Are you suggesting a connection? Whilst I certainly would not argue with you if you were saying that the introduction of Part P has not resulted in an improvement in electrical safety, I don't quite see how/why it should have had the reverse effect.
Because of the way that almost the first thing NICEIC did was to prostitute themselves and create a system whereby anybody with a 5-day training course, a couple of trivial examples of their work and some basic understanding of how to use test equipment could call themselves an electrician.
Yes, I understand that, but I still don't really understand why the situation was 'better' prior to 1/1/2005 - when people with absolutely no training or qualifications could call themselves 'electricians' and undertake any electrical work without having to involve any sort of officialdom.
And still can.
That is true, and I suppose some did do that.
Quite so.
That's true, but I'm not sure that it really explains a deterioration in the standard of work after that date (and, even if it did, as you have pointed out one cannot blame the introduction of the legislation) - even though some people of doubtful competence became able to claim " 'official' validation ", they did not suddenly appear subsequent to the introduction of Part P.
Well, yes, but as I've just written to BAS, you can't really blame the introduction of Part P for that (if it happened) - the finger is surely pointing clearly at the Scheme operators. I also doubt that what you suggest often happened - those who worked as 'electricians' whose only training/experience was that 5-day course would probably have worked as 'electricians' prior to 1/1/2005 without having even done the 5-day course. A chap I've known for decades was originally properly trained as a plumber. One day, for whatever reason (and pre-Part P), he suddenly decided to 'change career' and, having done a little reading, immediately started working as an 'electrician' (and, as far as I am aware, is still doing that).
Indeed, and it appears that the perpetrator has already been 'dealt with'! There were, of course, incompetent tradesman (and 'cowboys') long before 2005 - so one can't blame Part P for their existance!
Well, yes but as we know Part P is just a short sentence no one could disagree with - but what Watson meant was the arrangements introduced in 2005.
Yes but were there people with NO electrical knowledge who were mislead by a short course into thinking they were 'electricians'?
Now you're doing it - Part P is irrelevant.
Yes, but he must have some idea and knowledge of what to do - which is my point.
Maybe - I thought he was suggesting that introduction of Part P, itself, had somehow resulted in a deterioration in 'electrical safety'. The trade bodies could have responded by requiring 'proper' training/qualifications/experience for people wishing to be registered as self-certifying electricians - but they didn't.
Possibly, although one would have to question the intelligence of anyone taken in by that. However, again, even if it sometimes happened, that's totally down to the behaviour of the Scheme operators.
As I keep saying, I do think that it is irrelevant (which has been the whole point of my comments on this topic). As I'm sure you understand, I meant "pre-2005".
One would certainly hope so. However, by the same token, one would hope that someone whose only 'training' was a 5-day course would realise that they did not have an adequate "idea and knowledge of what to do" - so it's dangerous making assumptions about what people 'understand'!
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
