No EIC for recent Flat conversion

[SimonH2]

EDIT: duplicate

 

[SimonH2]

Competent Persons Scheme, it is Part P that requires such a person to be registered/certified ?

I have questioned if the Scheme system actually brakes the closed shop rules, and is illegal?

No, there is no such requirement - at all !
There is no requirement whatsoever for an electrician to be a member of a scheme - but the schemes are careful to word their PR so that the public think otherwise. It might help if you think of the schemes as trade bodies - basically their primary interest in in representing their members' interests, e.g. by pushing for rules and regulations to be made in way that benefits themselves.
As far as I'm aware, the only place where scheme membership comes into play is the building regulations, specifically the part (appendix 2 if my memory serves me) on what works are notifiable. There are some works which must be notified to the LA BC department, for electrical they are : installing a CU, adding a circuit, or work within the zones of a bathroom. And there are two routes to notification :

• You can notify BC before you start, pay the fees, they will arrange any inspections they deem necessary, and afterwards issue a completion certificate. The fees are notoriously high for the amount of work involved.
• You can use an electrician who is a member of an approved scheme, and they can notify the work after it is done via their scheme. The cost for notifying this way is a token amount.

And that really is it. Absolutely nowhere else is scheme membership required by the regulations. As you say, if the regulations did mandate scheme mebership, then there would be questions to ask as to whether that is legal - I assume it must be in some circumstances or the gas safety regulations would be illegal.

So, from a legal perspective, you are allowed to do all your own wiring, or get it done by anyone you want - provided the person is competent to do it. But, if it is notifiable and you don't use a scheme member, then you will need to notify BC before you start. This is where the competent persons schemes come in - in theory, if you select someone who is a member then you can assume that they are competent and you will get a compliant and safe job done. I deliberately say "in theory" because we've seen an endless stream of non-compliant and/or dangerous and/or bodge jobs which were done by a supposedly competent person - and anecdotally the schemes aren't good at policing things or throwing people out if shoddy work is reported.
You might guess that I'm not a fan of the scams ... er schemes.


Back to your specific case ...
The best you can do now is have someone do an EICR which is the recognised way for someone to inspect and test an installation. I recall that when the notification requirements were introduced in the 2005 building regs, there was some discussion as to what form should be used and it was agreed as a pragmatic thing to just use the EICR (or PIR as I think it was still called back then) form. As BC have already said they'll accept this, then just do it !
BTW - When doing large building works like this, rather than standalone electrical works, it would be normal to just include "and associated electrical works" in the BC notification you need to do for the whole scheme. That way, when it's all done, you simply present BC with all the certificates (EIC (or EICR in this case) for the electrics, certificates for the doors & windows, and so on) and it'll all get covered with one completion certificate. By including the electrics like that, the question of whether it's cheaper to use a scheme member so they can notify for peanuts, or use a different electrician who's cheaper but you then have BC fees, becomes moot.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The schemes as they are now in England are a nonsense.

They were originally (and still are in Wales) introduced to regulate ancillary workers (plumbers, kitchen fitters etc.) who did some electrical work.
Then, for some unknown reason - lobbying? - England removed nearly all of the notifiable work relating to these ancillary trades leaving only the three mentioned above (more accurately "replacing a CU", "new circuits" and "additions and alterations within zones"; two of which are easily avoided.). These obviously generally only now affect actual electricians, with the possible exception of a plumber fitting a new shower.

So, in effect, electricians have to join a scheme to save having to pay the LA fees if they want to 'replace' consumer units.

Membership is not required (in England) for anything else.


Edit - obviously the customer pays the LA fee but it works out the same.

 

[SimonH2]

I can't help thinking that when they relaxed the rules, someone had taken on board the negative consequences. Yes I'm sure there was lobbying involved, but in this case my feeling is that it was a case of "perhaps those restrictions done in haste as a knee jerk to an event were OTT".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Then they should have done away with all of it.

Just leaving 'replacement of CUs' with the other two minor bits is daft.

As I said it removed all ancillary trades (the original purpose) from the need for registration.

 

[ericmark]

I remember watching the video of the parliament group who reduced the requirements, the against Part P quoted 21 to 65 year old cases of dementure, and pointed out less people were thrown off the schemes than suffered with dementure so it seemed likely the claimed policing was not being done. I was also pointed out some one who was thrown off the a scheme was not black listed so he could join another scheme, it was pointed out black listing would be illegal but result was same a bad electrician can work his way around all the scheme providers so basically it did not work.

After watching I was surprised Part P was not simply scrapped, as it seemed the scheme providers were simply making money and not monitoring the work as claimed.

But the LABC was no better, when I used them, they did not even cast an eye on completed work. And when I tried to get a copy of the completion certificate it seems you can't get one, so rather pointless.

@SimonH2 is not quite correct in England you can now have third party inspectors, and although same form can be used as for an EICR it has to be commissioned by the LABC who instruct the inspector it is not open to anyone to complete the EICR the LABC normally has a list of inspectors they use.

It does not really matter how daft the law is, it is still law, and for an owner occupied home the LABC seem to take the atitude that the owner is unlikely to put himself at risk, so don't seem to worry too much, but with rented property it is likely another story.

 

[SimonH2]

After watching I was surprised Part P was not simply scrapped

What's Part P got to do with it ? It's only the Building Regs that mention notification & scam membership.

