Part P Electrical Installation Certification

[denso13]

the only caveat being the "selection processes" and "vetting" which you think LABCs exercise (but I am not so sure!)

Here's one of the first on google, an invite to tender to be on the framework, with the associated scoring criteria.

View Notice - Public Contracts Scotland

www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk

II.2.5) Award criteria​

Quality criterion: Service Provision / Weighting: 6/30 (20%)

Quality criterion: Health & Safety / Weighting: 4.5/30 (15%)

Quality criterion: Legislation / Weighting: 3/30 (10%)

Quality criterion: HAVS and PAT Testing / Weighting: 3/30 (10%)

Quality criterion: Quality Assurance / Weighting: 4.5/30 (15%)

Quality criterion: Contract / Account Management / Weighting: 4.5/30 (15%)

Quality criterion: Workforce Matters / Weighting: 4.5/30 (15%)

Price / Weighting: 70

 

[JohnW2]

Here's one of the first on google, an invite to tender to be on the framework, with the associated scoring criteria.

Fair enough (albeit relating to Scotland, but probably similar in the OP's Wales). However, that doesn't tell us very much, other than that 'price' represents 70% of the 'Award Criteria'!

Much of the other (30%) of the criteria have little to do with competence to undertake EICRs, per se.

As far as competence is concerned, I strongly suspect that they would probably accept membership of a CPS as being adequate. If so, why should a CPS member be acceptable if appointed by themselves, but not if appointed by someone else?

In any event, we will keep coming back to the fact that, if things are done 'properly', they will have had little/no control over selection of the person who undertakes the work and provides the EIC - yet they accept that situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

If so, why should a CPS member be acceptable if appointed by themselves, but not if appointed by someone else?

I can only repeat what I think, in that is gives a level of control when the rules aren't followed. Again, if not, then a homeowner/anyone could diy everything then get a post completion sign off for it all.

 

[JohnW2]

I can only repeat what I think, in that is gives a level of control when the rules aren't followed. Again, if not, then a homeowner/anyone could diy everything then get a post completion sign off for it all.

As I keep saying, it seems that, at least with the OP's LABC, one already can do that - provided only that one pays the LABC to arrange the 'post-completion sign-off' (by, per your tender form, someone who has been appointed largely on the basis of price!)..

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

As I keep saying, it seems that, at least with the OP's LABC, one already can do that - provided only that one pays the LABC to arrange the 'post-completion sign-off'

Yes, I know, giving at least some control over the sign off.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I know, giving at least some control over the sign off.

We've done this to death, and I have nothing new to add. Yes, they have 'control' over who does the EICR but, as I've said, I doubt that means that the person they select will be any more competent than anyone else who regularly undertakes EICRs (or a person who does things 'properly' and issues an EIC after completing the work, even if they never do EICRs)..

I suspect this is all far more about box-ticking and money than about electrical safety!

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

We've done this to death, and I have nothing new to add. Yes, they have 'control' over who does the EICR but, as I've said, I doubt that means that the person they select will be any more competent than anyone else who regularly undertakes EICRs (or a person who does things 'properly' and issues an EIC after completing the work, even if they never do EICRs)..

All understood.

I suspect this is all far more about box-ticking and money than about electrical safety!

I don't really agree with that. I think a savvy diyer (no disrespect intended) could really make the post completion inspection route work to their advantage. Much cheaper and avoid most of the H&S legislation.

I doubt that means that the person they select will be any more competent than anyone else who regularly undertakes EICRs

If the diyer is a structural engineer in his/her day job would they still need a foundation/structural items inspection by the BCO? You could argue no if it is down to who is the most competent, as I'm pretty sure the diyer/SE would be.

I do really believe it would open a can of worms if post inspection sign off by diyers contractors became the norm.

Noted that you have a different take on things.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't really agree with that. I think a savvy diyer (no disrespect intended) could really make the post completion inspection route work to their advantage. Much cheaper and avoid most of the H&S legislation.

In this case, that might well be true. I imagine that an EICR whose scope was (presumably) limited to just the garage electrics would probably cost a lot less than the £322 which the LABC are asking for. However, that's probably another way of suggesting that the LABC are seeking to make 'an unreasonable profit' for arranging the EICR.

If the diyer is a structural engineer in his/her day job would they still need a foundation/structural items inspection by the BCO? You could argue no if it is down to who is the most competent, as I'm pretty sure the diyer/SE would be.

That would probably be correct. In any event, we are not talking about relying on a DIYers competence - we're talking about a situation in which the DIYer's completed work is inspected and tested by a (hopefully competent) electrician. The only issue is that some things cannot be 'inspected' after the work is completed - but that's equally true of an LABC-organised 'after the event' EICR.

I do really believe it would open a can of worms if post inspection sign off by diyers contractors became the norm.

