The biggest problem here is someone is signing off someone elses work, someone who undertakes this work but hasnt got the competance to be registered with a scheme himself. The person that has signed it off has never been to the property and never tested any of it but has signed a document to say that he has. I would urge the OP to push this as fas as possible with the electricians scheme provider and the LABC and anyone else who should have an interest. This is wrong, it is builders getting stuff done on the cheap to avoid paying legitimate tradesmen to do a legitimate job. If there is a problem in the near future with the wiring, where will you turn, the builder? the 'electrician' that installed it but cannot test and certify it? or the electrician who is willing to forge a document to say he has tested it but has never been there?
Advice needed on legitimacy of Part P cert
- Thread starter Willio
- Start date
Sponsored Links
As with many things, what we have now has come about by a corrupted cheapening of what we had before.
Imagine the traditional scenario of electrical contracting businesses, i.e. concerns with several employees, and NICEIC, the main player in the field of trade bodies for electrical contractors. (Despite what NICEIC say about their end customer focus they have always been a trade registration body.) It is, and always was, the business that was registered with NICEIC, and to be a NICEIC approved contractor a company had to have at least one Qualified Supervisor. There was a minimum ratio of QS:Non-QS employees, and there was a set of minimum qualifications that the QS had to have.
And basically he did, and was supposed to do, what it said on his tin - he was qualified, and he supervised the work of the work of others working for the same employer. It was the employer that was the registered Approved Contractor entity, and they were approved on the basis that they employed an appropriate number of appropriately qualified people to supervise the work done by the other employees.
It was not a case of people signing off work done by other people when they personally had not done the testing, it was a case of the company signing off work that the company had done. And the way that they did that, in principle, was the way that many many companies in all sorts of fields work - there are managers/supervisors in charge of/responsible for other employees, they and the company take their responsibilities seriously and put into place mechanisms to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the employees, so that when Bill Installer went to Fred Supervisor and presented a set of test results Fred knew that Bill had done it properly and was happy to say that the company could issue the EIC. Part of Fred's responsibilities would have been to regularly trundle out on site some of the time and genuinely supervise the work being done by Bill.
Intrinsically there's nothing wrong with a system like that - nobody could imagine or expect, for example, that a new airliner from Boeing would get its certificate of airworthiness because one man had single-handedly done and checked everything, there would have been a huge hierarchy all down the line of companies saying "we are prepared to certify and take responsibility for XYZ" because they trusted their own employees and their organisation and supervisory regimes. There probably isn't a single identifiable person responsible for the actual design of even the khazi doors on a 787...
But back to electrical contractors and fast forward to 2005. Far from being dragged kicking and screaming, as TTC says, NICEIC and the ECA have been lobbying the Government for several years to impose statutory controls on who was allowed to do electrical work. It was sheer empire-building, self-aggrandising and commercial self interest at work. They'd seen what Corgi had done for the earning power of gas fitters and they wanted the same for electricians.
They didn't get that, what they got was Part P of the Building Regulations and the notification requirements. That none of it was based on a genuine safety need can be seen by even a cursory analysis of the figures in the Regulatory Impact Assessment done during the consultation period, and by the fact that kitchens are classed as special locations but utility rooms are not. Kitchen makeovers are very common, utility rooms much less so - there's a lot of work done by kitchen fitters in kitchens, not a great deal in utility rooms - we'll have the kitchen work please, don't care about utility rooms.
Anyone can see that from an electrical risk POV there is nothing to distinguish kitchens from utility rooms - it was all about economics.
Actually - what happened then is that there were some people dragged kicking and screaming - a number of self-employed electricians who'd never wanted to join NICEIC/NAPIT/ECA did resent being told that they had to, but mainly what happened was that NICEIC set about making plumbers and kitchen fitters and landscape gardeners etc members. Far from ensuring that only electricians did the electrical work in kitchens and bathrooms etc, they turned kitchen fitters and plumbers etc into "electricians".
To do that they took the Qualified Supervisor system, (which, while it hadn't been perfect and had in some cases resulted in shoddy work getting certified, didn't have any structural defects), dramatically lowered the standards for qualifications and experience needed to become a QS (so that all those other tradesmen could join the club and pay their fees into NICEIC's coffers), and created a type of "electrician" called a Domestic Installer. Most of those aren't properly qualified, aren't properly experienced, and I suspect that it's they, in the main, who are the ones signing off other people's work. Not necessarily because of venality, but simply because their own standards of knowledge and experience are so low that they figure everybody else's work must be OK because it's all so easy to do. If you take someone who already knows the difference between live & neutral and which end of a screwdriver to hold and after 5 days tell them "OK - you're an electrician now" they aren't going to regard it as a subject which requires a lot of knowledge and experience to get right.
