I'm not sure where you've been. Even though you are an electrician, whereas I am not (although I have always taken an interest in such things), over the years and decades even I have seen countless domestic CUs containing mixed-brand devices and I can but presume that most were installed by 'electricians' (since few DIYers would contemplate doing such work).Any properly trained and qualified spark would not consider it for anything other than a temporary emergency measure to restore power to for example a life support machine, or a pump that is preventing a well overflowing and causing major flooding etc, to give chance to obtain and return with the correct device.
2013, actually. I can understand that view. However, as you say, I imagine that Part P was 'almost eliminated' (in England) after only about 8 years because it was apparent that it was not actually achieving anything significant. I think the issue is that there are (surprisingly) so few domestic deaths and serious injuries due to electricity, with only a small proportion of those being attributable to work by unqualified (and not supervised) people that there is very little scope for any sort of regulation to 'improve' the situation much.Electrical work should be subject to the same type of rules and regulation as gas work. Part P of the building Regs was a very poor attempt at introducing some kind of control. England saw it wasn't working and backed down on it in 2010 releasing some of the constraints, however Wales didn't so you now have the confusion of 2 versions in force depending in some cases which side of the road you are working on.
However, for what it's worth, I do share (in relation to those who undertake paid electrical work and, particular, those who perform EICRs) your view that such people should be fairly rigorously regulated/registered/licensed/whatever, noit the least so that those who fell short of a reasonable level of competence (and 'integrity') could be prevented from continuing tio try to oractise the trade.
