Part P and Consumer

Joined
25 Dec 2007
Messages
153
Reaction score
1
Country
United Kingdom
Hello,

Average Mr Consumer here.

Mr Consumer is 80 years old has his mate round the house who tells him that his old fuse box needs changing.

Mr Consumer has vague knowledge of Part P Paperwork and BC requirements for notification but does not have means to access internet to check firm names etc etc on part p website. Mr Consumer does not know any electricians in his area so he picks up the yellow pages and rings a local spark who has Part P listed in his add. Mr Consumer asks the spark over the phone if he is PP qualified and the answer is yes.
So spark does the work, tells Mr Consumer that paperwork will be on its way within two weeks. Paperwork does not appear. After numerous phone calls Consumer gives up.
A fire starts a few weeks later in the loft due to dodgy wiring (nothing to do with fuse box changed by the spark). Mr Consumer rings his house insurance to claim for his 35 year old furniture and his asked the question: "Have you had any elec work carried out in your house since 2005". He naively answers yes and when asked if he has the required Part P paperwork or if notification was made he answers no. As a result he does not get his claim accepted as house insurance is void.

This is an hypothetical scenario taken to an extreme. But as an average consumer I cannot help but think that this Part P screws the consumer and gives yet another reason for insurance companies not to accept claims.

I mean if Mr X fixes his car breaks DIY he does not have to notify anyone. But he can still cause carnage on the road as a result without any requirement on him for car mechanic work on his vehicle to be carried out by a "competent person".
 
Sponsored Links
A bit hypothetical but I see your reasoning.

Firstly the sparkiy has committed a fraud by misrepresenting himself as Part P in his ad if he his not registered

Secondly in all contracts/transactions of any kind it's 'caveat emptor' buyer beware.

Customers should always ask for proof of membership of a scheme I know some may be put off asking as the sparky may seem a very nice guy. I always have my ID on an a lanyard round my neck so customer can see it.

As for the car mechanic analogy in the event of a serious accident the accident investigators thouroughly examine the scene and vehicles involved (why do you think motorways are closed for long periods following an accident). If they do not fdind an obvious cause at the accident site then all vehicles will removed and examined in a workshop for faults. How do I know this - my son is a traffic cop.
So if a car has faulty brakes it will be picked up and driver prosecuted.
 
in your scenario, the customer gives the insurance company the details of the sparky who did the work.

it's also the customers responsibility to chase the paperwork if it is not forthcoming, and to report the sparky to the LABC if he does not supply said paperwork, who can then check if he has notified / submited self cert and chase him and prosecute if he has not.
 
A bit hypothetical but I see your reasoning.

Firstly the sparkiy has committed a fraud by misrepresenting himself as Part P in his ad if he his not registered
I do not think so as he was asked if he was qualified(accordind to the post) not registered, splitting hairs I know but we are talking hypothetically here
 
Sponsored Links
it's still fraud to claim part P registered in the advert if he's not..

picks up the yellow pages and rings a local spark who has Part P listed in his add

whether or not the wording of the question asked over the phone was correct..
 
What makes you think that this would be any different with a Corgi = gas job or a car repair or any other of a thousand things? like bookshelf falling down and killing someone or roof blowing off.
Now Part P is here it`s just a pity it`s still a "secret".
 
Can't see anything different in the OP scenario from the pre-Part P situation where the insurance company ask "Was any electrical work done by a qualified electrician registered with NICEIC or NAPIT?"

Or, generically, any situation where a householder employs a fraudulent cowboy who causes damage not covered by insurance because of small print about using qualified and/or registered tradesmen.

To say that Part P has made things worse for consumers in this regard is a bit far-fetched.
 
Do you have to notify prior to installing a bookshelf or having your car repaired?

I have an issue with the blame being placed on the consumer if the trader does not notify.
At the end of the day I could be presented with a nice looking ID card showing a Part P number and still be held liable by an insurance company if such trader was a cowboy and showed me a fake doc. I do not think it is morally right.
I am all for policing traders that break the law, but it is about time the consumers stopped being shafted.

In my example if would be cheaper for the consumer to have the CU ripped out and put back in by a registered elec than pursuing the matter through BC and have the work inspected and certified retrospectively.

You basically have three options:

a) breaking the law and keeping quiet

b) informing building control about the situation and incurring expensive costs to rectify matters in relation to paperwork.

c) having the work done again (possibly cheaper than option 2) and not involving BC.