 

[JohnW2]

What's Part P got to do with it ? It's only the Building Regs that mention notification & scam membership.

Eric is an intelligent guy, so I don't really understand why he persists so much with confusing Part P and the notification requirements of the Building Regs in what he writes, despite his error being pointed out to him so very very often. Were it not for the fact that he is probably confusing/misleading forum members, it might be best for us just to give up, on the basis that "we know what he means", but that would not really be ideal!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

@SimonH2 is not quite correct in England you can now have third party inspectors, and although same form can be used as for an EICR it has to be commissioned by the LABC who instruct the inspector ...

That's a new one on me - where did it come from?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Part P.

 

[ericmark]

OK pedantic it was notification requirements of the Building Regs. Next you will be saying it not an MOT and ministry of transport changed name many time is the inspection started, but you clearly knew what I meant.

 

[JohnW2]

OK pedantic it was notification requirements of the Building Regs. Next you will be saying it not an MOT and ministry of transport changed name many time is the inspection started, but you clearly knew what I meant.

Those of us 'in the know' certainly "knew what you meant".

However, it's not 'us' that matters, so I'm not sure that it really is pedantic. It is apparent that there is considerable confusion and misunderstanding in the eyes of the general public (including may 'electrical DIYers') about "Part P" - as you know, we hear about "Part P trained", "Part P registered", "Part P Certificates" etc., none of which mean anything, and we are forever seeing confusion between Part P and Approved Document P.

You presumably also know better than most of us that this is particularly important in Wales - where Part P is identical to that in England but the notification requirements very different from those in England.

I therefore think that we all should try to use this terminology correctly, to help to educate forum members and dispel some of their misconceptions and misunderstandings.

MOT tests are a totally different matter. Even though, as you say, the origins of the terms are now simply a matter of history, "MOT test" and "MOT test certificate" remain the official terms (i.e. in legislation), as can be seen from the extract of a sample recent certificate below. To criticise the use of such terms today would therefore not be 'pedantic', it would actually be totally wrong.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Agree mis-information should be corrected, or at least debated, after all this a 'forum'

I didn't know they are two different things, if that is what you are saying: 'Part P' and 'Approved Document P'.

 

[ericmark]

Agree mis-information should be corrected, or at least debated, after all this a 'forum'

I didn't know they are two different things, if that is what you are saying: 'Part P' and 'Approved Document P'.

Little worse than that you have Part P, Approved Document Part P, Registered under Part P and all duplicated England and Wales. Think it is a warrant for Scotland and not a clue about Ulster and I.O.M. and other islands.

At least BS 7671 is common, but same applies to other laws and recommendation, the health and safety rules have both laws and recommendations, and it is hard to work out what is law, and what is a recommendation. English law is around 90% case law, so if a case finds that an electricians mate is not qualified enough to sign an EIC then that is now law (Emma Shaw case) but a case after that could over turn it.

So if for example there was a court case in Cornwell where it was found one week was an unreasonable time to get an electrician to look at a reported fault, it does not matter if the original law says 28 days, now it is one week.

The problem is we don't spend our time reading court cases, mainly as it would frighten us, thinking there by grace of god goes I. And news papers don't help, often with half truths, like was reading the Corona virus for local village I live in was amber alert so 25 - 49 cases per 100,000 which means ½ a person has caught it? Clearly an error, or maybe it is a child?

However at end of day idea is to make it safe. What ever it is we want it safe. And if some one has to sign to say it's safe, then more likely to ensure it is. Also if it may cost money, so if after a builder has done some work, an inspector says that's OK, and signs his name, then if latter it all goes pear shaped, one should have a claim, however any contract has three things, an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.

This has come up at the railway I work at, if the safety officer is a volunteer, then there is no consideration, so there is no contract. So if he makes a mistake then they can't take him to court as no contract. So the railway has to take it on the chin.

We of course hope he makes no errors, but it always worried me when doing an EICR if I miss something can I be taken to court? We see this with firms being sold for 1 penny, there has to be consideration even if 1p.

I consider since I have not worked for a wage in over 10 years, and the maximum time between EICR was 10 years, no one can come back to me for anything I have done.

 

[JohnW2]

I didn't know they are two different things, if that is what you are saying: 'Part P' and 'Approved Document P'.

Indeed so.

There are only two relevant parts of 'the law', both in the Building Regulations. Part P of the Building Regs is literally just one sentence (together with a few notes indicating what electrical installations it applies to) which simply says that electrical work must be done 'safely' ...

“Reasonable provision shall 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.”

That's all!! As far as the law is concerned one is free to comply with Part P by any means one chooses.

'Approved Document P' is a more detailed document, but it only represents guidance on one approach which would be deemed to satisfying Part P which, in turn, relies heavily on advising compliance with BS7671 (aka 'The Wiring Regulations') - although, again, that is also non-mandatory. The 'misunderstanding' is that many people seem to think (incorrectly) that 'compliance' with the guidance of Approved Doc P and/or compliance with BS7671 is the only way of satisfying the requirements of Part P.

The other relevant part of the Building Regulations is (in England - Wales is different) section 12(6A) which indicates the (very few) types of electrical work for which 'notification' to the Building Control dept of the Local Authority is required. Some people incorrectly describe these (legally binding) rules about 'notification' as being 'Part P'.

I hope that helps to clarify.

Kind Regards, John