3rd Party Part-P Certification Schemes?

[eveares]

So for notifiable work that falls under the part P of building regulations, work has to be certified and signed off to the local building authority.

From what I know, the typical way this is done is either using a "certified" electrician who is registered with self-certification scheme like Napit, ELECSA, etc... or to get your local councils building control to inspect it at the various stages and sign it off for a fee?

I also recall a few years ago there was talk about a new third option to allow 3rd party certifies to sign of such notifiable work. What if any such schemes exist today?

So what are the options for a technically competent person with all the test gear who is not registered with self-certification scheme, to do notifiable work that falls under part P? This all relates to Liverpool by the way.

Regards: Elliott.

 

[eveares]

Wait, I found this: https://liverpool.gov.uk/planning-a...fees-for-domestic-extensions-and-alterations/

Does this mean that for Liverpool council to sign of work carried out by someone who is not registered with a Part P scheme, that it would cost £702 + £756 + £1008 + Surcharge costs. This does not seem right cost wise. This for a re-wire of a old property, not any extension or major structural work.

 

[flameport]

As you have discovered,. the whole Part P notification debacle is just a money making exercise.

The only people that actually pay for it are electricians who opt to do things properly, and for them the fees increase significantly every year and are just another cost that's passed on to customers.
None of it affects the quality of any work done anywhere.

Everyone else notifies nothing with no consequences of any kind.

 

[flameport]

I also recall a few years ago there was talk about a new third option to allow 3rd party certifies to sign of such notifiable work. What if any such schemes exist today?

NAPIT supposedly still operate such a thing, however no one will be using it, as the requirements were for the inspector to be notified about any work before it starts, then for work to be inspected at both 1st and 2nd fix, and then tested at completion with a full inspection and test report completed. This means at least 3 separate visits and the cost of anyone providing such a service would be far more than anyone would be willing to pay.

In many cases it would actually be cheaper and quicker for the inspector to just do the installation themselves.

 

[Murdochcat]

OP if you want to do notifiable work and keep the right side of the guidance then joining a scheme is the best option and doing the whole job to the appropriate regs and standards

 

[pete01]

It is frustrating, I never do notifiable work but I get asked occasionally.

Years ago napit did a scheme where you could notify 8 Jobs per year, think it was around 200 quid, they dont do it anymore, shame.

 

[Murdochcat]

I always think it’s unfair that a sole trader gets charged the same as a small lecky business with Napit and they don’t access all the operator either

 

[ebee]

I think it was a good intention gone wrong, then vastly wrong, the unbelievably wrong, ELECSA no longer exist, they had the best lead in initially because they were born of FENSA but ELECSA were morphed along to NICEIC, Elecsa and NICEIC did not believe in the third party route and NAPIT and Stroma did do. I changed from Elecsa to Stroma the last couple of years before I retired because they were cheaper, I did enquire about becoming a third party certifier but the costs of additional insurance and additional vetting priced it out so I do not know of anyone who did it. Stroma has since gone as well. BSI had their own scheme at first but it was about double the cost of the others.
It is a debacle unfortunately so it`s either use a scheme member or notify to your local authority or do nowt, if you do nowt and it shows up you will be required to get it regularised and that costs 20% more than if you notified in the first place, however that is VAT free whilst notifying attracts VAT at 20% so the cost is about the same.
Barmy or what?

 

[ericmark]

Yes the union was stopped having a closed shop, so anyone could claim to be an electrician, then realised there was no control, so it was replaced with Part P, and to start with there were loads of options, but as soon as it drops to one scheme provider, it will fall foul of the closed shop law, and then only way will be for the LABC to inspect all work.

In Wales the third party inspection was never permitted, in the main it allowed a firm to use semi-skilled to do work, then get it inspected, but if I want a new boiler, who will fit it, as needs to be both OFTEC and a Scheme member in Wales.

 

[flameport]

, if you do nowt and it shows up

That never happens.

The only time any electrical installation in a domestic property even gets considered is when someone is selling and then certain questions are asked as to what might have been done to it.
The usual answers to those are that
yes, things were indeed done to it in the last 20+ years, and
no, all documents were lost, destroyed, forgotten, never existed.

After that someone might get an EICR done, which in reality they should be doing anyway regardless of the presence of any documentation.

