Should Part P get scrapped?

[JohnW2]

That's exactly it. The vast majority of people never even realise there is a problem, until something goes wrong years later and it's too late.

Precisely - and that's why, if we are to have regulation, the system owes it to the public to do everything possible to ensure that if professionally undertaken electrical work is 'certified' (either by the person doing it or an LABC) then it really is up to standard and does not contain hidden problems or dangers. Sad though it is, I fear that the current system falls far short of providing such reassurance.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And the blame for the current system can be laid firmly at the feet of the scheme organisers.

Before Part P etc you had to be genuinely qualified - the traditional full set of C&Gs - to be a NICEIC or NAPIT etc member.

OK - NICEIC did have the "Qualified Supervisor in charge of a bunch of knuckle draggers" system for companies, and yes, there will always have been the lazy, the incompetent, the experienced "never did all this testing in my day and everything worked" bad apples.

But what did they do, with the largesse from thousands of plumbers, gas installers, kitchen fitters etc lighting up their eyes?

They invented the 5-day wonder.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Cowboy tradesmen should be banned, they should be regulated and inspected even more, have higher fees to pay and all forced to wear pink frilly underwear. (see - some of you already do...

But not Sparkybird..

 

[scousespark]

What do you do, which brings you into conatct with so many electricians that you can derive that enough are not competent to sign off their own work?

Even though you've quoted what I said, you don't seem to have got my point. Why do you keep saying 'so many'? As I said (and you quoted) it only takes a handful of 'black sheep' to make it impossible for anyone to know whether or not any particular electrician is competent to self-certify.

Anyway, as others have said, third-party inspection/approval/certification of their work is something which many people happily accept if they work in safety-critical areas. How comfortable would you be to fly in an aircraft just after its engine had been worked on by a fitter who had 'self-certified' his/her work?

Given that as an electrician, the certificate is the proof that it is safe and the LABC bit is basically a rubber stamp to this, I don't see why you are so against us self-certifying.

Any certification system which consists of merely rubber-stamping the electrician's (or DIYer's) assessment of their own work is obviously a joke which is not worth having. Returning to the aeronautical analogy, tragedies have occured when inspectors have merely 'rubber stamped' the work of fitters they believed to be competent. The other thing to remember is that even the highly competent are not immune from making mistakes - another reason for third party inspection/certification.

Kind Regards,
John

I did ask what you do, to bring you into conatct with a group of electricains.

Taking the number out, I am still struggling to get your point.
If a trained and qualified electrician, registers with a scheme, they are subject to an annual assessment. Success in this grants another year were they can self-certify. That is the reason a professional can regard the LABC notification as a rubber stamp.

The 'black sheep' won't go near a scheme and that's were the current system falls down IMO.

There is little point bringing other industries and regulations into this argument. I doubt any of us believe that domestic installs compare to aeronautical electrics.

 

[scousespark]

How comfortable would you be to fly in an aircraft just after its engine had been worked on by a fitter who had 'self-certified' his/her work?

A somewhat different kettle of fish, I think, both in size and in risk.

No argument about that but, as I'm sure you understand, it's part of the spirit in which my comments have been made ... I think there is a tendency for some people to 'want it both ways' in relation to electrical work. On the one hand they want to present it as a highly safety-critical business, with the most extreme consequent suggestion being that all DIY electrical work should be outlawed - but, on the other hand, they are not happy to have the activities of 'professional' electricians dealt with in the manner one would expect in relation to safety-critical activities.

Kind Regards, John.

If you are referring to me, I don't want it both ways. I don't believe that domestic installation is a safety-critical business. I do believe that ensuring the installation is safe, is a critical part of my job.

I have no issue with anybody doing DIY electrics. I just think there is a differnece bewtween the professioanl and the DIYER, in that the scheme opeartor assumes the role of the LABC when dealing with the former.
As for the latter, the main issue is the cost and this should really reflect the actaul cost to the LABC.

 

[scousespark]

I think there is a tendency for some people to 'want it both ways' in relation to electrical work. On the one hand they want to present it as a highly safety-critical business, with the most extreme consequent suggestion being that all DIY electrical work should be outlawed - but, on the other hand, they are not happy to have the activities of 'professional' electricians dealt with in the manner one would expect in relation to safety-critical activities.

They don't want it both ways - they just want job protection/restrictive practices legislation.

There's no rationality in their position. Don't forget that earlier today we saw someone who works in a regulated field with mandatory qualifications and safety critical aspects get completely bent out of shape at the suggestion that other fields might require him to know something.

I am sure there are electricians who want to restrict DIY activity, but I'm not one of them. I don't have any issue with my work being monitored.
This is the purpose of the scheme operators, in the domestic sector.

 

[scousespark]

The scheme opperators kill their golden gooses?

They might if 'OfScheme' were looking over their shoulder and threatening to rescind their scheme operator status if they were naughty.

Kind Regards, John.

I don't work for the schemes, but as they are licensed by the gvt I would assume there was an element of monitoring taking place. This may be a bit naive.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't work for the schemes, but as they are licensed by the gvt I would assume there was an element of monitoring taking place. This may be a bit naive.

It may. If the schemes were being satsfactorily and transparently monitored, then I would probably feel very differently, but I am far from convinced that this is the case. What government department or body do you think is doing such monitoring, and how do you think they would/could be monitoring whether scheme members really are all working to a satisfactory standard?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

If a trained and qualified electrician, registers with a scheme, they are subject to an annual assessment. Success in this grants another year were they can self-certify.

