Maybe of interest to competent DIYers...

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS - you trying to have your cake and eat it?

Certainly not - I'm on a diet. If I have cake I have to put it out for the eating to be done by the birds

You recently, in another thread, were at pains to point out that compliance to 7671 is not required by the building regs. If Dippy's LABC are happy that he is competent to design, install and test and installation such that it complies with the BR, what is the problem? After all, 7671 is only "one way" of demonstrating compliance with part P of the BR.

Absolutely, but surely when you submit your plans or building notice to notify them that you're going to be doing a rewire, for example, you have to tell them how you plan to comply with the Building Regulations, specifically P1, in the same way that if it's building work you have to tell them about the materials you'll use, possibly show plans, structural calcs etc?

So no - you don't have to comply with BS7671 to comply with P1, but it's the option that makes most sense, and in the absence of that then wouldn't you have to say, in effect, "I propose to comply with P1 by working to DIN VDE 0100", (or similar)? And for LABC to have the confidence that you could be trusted to do that, wouldn't they want to see evidence of your competence, e.g. formal qualifications and/or an assessment by someone they already trusted?

Can you just say "I propose to comply with P1 by doing a reasonable job"?

I know that if I were notifying a rewire, I'd say I'd be working to BS7671, and personally I would feel quite happy about testing my work and issuing an EIC. But I have no qualifications to give anybody else confidence that I know what I'm doing.

This in effect is the essence of the "Competent Person" schemes. LABC have to ensure that the work you do complies with the Building Regulations. They can either trust you when you say "it does", or they can go and check it themselves. How do they know if they can trust you? They do that on the basis of an assurance from someone or some body that they already trust, such as NICEIC, NAPIT etc, and increasingly via their own checking of C&G qualifications of non-registered electricians.

My Q to Dippy was not questioning his competence (but I accept that I don't know what his qualifications do cover), it was wondering how his LABC could accept his competence . They have to consider the possibility, however remote, that if he did screw up and there was property loss or personal injury, they might get asked some hard questions about why they issued a completion certificate for work done by someone who was not a registered electrician and which they did not inspect....

 

[davelx]

Ah, I see your point...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Absolutely correct. However one does not need to have a qualification to have the knowledge,

I couldn't agree more...

and I have simply read up on the wiring regulations. As I noted there is a lot of written description in my document, and what I wrote about the PI would have demonstrated my knowledge to the LABC.

Hopefully my reply above clarifies my position - I could accept from what you wrote that you were perfectly competent, but I would still wonder how your LABC would accept it given that they would, I imagine, have liability issues if they were wrong.

I certainly wouldn't like to be the BCO on the receiving end of aggressive questioning by, say, a barrister retained by an insurance company, asking me why I signed off work that I had not had inspected because the person who did it seemed to know what he was talking about.

Sorry but I have to refute your comment about competence in testing. Both my HNC and degree courses were very practical and I did far more testing than is required for simple domestic electrics.

Again - I wasn't suggesting you weren't competent, just that you couldn't really prove it. Even if your LABC was fully aware of the syllabus of your courses, they should still, if prudent, recognise that NICEIC/NAPIT etc would require you to actually demonstrate your competence. Putting my insurance company barrister wig on, I can just imagine questions along the line of "Tell us, Mr BCO, would Mr Dippy's academic qualifications alone have been accepted by any of the registration schemes authorised by the Secretary of State?"

You seem to have focussed on my qualifications, but they are only part of the demonstration of my competence. My industry experience is important too.

I'm not even beginning to suggest in any way that you aren't being honest, but did you provide, or did your LABC ask for, any independent verification that what you told the about your experience was true?

Barrister: "Mr. BCO - you stated that you decided that Mr. Dippy was competent to do this work in part because of his claimed electrical engineering experience in the petrochemical industry. Did you verify that his claims were true?"

I should hope so too: I do take my chartered status seriously and that includes the code of ethics.

I do too, to the extent that I'm not 100% comfortable with having C.Eng status myself, as I don't really consider myself an engineer, but as a final repeat of my position here - I'm not questioning your professionalism, I just wondered how your LABC could know you took it seriously, because I can give you a categorical assurance (given the rows I've had on other fora) that there are plenty of so-called professionals out there who have absolutely no understanding of, or interest in, professional ethics or standards of professional behaviour.

Ban-All-Sheds. B.Tech. C.Eng. MIET

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is interesting reading

Is it...

A 'Competent Person is: ' A person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger, and where appropriate, injury to themselves and others.'

OK - I hereby declare myself to be a Competent Person as defined in the 17th Edition of the Wiring Regulations.

Part P of the Building Regulations requires that the work is carried out by a 'Competent Person', and it enforces the Wiring Regulations as statutory in the domestic environment.