It would certainly undermine the intent of the rules/system - but, as I've said, LABCs seem to be establishing a precedent that such is a possible approach (at a price).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Maybe, but I certainly wouldn't put any money on that. Let's face it, they cannot go through that 'selection process' when things are done 'properly', and some random electrician who they've quite probably never heard of does the work and issues an EIC - yet they accept that.

Exactly. Mr Householder employs a spark from one of the scams, sends in the paperwork, LABC tick the box without asking any questions. Yet the same spark issuing an EICR results in the LABC not accepting the paperwork because it's not the LABC's choice of spark.
There's a voice wondering ... is anyone getting any kickbacks from their "trusted panel" of contractors ?

Inconsistent with how some wish it to be but not inconsistent with their "rules".

Actually, it is inconsistent with processes that were worked out back in 2005 when the problem first surfaced.
Also, for my LA, they list fees for regularisation - basically if you fail to notify in advance, then they charge an extra 50% and allow you to notify afterwards. If someone's failed to notify in advance, it's quite possibly because they didn't realise they needed to, or what paperwork they would need, so in many cases only an EICR could be provided anyway.

Again, where would you draw the line? Let homeowners do all the work, across all trades, then allow them to get it signed off (where required) post completion, by contractors of their choosing. That's a big step.

And it is actually allowed. Contrary to what some would have you believe, and how certain trade bodies would like the law to be - you ARE allowed to do pretty much anything yourself. Yes, that does include fitting a gas boiler, the windows and doors (a friend has just done that with his conversion), and AFAIK everything else.

I suspect this is all far more about box-ticking and money than about electrical safety!

Replace "far more" with "all" and I'd agree completely with you.

Simon

 

[JohnW2]

Exactly. .... There's a voice wondering ... is anyone getting any kickbacks from their "trusted panel" of contractors ?

One has to wonder!

Replace "far more" with "all" and I'd agree completely with you.

I already had one "all" there, so its only necessary to delete the "far more" In any event, I'm glad you agree!

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

Mr Householder employs a spark from one of the scams

Not much I can say to that.

basically if you fail to notify in advance, then they charge an extra 50% and allow you to notify afterwards. If someone's failed to notify in advance, it's quite possibly because they didn't realise they needed to, or what paperwork they would need, so in many cases only an EICR could be provided anyway.

I know, there is a process for that.

Contrary to what some would have you believe, and how certain trade bodies would like the law to be - you ARE allowed to do pretty much anything yourself. Yes, that does include fitting a gas boiler, the windows and doors (a friend has just done that with his conversion), and AFAIK everything else.

Again, I know, I deal with Planning and BC on an almost weekly basis. The point being you can notify anything and go through the process. I don't think someone fitting their own boiler (if they are competent) as part of a larger scheme and then saying to the BCO "I did it myself, now what paperwork do you need" is satisfactory.

Replace "far more" with "all" and I'd agree completely with you.

That's disappointing but there you go. If only the OP had "done it correctly" there would be no additional charges.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think someone fitting their own boiler (if they are competent) as part of a larger scheme and then saying to the BCO "I did it myself, now what paperwork do you need" is satisfactory.

As I said, I think we should stick to electrics (which is all I've been talking about), and certainly steer well clear of gas - since, as I said, gas invokes issues (about which my knowledge is very limited) other than just the Building Regs and an LABC.

That's disappointing but there you go. If only the OP had "done it correctly" there would be no additional charges.

What do you mean by "if onlt the OP had done it correctly" is this context - do you mean "if the OP had himself issued an EIC" ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

What do you mean by "if onlt the OP had done it correctly"

The OP should have discussed the works with BCO to clarify what paperwork was required before he started, not afterwards.

As I said, I think we should stick to electrics

Change "boiler" to "electrics", same thing. My response was to Simon who mentioned gas boiler.

 

[JohnW2]

The OP should have discussed the works with BCO to clarify what paperwork was required before he started, not afterwards.

Would there have been a need for any 'discussion' if the OP's intent (and ultimate action) had been to submit a (credible looking) EIC after the work were completed?

Change "boiler" to "electrics", same thing. My response was to Simon who mentioned gas boiler.

I think Simon only mentioned gas boilers (in post #69) because you had introduced it in #51 (and I pointed out, in #54, that introducing gas issues was confusing matters).

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

Would there have been any need for any 'discussion'

I don't know about "need", perhaps common sense would be more apt.

"Local Authority Building Control
You should make a Building Regulations application to Building Control if the electrician you employ to carry out the works is not registered as a competent person under one of the relevant Competent Person Schemes for electrical installations or if you do the work yourself. You should contact your local authority building control department before you start the work. They will explain the requisite procedures to you.

It is also best to discuss with Building Control how they wish to inspect and check the works you are carrying out."

Building regulations: electrics | GOV.WALES

If you are carrying out electrical work in your home or garden in England and Wales, you will have to follow new rules in the Building Regulations.

gov.wales