Quick question on 'compent persons'

[xr4x4]

Hello all,

Would it be safe to assume that if you called in 'a so called electrician he would be part of a compent persons scheme?

And when supplying a certificate for a cu change (for example) you would expect a name, address and a signature on the paperwork?

 

[RF Lighting]

No not at all. Assuming this is in relation to a domestic job, you should ask the electrician for proof he is a member of a competent persons scheme, and if you are unsure, check him out for your self. I'd also check he's got public liability insurance too.

Yes the EIC should have all those details, as should the building regs compliance certificate.

 

[xr4x4]

No not at all. Assuming this is in relation to a domestic job, you should ask the electrician for proof he is a member of a competent persons scheme, and if you are unsure, check him out for your self. I'd also check he's got public liability insurance too.

Yes the EIC should have all those details, as should the building regs compliance certificate.

Thanks for that..

That's the problem, we are new having problems with him and we can't find him on any...! And it turns out we don't have his address..!

I wasn't dealing with him btw, my boss was..

 

[RF Lighting]

He could be registered under just his name, or under his business name, but a postcode search on the competent persons website should bring up all* registered contractors in your area.


*I believe that it's not always 100% up to date and some genuine contractors have been missed off the list.

Did you not get an invoice, or any paper work at all containing his details? I'd be very suspicious if this was the case.

 

[xr4x4]

He could be registered under just his name, or under his business name, but a postcode search on the competent persons website should bring up all* registered contractors in your area.


*I believe that it's not always 100% up to date and some genuine contractors have been missed off the list.

Did you not get an invoice, or any paper work at all containing his details? I'd be very suspicious if this was the case.

I've searched for his name and business name, nothing..

I didn't get an invoice but my boss did, afaik no address was given.

Some of his work and what he said when talking to him was a little suss.

 

[RF Lighting]

I might be wrong, but leaving no details sounds to me like he might have something to hide.

I go out of my way to leave details with my customers, stick it to their fuse boxes, cover my paperwork in it etc.

 

[xr4x4]

I might be wrong, but leaving no details sounds to me like he might have something to hide.

I go out of my way to leave details with my customers, stick it to their fuse boxes, cover my paperwork in it etc.

Indeed....thanks...and I can't tell you the whole story.

But it looks you might be right.

 

[bernardgreen]

Would it be safe to assume that if you called in 'a so called electrician he would be part of a compent persons scheme?

Only if he or she showed proof membership that the scheme office confirmed was still valid. A struck of member could still have the now invalid "proof" of membership.

And when supplying a certificate for a cu change (for example) you would expect a name, address and a signature on the paperwork?

It is worthless without those items.

If this is for work done in a work place then in my opinion the owner has failed in his or her duty of care to the employees. The work may be OK but if it is OK then why does the electrician feel unable to provide name and address on the certificate.

And of course not all scheme members are competent.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

There is section on the forms requesting details of the installer or the company they are employed by to filled in.
If this is not complete, I cannot see how the document is a valid one and sounds like you have fallen in to the cowboy trap.
There must have been some contact made between you at some point when numbers/details were exchanged.

Every form, document, covering letter, invoice, receipt, quote, estimate etc... and the installation, that I perform work on, I leave my details and methods of contact.
This offers assurance to the client that I am contactable if any issues, they have my details if they require extra work or wish to pass my name on to others, as a recommended tradesman (for the fine work I have performed )
I would stick my details on the side of their house if they would let me

I think in your case, something is dodgy!

 

[ericmark]

A competent person and a member of a competent persons scheme are two completely different things. I always thought it was a bad selection of names for the scheme as if I was asked "Are you a competent person" correct answer is yes but if asked "Are you a member of a competent persons scheme" the answer is no.

Also the lack of permits to work from the LABC give an easy get out for the non member where he can claim he thought the owner had done the notification. I was rather shocked when I found no paper work issued to tell electrician the work has been registered and you can start.

We all know who ever is to issue the completion certificate be it a scheme or the LABC then the minor works or installation certificate should be signed and issued by the designer, installer and tester. Although there is no law saying it must be issued not issuing it shows that the persons involved with the work intended to flaunt the Part P law as be it through a scheme or direct to LABC they as competent persons would know the paper work would be required.

But as to court cases it would seem people are not taken to court for simply not complying with Part P. Only where either they have claimed to be scheme members and are not or have completed sub-standard work do they end up in court. Electricians should issue paperwork within two weeks of completion but I have know them hang onto paperwork until paid.

So the real question is:-
1) Is the work sub-standard?
2) Did they say they were a scheme member?

With the latter the next question was their membership shown in a written form where you can prove they said they were scheme members?

One can see how he could say "I said I was a competent person not a member of a competent persons scheme" without something is writing very hard to prove.

In England now the LABC can accept an electrical installation condition report to issue a completion certificate and you as the owner need to consider if your best to:-
a) Go to LABC and tell them the story and pay any fees charged.
b) Try to get the electrician to issue paper work with likely solicitors costs.
c) Do nothing and claim paper work lost or work done before 2004 when you sell the house. Likely you will anyway need an electrical installation condition report so all that would be missing is the completion certificate.

I will admit that electricians who are doing work on the side and not telling the tax man clearly don't want any paper records of what they have done. Very early I had a guy who refused to pay me the agreed fee as he said I know you can't do anything as I know you have not told the tax man or your boss and if your boss finds out you are doing work on the side you will get the sack. That was the end of doing work on the side. From that day on everything I did was official. But some still work on gentlemen's agreement.

 

[SimonH2]

By issuing a so-called invoice without his details on he's committed an offence (Business Names Act of something or other) ! One simple answer is not to pay the bill, and presumably he'll be in touch sooner or later and you can get some contact details off him then - just spin a yarn about accounts can't sign off the payment without all the details etc.

 

[Norcon]

You can always tell a competent electrician by the quality of his work.

Guess that rules bas out.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But as to court cases it would seem people are not taken to court for simply not complying with Part P.

That's not true.

There have been some. Their breaches of Part P were egregious, but there have been a few.

Only where .. they have .. completed sub-standard work do they end up in court.

There you go - not complying with Part P