The "schemes" seem to act only when the results of poor / negligent work results in criminal or civil action against their member and it can no longer be brushed under the carpet.
But what can the "schemes" do to their member who fails to meet the standards required without it becoming public knowledge ? Cancel his or her membership.
In reality, that is ALL
they can do. But what they SHOULD
be doing is throwing people out and making a big thing of it - as in sending the public message that "we police standards and we will throw out bad apples".
EDIT: That's a message both to their members "do it right or be out", and to the public to counteract that even people within the trade (and I assume members of the schemes) are publicly saying they are "rubbish".
That reduces the financial income tothe "scheme".
Which pretty well sums it up - it's little to do with standards or safety, but about having a nice little "protection racket". Protection racket ? Well effectively the message is "pay us the membership tax
or find your business 'very uncompetitive'". Where I live minor lecky works cost £150 to notify, I gather in some places it's up to £400 - that's a hell of a financial disadvantage compared to adding £12 (or whatever it is) onto a job to self notify.
Tell him or her to improve standards ? If they are already getting away with bad workmanship they will continue to do so unless well supervised.
Exactly. And the evidence is there that the schemes are not adequately supervising members.
Now if they really wanted to be seen to be supervising members, they'd accept a report of a job like this. OK, someone may have fiddled with it afterwards, but why not look through their records and make visits to look at other work they've done - either around the same time, or recently, or both ?
Given what I know now about how lax they really are, if it weren't for the membership fees which would make it uneconomic, there'd be a temptation to see if I could get in just to avoid BC notification fees (especially if the BC rules hadn't been relaxed in 2013). As it is, when I put the new CU in (already notified) I'll be making sure to add all the circuits I could possibly want in the future - even if they only have one light or one socket on them
But, there is another angle to this ...
There's an old saying "be careful what you wish for". The schemes are "poor", but not worthless. If we were to make too much of a fuss, what might the result be ? Could the result of government intervention be worse than what we have now ? I think it's fairly widely agreed that the 2005 BR notification requirements caused a lot of work to "go underground" - and once you're in a position where you know you can't admit in public what you're doing, then it's a lot harder to ask for help. Thus something which we might advise someone not to do now, but if they insist on going ahead we would try as best we can to help them do it safely - they might just do on their own without any of that advice, and with a worse outcome. Plus we know that some fraudsters (including the schemes) misrepresented "Part P" - with a result that we strongly suspect some beneficial works didn't get done (eg, instead of adding an extra socket, leave an extension lead under the carpet across a doorway).