I meant when you've not seen the installation before.
Then what possible rational reason could you have for objecting to a law requiring you to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury?How does that prove non compliance with BS7671?
Compliance with BS7671 is something I have done for years, long before Part P.
Sorry - there is no reason whatsoever which even begins to make out rationality in the far distance why anybody already behaving in a certain way would object to a law requiring others to work to the same standards.I didn't need the introduction of Part P to tell me how to work safely and correctly, obviously, you did.
Then what possible rational reason could you have for objecting to a law requiring you to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury?How does that prove non compliance with BS7671?
Compliance with BS7671 is something I have done for years, long before Part P.
If you were already doing that then the law would have had no detrimental affect on you, and insofar as it levelled, or attempted to level, the playing field where you competed against people who didn't do things properly it would only have been good.
Sorry - there is no reason whatsoever which even begins to make out rationality in the far distance why anybody already behaving in a certain way would object to a law requiring others to work to the same standards.I didn't need the introduction of Part P to tell me how to work safely and correctly, obviously, you did.
The only reason someone can have for objecting to a law is that they do not think that they or anybody else should have to obey it.
If you object to Part P there can be no reason apart from believing that nobody should have to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.
Precisely.I meant when you've not seen the installation before.
Are you suggesting a full EICR on the installation must be carried out?I'm not sure that I completely understand your point/question, here. If one is undertaking an EICR after work has been completed (per our understanding of the new system), then presumably one inspects and tests everything relevant in the same manner (and to the same extent) as one would when doing any other EICR on the installation?
I know that, and never said that it was changing.Part P is not changing.
How on earth can you know that? It's one of the uncertainties which we're debating and speculating about.And although the scope of notifiability is reduced, electrical work will remain a controlled service. Any 3rd-party certifier will be certifying compliance with all of the Building Regulations ...
They obviously often couldn't certify that (specifically, the installation bit) which is why some of us are assuming that they will not be asked to certify that the work undertaken has complied fully with Part P.... and specifically will be certifying that reasonable provision has been made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.
Maybe, but, as I've said, I (and others) am under the impression that such is probably what is proposed.I don't think that an EICR will hack it, quite honestly, not once the 3rd parties stop and seriously think about professional liability issues.
Essentially the same answer - maybe, but this seems to me to be what the new system is proposing. I'm sure that no-one will be forced to undertake third-party certification of they don't want to.Plus I genuinely doubt that anybody providing that service who ought to be providing it would have anything to do with a client who says "I've finished this rewire could you come along and certify it please".
I have not gone off at a tangent.No, you've gone off a tangent.
In other words you said "Make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury? Pfffft."part pee, pfffft.
What does that have to do with your opposition to the principle that reasonable provision should be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury?Can you prove any work doesn't comply with BS7671 or Part P for that matter, simply from what someone has said?
I have not gone off at a tangent.No, you've gone off a tangent.
In other words you said "Make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury? Pfffft."part pee, pfffft.
Recently you had a signature which in effect said "I would like to ban the requirement for people to have to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury".
What does that have to do with your opposition to the principle that reasonable provision should be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury?Can you prove any work doesn't comply with BS7671 or Part P for that matter, simply from what someone has said?
No, not necessarily - that's why I said 'everything relevant'.Are you suggesting a full EICR on the installation must be carried out?I'm not sure that I completely understand your point/question, here. If one is undertaking an EICR after work has been completed (per our understanding of the new system), then presumably one inspects and tests everything relevant in the same manner (and to the same extent) as one would when doing any other EICR on the installation?
Again, I imagine that it would have to include 'everythong relevant' to the work that had been done - testing-wise, that would probably mean most or all of the tests that you would have performed had you undertaken the work - so,as you go on to say...I am under the impression only the new work has to be inspected - new circuit, work within zones or CUs.