Then most of them will end up on this forum asking why the EICR is a pile of steaming hot garbage and why some 'electrician' type has condemned what is probably a perfectly good installation with scaremongering such as that plastic consumer unit could go on fire at any moment, that tinned copper wire is actually aluminium and will melt, those red/black insulated conductors are centuries old and need to be replaced, and so on.

 

[ebee]

That never happens.

probably never or almost never I would think

 

[JohnW2]

That never happens.

Exactly. It's by no means clear how 'the authorities' (i.e. a LABC) would ever become aware of a failure to notify electrical (only) work and, even if they ever do stumble across such information, I've certainly never heard of a case of them taking any action in relation to such a failure. As you go on to write ....

The only time any electrical installation in a domestic property even gets considered is when someone is selling and then certain questions are asked as to what might have been done to it. .... The usual answers to those are that ... yes, things were indeed done to it in the last 20+ years, and .... no, all documents were lost, destroyed, forgotten, never existed.

Quite so, and I see that happening all the time - or, most often in relation to repossession or probate sales, simply (usually truthful!) "don't know" answers!

After that someone might get an EICR done, which in reality they should be doing anyway regardless of the presence of any documentation.

Again, quite so.

Then most of them will end up on this forum asking why the EICR is a pile of steaming hot garbage and why some 'electrician' type has condemned what is probably a perfectly good installation with scaremongering such as that plastic consumer unit could go on fire at any moment, that tinned copper wire is actually aluminium and will melt, those red/black insulated conductors are centuries old and need to be replaced, and so on.

All this agreement is getting boring but, yes, again, very much so - and that's why I'm always saying that there surely should be far more well-policed regulation of EICRs (and far more prescriptive 'rules' about coding wherever possible), with people only allowed to undertake EICRs if they have ('revocable') licenses/registrations. It was bad enough when 'bad EICRs' were a (sometimes expensive) 'nuisance', but it's became much worse now that the 'landlord legislation' has given some teeth to EICRs.

 

[ebee]

Exactly. It's by no means clear how 'the authorities' (i.e. a LABC) would ever become aware of a failure to notify electrical (only) work and, even if they ever do stumble across such information, I've certainly never heard of a case of them taking any action in relation to such a failure. As you go on to write ....

Quite so, and I see that happening all the time - or, most often in relation to repossession or probate sales, simply (usually truthful!) "don't know" answers!

Again, quite so.

All this agreement is getting boring but, yes, again, very much so - and that's why I'm always saying that there surely should be far more well-policed regulation of EICRs (and far more prescriptive 'rules' about coding wherever possible), with people only allowed to undertake EICRs if they have ('revocable') licenses/registrations. It was bad enough when 'bad EICRs' were a (sometimes expensive) 'nuisance', but it's became much worse now that the 'landlord legislation' has given some teeth to EICRs.

"It was bad enough when 'bad EICRs' were a (sometimes expensive) 'nuisance', but it's became much worse now that the 'landlord legislation' has given some teeth to EICRs."

Yup, often people asking how much for an EICR actually mean how much for a satisfactory EICR and it has to be pointed out to them that an unsatisfactory one is the same price, they just do not seem to get that one at all some folk, and off course they all want it as cheap as possible too as if it costs nothing at all nearly . If you do undertake them you are often competing with folk who have no idea how to do them properly and with those who do a "drive by " - drive past and count the windows then make up some figures.

That is why I very rarely did them, only exceptionally really.

 

[ebee]

A building control officer (head of them) did tell me that they would never prosecute a failure to notify alone and the strongest sanction would be to tell them not to do it again.
Only if there is something unsafe and they decided it was bad enough to go after then they would tag on the failure to notify charge. I suspect that outlook to be quite a universal view amongst in building controls too.

 

[JohnW2]

Yup, often people asking how much for an EICR actually mean how much for a satisfactory EICR and it has to be pointed out to them that an unsatisfactory one is the same price, they just do not seem to get that one at all some folk, and off course they all want it as cheap as possible too as if it costs nothing at all nearly . If you do undertake them you are often competing with folk who have no idea how to do them properly and with those who do a "drive by " - drive past and count the windows then make up some figures.

True, but that's much the same in most walks of life - with those who do shoddy,maybe dangerous, work, maybe using poor qualiity materials, do things much too quickly and 'cut corners' etc. will often charge less than those who do things 'properly'.

However, in many of those other 'walks of life' most people seem to understand that if one pay far less than the work should cost, the chances are that the work will be less satisfactory than it ought to be!