electrician credentials

[SimonH2]

I'm not sure what this is about to be honest. Eric frequently confuses part P with approved document P. That is the only point I was making.

OK

The HSE, who would do any prosecuting, say in their gas ACOP, that anyone who works on gas must have completed industry recognised training. That's anyone. This is to be able to comply with the law on gas installations Now, I know the ACOP isn't law, but they can use someone's lack of training as not being competent.

But again, that is not "the law". It is a statement, OK by a fairly reputable body, of what they would like to see. And a statement of effectively what argument they would use in court. That still doesn't make it "the law", nor does it make it the only way of demonstrating competence for a particular task.
As I pointed out, there are tasks where the full training would not be proportionate and other means of demonstrating competency are available.

Probably best that we agree to disagree on that minutia, otherwise we'll be here till our reservation at Milliways come's round

It is, and always was, section 12 (6A).

Not quite as noted by F10 :
"F10 Reg. 12(6A) inserted (E., ...) (6.4.2013) by The Building Regulations &c. (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/3119), reg. 6(a), Sch. 1 (with regs. 1(3), 45-47) (as amended by S.I. 2013/181, reg. 5, Sch.)"
If you roll back the timeline, the original 2010 version said :
"(6) A person intending to carry out building work is not required to give a building notice or deposit full plans where the work consists only of work—
...
(b)described in Schedule 4."
So you are correct that it is now Section 12 6A, but as made, it was only Schedule 4 so you are not correct to say that it always was. Prior to that, the 2005 version had it in Schedule 2, which later moved to be Schedule 4. Applying the right filters to get rid of the mess of updates, Schedule 4 does now appear to have dropped most of the electrical references. It's a 'kin mess, why they didn't just amend Schedule 4 and retain consistency with other works is a mystery - though the mess of having divergent regs for England and Wales has a hand in it. Section 12 6 still has the "described in Schedule 4" bit for other works.

 

[denso13]

Not quite as noted by F10 :

My language was sloppy/lazy. It has been the same for the last 14 years.

But again, that is not "the law".

Of course, but it is pretty clear. If someone thinks they can comply with this some other way, then good luck to them.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l56.pdf

What is competence? - HSE

Competence in health and safety. Employers responsibility, definition of competence in health and safety and what defines a competent person

www.hse.gov.uk

I think the below happens to be correct.

https://www.diynot.com/wiki/Plumbing%3Afaq46

 

[morqthana]

It is, and always was, section 12 (6A).

12(6) says:

A person intending to carry out building work is not required to give a building notice or deposit full plans where the work consists only of work—

(a)described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3 if the work is to be carried out by a person described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table; or

(b)described in Schedule 4.

It shows that some work is notifiable, and some is not.

The prescription of what is not notifiable is, as said, in Schedule 4

Being pedantic, it's in schedule 4 to The Building Regulations (2010.)

I know

 

[denso13]

12(6) says:

Yes. I wrote 12(6A).

 

[morqthana]

I think the below happens to be correct.

https://www.diynot.com/wiki/Plumbing%3Afaq46

Then you need to read it more closely.

It says

the law does require that only trained competent people may work on gas appliances.

and then immediately goes on to quote

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 states that:
3. - (1) No person shall carry out any work in relation to a gas fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so.

which does not impose any requirement for being trained.

 

[ebee]

Often, when people mention Part P they are actually refering to the Approved Doc which is just Guidance and not the Law, the law is actually the Building Regulations and that is the thing that must be complied with, it often makes it easier to be able to demonstrate that having complied with such guidance that you have probably complied with the law.

I suspect that the Road Traffics Acts etc and the Highway Code probably have a broadly similar relationship.

BS 7671 (IET (IEE) Wiring Regulations are not statute and do not, in themselves, have the force of law.
However HSE and other bodies suggest that by following BS7671 that you are likely to comply with the law.
If BS7671 is part of a contract then it becomes contract law for that contract.
It is actually mentioned in the Law regarding Landlords and Tennants therefore a part of those regulations regarding inspection and testing and compared to one version of BS7671 is a legal requirement.

Lots of actual Laws do not actually say as much in themselves as some people tend to think but thankfully guidance and recommendations help to lead us towards achievement of becomming able to comply with the law.
It is therefore very strongly recommended to take the relevant guides into consideration.
Whether someone is able to satisfy themselves they will work within the law and disregard some parts of BS7671 and use an "Equivalent" (example Nigerian regulations or Italian regulations) then it is not always totally impossible just as devising your own personal rules and regulations if you intelligent/knowledgeable/Brave enough - the answer might be none or nearly none though)

All the above might be easy to translate to Treat our Wiring Regs and the Guidance by the great and good as if it was the actual law even though you know that it is not!

 

[denso13]

Lots of actual Laws do not actually say as much in themselves

Quite, as we know Part P of the Building Regulations is very short and tells the reader nothing about compliance. I don't think it helps for some to keep banging on about any guidance not being the law. We all know that's technically correct but in real life gets you nowhere.

 

[morqthana]

Yes. I wrote 12(6A).

From when it was first added to the Building Regulations, Part P in Schedule 1 has been clear that it applied to electrical installations in or attached to dwellings etc, Parts 1 & 2 have made it clear that working on such installations counts as Building Work, and Part 12 has made it clear that the requirement to notify building work does not apply where the work consists only of work described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3 if the work is to be carried out by a person described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table or is described in Schedule 4. (Later they added or is described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3A if the work is to be inspected by a third party certifier).

12.6(A) adds/changes nothing - it just restates the implications of Parts 1, 2, 12 & P for the benefit of people who cannot or will not read properly.

 

[denso13]

12.6(A) adds/changes nothing

It sets out what electrical work is notifiable, hence why I mentioned it. If you want to bring up other parts then go right ahead.

 

[morqthana]

Often, when people mention Part P they are actually refering to the Approved Doc which is just Guidance and not the Law, the law is actually the Building Regulations and that is the thing that must be complied with, it often makes it easier to be able to demonstrate that having complied with such guidance that you have probably complied with the law.

I suspect that the Road Traffics Acts etc and the Highway Code probably have a broadly similar relationship.

A reasonable analogy, but of course the RTA does have a lot of detail about compliance, unlike the Building Regulations, so if the HC says 'must'/'must not' it's supposedly reflecting the actual law. I say "supposedly" because it's wrong about box junctions, so who knows where else it contains errors?

 

[morqthana]

It sets out what electrical work is notifiable,

That information was always there. It didn't need "setting out".

 

[morqthana]

Quite, as we know Part P of the Building Regulations is very short and tells the reader nothing about compliance. I don't think it helps for some to keep banging on about any guidance not being the law. We all know that's technically correct but in real life gets you nowhere.

And therefore being technically correct necessitates challenging those who conflate the law and the guidance.