In the case of a new CU, that could well be true. In reality, of course, a 'new CU' might effectively be a total (or near-total) re-wire, all of the existing circuits being extended, modified and/or having their cables replaced (and maybe a few 'new circuits' added, for the attention of the 3rd-party certifier!). In such a case, the DIYer would have saved quite a lot of electrician work.If all the circuits have to be tested then the CU virtually has to be redone so there is no point the DIYer doing it first.
I don't think you can do any sort of EICR - complete or 'partial', without any testing, can you?If the circuits do not have to be tested then do we just check all the screws?
The legislation is no longer a draft, or up for consultation.How on earth can you know that? It's one of the uncertainties which we're debating and speculating about.
Err - I think you should think about that some more.They obviously often couldn't certify that (specifically, the installation bit) which is why some of us are assuming that they will not be asked to certify that the work undertaken has complied fully with Part P
You are a professional inspector. You have duties and responsibilities prescribed by law. You have PLI with the to-be-expected terms & conditions. You have documents to sign where you attest to the quality of the checking you did and the compliance of the work with the Building Regulations.Maybe, but, as I've said, I (and others) am under the impression that such is probably what is proposed.
No - the new system is proposing that 3rd parties can undertake verification of compliance with the Building Regulations.Essentially the same answer - maybe, but this seems to me to be what the new system is proposing.
I'm sure they wont.I'm sure that no-one will be forced to undertake third-party certification of they don't want to.
You asked me to prove that you were opposed to safe electrical work, which I did by quoting you, and referring to previous statements of yours, which clearly showed that you are opposed to legislation requiring that electrical work be safe.You still have failed to prove anything I have asked you to.
We all know that, and have discussed the contents - but that doesn't mean that we are clear on exactly how the system is meant to, or is going to, work.The legislation is no longer a draft, or up for consultation. It may not be in force yet but it has been finalised, has been laid before Parliament, and is on the website.
As above, how do you know what the certifier will be expected to certify? Part P imposes obligations on those undertaking the design and installation of electrical installations. Whilst a 'certifier' appearing in the scene 'after the event' can verify the design, (s)he will often not be able to confirm that all aspects of installating' have been undertaken in compliance with Part P.Err - I think you should think about that some more. There is an clear requirement defined in Part P. A 3rd party certifier will be expected to certify that Part P has been complied with ....
It doesn't take much thought to see how it will have to work if it is meant to work.We all know that, and have discussed the contents - but that doesn't mean that we are clear on exactly how the system is meant to, or is going to, work.
Compliance with the Building Regulations, of course, otherwise what is the point. Read the Building Regulations Explanatory Booklet on the Planning Portal site. It talks about approved inspectors there, and that is all and everything that these 3rd party certifiers are.As above, how do you know what the certifier will be expected to certify?
Then (s)he cannot certify that the work complies with the Building Regulations, and the client will have no proof that the work complies with the Building Regulations and the whole thing will have been a waste of time and money with which the client will be justifiably aggrieved.Part P imposes obligations on those undertaking the design and installation of electrical installations. Whilst a 'certifier' appearing in the scene 'after the event' can verify the design, (s)he will often not be able to confirm that all aspects of installating' have been undertaken in compliance with Part P.
Indeed, and I do not see a problem with that - it just means that people need to engage the 3rd-part certifier before the fact, just like they do now if they choose to use an approved inspector's Building Control Service in preference to their LABC.So, however the new system meant to work, it therefore cannot really be one which requires 3rd parties to certify that all aspects of design and installation have been in compliance with Part P, or else every truthful 'after the event' certifier would refuse to certify anything!
Why wouldn't it?It is, I agree, possible that 'they' have not thought of this (such that the new system would not be workable),
The the whole thing is pointless.but I'm more inclined to think/hope that they have, and that the 3rd party certifier will be require to certify something which is 'certifiable' (maybe just by adding some caveats to what they have to sign).
You asked me to prove that you were opposed to safe electrical work, which I did by quoting you, and referring to previous statements of yours, which clearly showed that you are opposed to legislation requiring that electrical work be safe.You still have failed to prove anything I have asked you to.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local