And day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year we see people popping up here because they've hit something outside of what can be covered in 5 days and they haven't got a ******* clue.
Imagine the traditional scenario of electrical contracting businesses, i.e. concerns with several employees, and NICEIC, the main player in the field of trade bodies for electrical contractors. (Despite what NICEIC say about their end customer focus they have always been a trade registration body.) It is, and always was, the business that was registered with NICEIC, and to be a NICEIC approved contractor a company had to have at least one Qualified Supervisor. There was a minimum ratio of QS:Non-QS employees, and there was a set of minimum qualifications that the QS had to have.
And basically he did, and was supposed to do, what it said on his tin - he was qualified, and he supervised the work of the work of others working for the same employer. It was the employer that was the registered Approved Contractor entity, and they were approved on the basis that they employed an appropriate number of appropriately qualified people to supervise the work done by the other employees.
It was not a case of people signing off work done by other people when they personally had not done the testing, it was a case of the company signing off work that the company had done. And the way that they did that, in principle, was the way that many many companies in all sorts of fields work - there are managers/supervisors in charge of/responsible for other employees, they and the company take their responsibilities seriously and put into place mechanisms to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the employees, so that when Bill Installer went to Fred Supervisor and presented a set of test results Fred knew that Bill had done it properly and was happy to say that the company could issue the EIC. Part of Fred's responsibilities would have been to regularly trundle out on site some of the time and genuinely supervise the work being done by Bill.
Intrinsically there's nothing wrong with a system like that - nobody could imagine or expect, for example, that a new airliner from Boeing would get its certificate of airworthiness because one man had single-handedly done and checked everything, there would have been a huge hierarchy all down the line of companies saying "we are prepared to certify and take responsibility for XYZ" because they trusted their own employees and their organisation and supervisory regimes. There probably isn't a single identifiable person responsible for the actual design of even the khazi doors on a 787...
But back to electrical contractors and fast forward to 2005. Far from being dragged kicking and screaming, as TTC says, NICEIC and the ECA have been lobbying the Government for several years to impose statutory controls on who was allowed to do electrical work. It was sheer empire-building, self-aggrandising and commercial self interest at work. They'd seen what Corgi had done for the earning power of gas fitters and they wanted the same for electricians.
They didn't get that, what they got was Part P of the Building Regulations and the notification requirements. That none of it was based on a genuine safety need can be seen by even a cursory analysis of the figures in the Regulatory Impact Assessment done during the consultation period, and by the fact that kitchens are classed as special locations but utility rooms are not. Kitchen makeovers are very common, utility rooms much less so - there's a lot of work done by kitchen fitters in kitchens, not a great deal in utility rooms - we'll have the kitchen work please, don't care about utility rooms.
Anyone can see that from an electrical risk POV there is nothing to distinguish kitchens from utility rooms - it was all about economics.
Actually - what happened then is that there were some people dragged kicking and screaming - a number of self-employed electricians who'd never wanted to join NICEIC/NAPIT/ECA did resent being told that they had to, but mainly what happened was that NICEIC set about making plumbers and kitchen fitters and landscape gardeners etc members. Far from ensuring that only electricians did the electrical work in kitchens and bathrooms etc, they turned kitchen fitters and plumbers etc into "electricians".
To do that they took the Qualified Supervisor system, (which, while it hadn't been perfect and had in some cases resulted in shoddy work getting certified, didn't have any structural defects), dramatically lowered the standards for qualifications and experience needed to become a QS (so that all those other tradesmen could join the club and pay their fees into NICEIC's coffers), and created a type of "electrician" called a Domestic Installer. Most of those aren't properly qualified, aren't properly experienced, and I suspect that it's they, in the main, who are the ones signing off other people's work. Not necessarily because of venality, but simply because their own standards of knowledge and experience are so low that they figure everybody else's work must be OK because it's all so easy to do. If you take someone who already knows the difference between live & neutral and which end of a screwdriver to hold and after 5 days tell them "OK - you're an electrician now" they aren't going to regard it as a subject which requires a lot of knowledge and experience to get right.
And day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year we see people popping up here because they've hit something outside of what can be covered in 5 days and they haven't got a ******* clue.
Mr. Sheds, couldn't agree more, the whole industry has been cheapened in my opinion.
Sponsored Links
I hope you persure this as much as you can, you have been tricked, and although there may be nothing wrong, it's not right and not what you expected to be paying for. Please keep us informed if you do persue this.
J
johnheritage
This has been a good read!
I entirely agree with the others, it's not okay.