Given that glaring inaccuracy, I'm starting to wonder how "interesting" this text is . Where did you find it?

But, as far as the 17th Edition is concerned, a 'Competent Person is (as already stated): ' A person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger, and where appropriate, injury to themselves and others.'

There have always been such vague "definitions" of competence, in the 16th, the EAWR etc, but none of them have any relevance to the Building Regulations...

 

[jpdw]

Hopefully my reply above clarifies my position - I could accept from what you wrote that you were perfectly competent, but I would still wonder how your LABC would accept it given that they would, I imagine, have liability issues if they were wrong.

Surely the BCO's job is to apply his/her judgement when passing/failing all sorts of building control issues. This being just one of them.

My point is that the BCO has taken a calculated "risk" that Dippy's is competent and that his competence is adequately demonstrated. Accepting self-cert work is similarly "risky" - though the risk of an individual piece of work being unsafe is - hopefully - far far less, the sheer volume (compared to notification) must level up the risk in the two catagories. If the council can transfer the risk of litigous self cert risk to the self-cert provider then I would imagine councils carry their own liability insurance to cover stuff they can't transfer (and the premium for that is probably peanuts as part of their general liability insurance).

 

[Pensdown]

A 'Competent Person is: ' A person who possesses sufficient technical knowledge and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger, and where appropriate, injury to themselves and others

OK - I hereby declare myself to be a Competent Person as defined in the 17th Edition of the Wiring Regulations.

Fine with me, Ban-All-Sheds. B.Tech. C.Eng. MIET

Part P of the Building Regulations requires that the work is carried out by a 'Competent Person', and it enforces the Wiring Regulations as statutory in the domestic environment.

Given that glaring inaccuracy, I'm starting to wonder how "interesting" this text is . Where did you find it?...

Here...and their articles are never misleading.....

I found it interesting because a "Competent Person" is already defined in the EAWR which most commercial contractors work within and it's defined in PP for the domestic sector.

To me - another definition in a BS document which is used within the same industry just adds to the confusion.

PS...You have 1 new message

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fine with me, Ban-All-Sheds. B.Tech. C.Eng. MIET

Ah - kind of you to say so, you trusting soul.

But I'm not.

Well - I am 2 out of 3, but I'm not a member of the IET. I could be though - and I might join, and then I'd look good on paper.

And no - I didn't say that I was a member to make any sort of point about Dippy - I really don't doubt his bona fides at all, and good luck to him. If his LABC had inspected his work, or assessed him, they'd have found nothing wrong - I'm just surprised that they didn't.

And thanks for the message - I've replied.

 

[Pensdown]

I should have put a after my reply

It's much easier to judge competance than to prove it.....

 

[saxondale]

did I just see the word statutory................? LOL

 

[Dippy]

BAS, I fully accept your point. Perhaps it's the way you worded your post that made me a bit defensive so I appologise if I came across as offensive myself.

I'm a realist. I know that we can't give local government all the money they need, so indeed they do have to look carefully at exactly where they spend it. Thus seeing a 'relatively safe' opportunity to avoid an inspection and save money is a reasonable call on their part. At least that's what I think.

A while ago I did post here that I was disappointed that the ODPM never fulfilled their promise to have a self-certification scheme for DIYers. IIRC the response was rather negative (someone stating that such a scheme is not required). This is EXACTLY why they scheme was originally proposed. You are right that I really should need to prove my competence. However I maintain that there should be a way for me to do this without joining one of the schemes which are designed for professional electricians.

 

[Dippy]

I am 2 out of 3, but I'm not a member of the IET

Do you pay your CEng fees through another institution? I'd prefer not to be an MIET (waste of money), but I want to maintain my CEng status. As far as I can see it is not possible to do this unless you are also a member of one of the supporting institutions.

If you have found a way to do this please let me know.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is my real set:

B.Tech. C.Eng. MBCS

I have a feeling I can add CITP to the list too, but then I'd need longer business cards....

 

[ColJack]

did I just see the word statutory................? LOL

stop it.. you're just spoiling for a fight... you didn't even post in this thread untill you saw an oportunity to pick an argument with BAS..

that site is not quoting the new regs directly, it's surmising the accumulated information it has..

 

[saxondale]

did I just see the word statutory................? LOL

stop it.. you're just spoiling for a fight... you didn't even post in this thread untill you saw an oportunity to pick an argument with BAS..

that site is not quoting the new regs directly, it's surmising the accumulated information it has..

no mate its called having a sense of humour and a bit of banter, try it some time.

BTW I`ve got "competant person status..." and it has nothing to do with the BC or any of the " five ? " approved schemes - go work that one out

 

[ban-all-sheds]

stop it.. you're just spoiling for a fight... you didn't even post in this thread untill you saw an oportunity to pick an argument with BAS..

Don't worry - he's not able to do that any more.