I would opt for c, some would probably risk 1 and I bet not many would follow b.
The system is flawed, as a consumer I do not feel protected by the regulations. More policing is required to get cowboys out of business and I would not mind paying higher fees to electricians if these fees were directed to trading organisations / government agencies that did more to stamp out lawless traders.
Not sure how much you guys pay for your fees, but as a consumer I would happily subsidise your fees if these were used properly by the likes of NICEC, NAPIT etc etc
 
Do you have to notify prior to installing a bookshelf or having your car repaired?
No, but what's that got to do with a householder being lied to by a dodgy electrician?

I have an issue with the blame being placed on the consumer if the trader does not notify.
How do you know that it is?

And do you also have the same issue with "blame" being placed on the consumer if any trader misleads him in any way?

At the end of the day I could be presented with a nice looking ID card showing a Part P number and still be held liable by an insurance company if such trader was a cowboy and showed me a fake doc. I do not think it is morally right.
Prior to Part P you could with just have much justification have written "At the end of the day I could be presented with a nice looking ID card showing a NICEIC number and still be held liable by an insurance company if such trader was a cowboy and showed me a fake doc. I do not think it is morally right."

Have you been worrying about this for years, or is this thread just a way that you've thought of to have a pop at Part P?

I am all for policing traders that break the law, but it is about time the consumers stopped being shafted.
Do you have evidence that they are?

In my example if would be cheaper for the consumer to have the CU ripped out and put back in by a registered elec than pursuing the matter through BC and have the work inspected and certified retrospectively.
The same might well be true for dodgy windows installed by someone who lied about their FENSA status, dodgy drains, dodgy RSJs, dodgy WCs, dodgy boilers etc etc etc.

I still cannot see why Part P has made things so particularly worse that you feel you have to start up a topic to make your complaint.

Not sure how much you guys pay for your fees, but as a consumer I would happily subsidise your fees if these were used properly by the likes of NICEC, NAPIT etc etc
Is it their job to investigate fraudulent traders who are not their members, and to agitate for their prosecution?

If you want to complain about what NICEIC do, then they way that they mislead consumers by registering people who've done a 5-day course would be a better area...
 
I think that this scenario is not so far from reality.

As you all know when a CU is changed the whole system has be inspected and tested and a EIC provided to the customer. There is a good chance (not certainty) that the fault could be identified before the fire.
Even the fault would not be identified the insurance company can not refuse paying if the electrician was responsible and there is no case of negligence.
A registered electrician will have insurance to cover a case like this if he made a mistake.
If a customer expects to pay half price he should expect half job.

I would blame the customer for one thing; if he did not complain about this electrician to the authorities, if he would complain, this guy might have to pay a heavy penalty or even go to gail and this would stop him, but if nothing is done there is nothing to stop him ...
 
If you want to complain about what NICEIC do, then they way that they mislead consumers by registering people who've done a 5-day course would be a better area...

But they don't do that. You shouldn't believe all you read on Screwfix.

Like all the scheme operators the NICEIC carry out onsite assessments before accepting applicants on their Domestic Installer scheme. If applicants are not up to speed they will fail, but they can apply to be re-assessed, usually following further training.

In order to join a scheme, applicants require some form of qualification, a qualification which many who have been working with domestic electrics for many years simply do not have, however skilled or knowledgeable they may be. The five-day course to which you refer has been assessed as providing the minimum (Level II) academic qualification to satisfy the entry requirements. Passing this course does not lead to registration, it is simply a tick in a box on the way towards it.

Most who take this course (and it's not an automatic pass, by the way) are several months away from being ready for the onsite assessment and are made aware of where they will need to improve.
 
I know that a pass is not automatic, but people do pass it, and with that tick, understanding testing, and an inspection of a couple of jobs, one of which can be fairly minor, and that's all the boxes ticked.

But is that person really good enough to start charging money for his services?
 
But is that person really good enough to start charging money for his services?

Possibly not. (Are all holders of full driving licences competent drivers?)

But the vast majority of those who do the DISQ and EAL2 courses have already been charging for their services for years.

I freely admit that the system is not perfect and that, for every improver there is a chancer, deliberately working outside the law, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
 
I always have my ID on an a lanyard round my neck so customer can see it.

10/10 for doing that. However, for safety, you should never hang anything round your neck unless it is "quick release", in case it gets caught in something, or someone tries to hurt you with it.

The guy who services my boiler has a good set up. He has his on the end of a retractable cord, attached to his belt.
 
Don't worry SS it's quick release and only worn at first visit

Got used wearing security passes when I worked for MoD.
 

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

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top