I have some experience dealing with trading standards and taking people to court, my brother is also a lawyer. His advice was "trading standards can basically just tell someone off, but not much more in terms of money or legal charges".
I found that to be true.
What you do depends a lot on how you want to approach this, how much you paid, what the guys were like, how they respond and so on.
If it's really bothering you, first try asking the electricians to try and sort it legally speaking. That may mean ripping off coverings and such to re-expose the wiring for signing off by the actual guy with the Part P. You shouldn't have to pay for any of that.
If they refuse and you want it done, call trading standards so they know they're potential trouble causers, but then go to the small claims court (moneyclaim.gov.uk) and file a claim (you don't need a lawyer for this, just read the advice PDFs). That then makes it a legal claim, and you will end up sat in a side office with a judge and them for a quick discussion and conclusion. It's 99%+ positive that you'll win. They then have to pay for the retrowork and the legal fees for both of you, and any other expenses - or they get bailiff'ted.
I am quite surprised about the LABC thing as well. And as someone else said earlier, given that they signed it all off as okay, it may well mean that's not your problem in terms of the insurance.
There are ISSUES here however. Someone has notified them that the work was underway. You have to be sure that notification included the wiring that wasn't done by the Part P guy but should have been (so they KNEW what the form should look like and have signed it as okay). If LABC were told it was just something simple being done, that may be why they were okay with the crossing out on the form they got back. And, in that case, it would be your problem if they then discovered a lot of undisclosed work had gone on by a none Part P'er.
I say "really bothering you", of coarse it will bother pretty much everyone to know they've paid out and not got what they paid for. But things like this can go from them just saying "fine...." and fixing it, to massively heated arguments and threats, all depending on the people involved.
When taking questionable manual workers to court, you have to consider things like "am I getting a brick through my window after taking all their tools to cover the expenses?". It's hard to prove things like that, and there's a good possibility some funny stuff may go on with these kinds of things. So the amount you squeeze and push it depends on what you're experience of them is. If they start getting all angry and abusive if you ask for the Part P'er to see what he needs to legally, do some wiring of your own and stick a cheap CCTV camera on the front of the house.
Also, when saying nothing is wrong, remember that it's not just the wiring, it's the piece of paper that the insurers will void claims for a house fire with.
The law is black and white, but collecting evidence is another thing and so is the human element.
I entirely agree with the others, it's not okay.
I have some experience dealing with trading standards and taking people to court, my brother is also a lawyer. His advice was "trading standards can basically just tell someone off, but not much more in terms of money or legal charges".
I found that to be true.
What you do depends a lot on how you want to approach this, how much you paid, what the guys were like, how they respond and so on.
If it's really bothering you, first try asking the electricians to try and sort it legally speaking. That may mean ripping off coverings and such to re-expose the wiring for signing off by the actual guy with the Part P. You shouldn't have to pay for any of that.
If they refuse and you want it done, call trading standards so they know they're potential trouble causers, but then go to the small claims court (moneyclaim.gov.uk) and file a claim (you don't need a lawyer for this, just read the advice PDFs). That then makes it a legal claim, and you will end up sat in a side office with a judge and them for a quick discussion and conclusion. It's 99%+ positive that you'll win. They then have to pay for the retrowork and the legal fees for both of you, and any other expenses - or they get bailiff'ted.
I am quite surprised about the LABC thing as well. And as someone else said earlier, given that they signed it all off as okay, it may well mean that's not your problem in terms of the insurance.
There are ISSUES here however. Someone has notified them that the work was underway. You have to be sure that notification included the wiring that wasn't done by the Part P guy but should have been (so they KNEW what the form should look like and have signed it as okay). If LABC were told it was just something simple being done, that may be why they were okay with the crossing out on the form they got back. And, in that case, it would be your problem if they then discovered a lot of undisclosed work had gone on by a none Part P'er.
I say "really bothering you", of coarse it will bother pretty much everyone to know they've paid out and not got what they paid for. But things like this can go from them just saying "fine...." and fixing it, to massively heated arguments and threats, all depending on the people involved.
When taking questionable manual workers to court, you have to consider things like "am I getting a brick through my window after taking all their tools to cover the expenses?". It's hard to prove things like that, and there's a good possibility some funny stuff may go on with these kinds of things. So the amount you squeeze and push it depends on what you're experience of them is. If they start getting all angry and abusive if you ask for the Part P'er to see what he needs to legally, do some wiring of your own and stick a cheap CCTV camera on the front of the house.
Also, when saying nothing is wrong, remember that it's not just the wiring, it's the piece of paper that the insurers will void claims for a house fire with.
The law is black and white, but collecting evidence is another thing and so is the human element.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
