and from them selves.

It seems to me that in terms of domestic work BS7671 carrys no weight.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN A COMPITENT ELECTICIANS SCHEME TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT ELECTRCIAL WORK. IF YOU ARE COMPITENT UNDER BS7671 YOU CAN DESIGN, INSTALL, INSPECT AND TEST YOUR OWN WORK. YOU DO HAVE TO NOTIFY LABC OF THE PROPOSED WORK UNDER PART P.

Back to top

IP Logged

CWatters

Super Member

Offline

"Daddy fick it" says James

Posts: 5150

Total Thanks: 58
For This Post: 0

Gender: male

Re: The First Part P Prosecution
Reply #41 - Sep 21^st, 2006, 4:05pm

You said:

Quote:

Then they say pay LABC to notify and then pay another £100 + VAT or more to have a qualified COMPITENT electrician to certify that work has been designed, installed, inspected and tested in accordance with BS7671 AND PROVIDE AN ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE.

They specifically are not allowed to do that. Two Jags wrote to them to tell them so ...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1131042

It says...

Quote:

There have been reports that some local authorities are asking householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work. Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that local authorities do not have the power to require householders to retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice should discontinue it immediately.

BCO will complain that they don't have the resources to do the necessary inspections of DIY work but two Jags also said....

Quote:

The DCLG recognises that many local authority building control departments did not possess the expertise needed to check building work for compliance with the requirements of Part P as the departments had not previously had to deal with the safety of electrical installations. We would encourage all local authorities to make sufficient resources available to allow them to carry out their statutory functions in respect of Part P, perhaps by considering reinvestment of some or all of any surplus arising from building control charges received.

...so there you are. BCO are meant to hire qualified people using the dosh they raise from other building Control application fees.

So my understanding is that officially there are only two routes for notifiable work:

1) Submit a BCA and let them worry about checking compliance. The BCO must charge a fixed fee published in advance and provide the qualified manpower at the right time to satisfy themselves that the work meets the regs. They must not require you to pay a third party Electrician. If you make a pigs ear of the installation and they have to come back several times they can't even charge you more.

2) Arrange for a "scheme member" to do the work. In which case no BCA is necessary.

The rest of that link is also worth a read.

Back to top

IP Logged

CWatters Super Member Offline "Daddy fick it" says James Posts: 5150 Total Thanks: 58 For This Post: 0 Gender:	Re: The First Part P Prosecution Reply #42 - Sep 21^st, 2006, 4:19pm I just wanted to add that even if the person doing the work was qualified should the BCO be able to rely on that fact? In effect that means the installer is providing a service to the BCO that the BCO would otherwise have to budget for.
Back to top	IP Logged

ChubbyPhaseWire

GDPR opt-out

Total Thanks: 58
For This Post: 0

Re: The First Part P Prosecution
Reply #43 - Sep 27^th, 2006, 8:47pm

Quote:

The_Trician wrote on Aug 26^th, 2006, 11:56pm:

Many thanks for the kind wishes Ding. The day went very well - it's just the rest of my life I have to think about now!

Oh I'm sure there are good & bad eggs in the NIC, just as there are in other walks of life, but surely you can see my problem where NIC credibilty is concerned.

Grin

TT

Have you ever been in the NICEIC?

DAVE?

?

Back to top

IP Logged