That is different from monitoring. Even if we had to taking driving tests every year, that would not give any reassurance that someone who passed the tests with flying colours wasn't exceeding speed limits, driving dangerously, driving whilst drunk etc.etc. during the period in between tests. The situation with self-certification of electrical work is equivalent to one in which a person who passed annual driving tests would be able to 'self-certify' that they never drove dangerously etc. In reality, as you know, policing ('monitoring') is actually required to determine whether that is happening.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

I don't work for the schemes, but as they are licensed by the gvt I would assume there was an element of monitoring taking place. This may be a bit naive.

It may. If the schemes were being satsfactorily and transparently monitored, then I would probably feel very differently, but I am far from convinced that this is the case. What government department or body do you think is doing such monitoring, and how do you think they would/could be monitoring whether scheme members really are all working to a satisfactory standard?

Kind Regards, John.

The gvt department is whatever version of the old DCLG exists now.
The end-point for your argument is that nobody should be allowed to work with electricity in a domestic environment. There HAS to be an element of trust.

You seem reluctant to tell me what you do, yet expect us to accept on trust that you have an insight into the industry. To the level that you see enough bad practice to determine the self-cert scheme should be scrapped.

 

[scousespark]

If a trained and qualified electrician, registers with a scheme, they are subject to an annual assessment. Success in this grants another year were they can self-certify.

That is different from monitoring. Even if we had to taking driving tests every year, that would not give any reassurance that someone who passed the tests with flying colours wasn't exceeding speed limits, driving dangerously, driving whilst drunk etc.etc. during the period in between tests. The situation with self-certification of electrical work is equivalent to one in which a person who passed annual driving tests would be able to 'self-certify' that they never drove dangerously etc. In reality, as you know, policing ('monitoring') is actually required to determine whether that is happening.

Kind Regards, John.

This thread is just nonsense now. Assuming there are enough people in the country, who can get the qualifiacations required to assess an installation - how do you check the inspectors are only working properly when they are asses.

The driving analogy is just spurious. Yes there are bad drivers, there are also bad doctors, dentists, lawyers, plumbers and so on.
Are you suggesting that there should be a whole layer of inspection, covering every profession/trade, examinsing everything they do?

 

[stillp]

If a trained and qualified electrician, registers with a scheme, they are subject to an annual assessment. Success in this grants another year were they can self-certify.

That is different from monitoring. Even if we had to taking driving tests every year, that would not give any reassurance that someone who passed the tests with flying colours wasn't exceeding speed limits, driving dangerously, driving whilst drunk etc.etc. during the period in between tests. The situation with self-certification of electrical work is equivalent to one in which a person who passed annual driving tests would be able to 'self-certify' that they never drove dangerously etc. In reality, as you know, policing ('monitoring') is actually required to determine whether that is happening.

Kind Regards, John.

Policing is not monitoring John, unless you have a policeman in your car at all times. About the nearest we come to driver monitoring (with the exception of the electronic monitors offered by some insurers to young drivers) are the roads with frequent Gatso cameras, but even they will not detect someone driving dangerously but within the speed limit. In effect every driver, every time he starts to drive, is self-certifiying that he/she is fit and competent to do so, and I suggest that driving a vehicle carries a lot more potential danger than installing domestic electrial installations.

 

[JohnW2]

The gvt department is whatever version of the old DCLG exists now. The end-point for your argument is that nobody should be allowed to work with electricity in a domestic environment. There HAS to be an element of trust.

Like trusting people who say that they have not drunk too much to be driving, rather than breathalysing them? I'm obviously not saying that electrical work should not be allowed. I'm saying that, if we are to have regulation, when the work is done professionally, there should be some checks on whther it has actually be done to the right standard. Registration and annual assessments (if adequate) merely indicate that people know what they should do; something else is required to check whether they are actually doing what they know they should do.

You seem reluctant to tell me what you do, yet expect us to accept on trust that you have an insight into the industry. To the level that you see enough bad practice to determine the self-cert scheme should be scrapped.

I've only suggested that self-certification should be scrapped unless it can be seen that work done under the scheme (rather than the 'qualifications' of those undertaking the work) is being adequately monitored. What I do, and how much contact I have with electricians, is totally irrelevant. You've only got to look at some of the posts in forums like this to learn about some of the unacceptable things that 'qualified electricians' sometimes do - and you have already acknowledged the fact that, as well all know, there are some 'black sheep' - whose work is, as far as I am aware, never routinely monitored or checked (except when they know they are being assessed).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Policing is not monitoring John, unless you have a policeman in your car at all times.

Policing is obviously not 100% monitoring, but is a system that has been put in place with the aim of detecting as many as possible deviations from safe and legal driving.

In effect every driver, every time he starts to drive, is self-certifiying that he/she is fit and competent to do so

Quite so - and we don't trust that self-certification to always be 'correct', hence have police, cameras etc. to detect as many cases as possible of 'false self-certification'.

I really don't understand why this discussion is going the way it is. Most professionas, and many trades, have and accept the concept of some degree of 'audit' of work being done (as well as re-assessments etc.) - so why are electricians so hesitant/frightened of the concept?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

Most professionas, and many trades, have and accept the concept of some degree of 'audit' of work being done (as well as re-assessments etc.) - so why are electricians so hesitant/frightened of the concept?
quote]
Why do you think they are hesitant/frightened of the concept?
Surely they already are reassessed annually. If they work to a lower standard when they are not under assessment, then anything less that 100% supervision would make little if any difference.