Part P Electrical Installation Certification

[JohnW2]

Just to bring it back to problem in hand …. They want certification of original electrician, or pay them to do it.

I think that we all understand that. However, as has recently been suggested, it sounds as if they are being 'unreasonable', such that you might be able to get somewhere if you were prepared to do enough fighting. As I said (and eric implied), you'll obviously get nowhere by continuing to argue with the BCO, who will presumably never change his/her position - so you would need to 'escalate' your complaint to 'above his/her head'.

However, as I recently wrote, only you can decide whether you think that the time and hassle of fighting ("on principle"), rather than just paying LABC, makes sense for you.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

How is this unreasonable? We have Part P since 2005 and there has never been a process where a homeowner does the installation and sends in an EICR. If this was the case, there would be no need for the CPS. If the job had been notified properly, the BCO would have explained that they arrange for an inspector, from their list, to work with Rick and then I&T the job on behalf of the LABC. The BCO has some leeway to waive the I&T if Rick was suitably qualified. This process has covered every notifiable electrical installation in England and Wales since 2005, so I don't see any grounds to challenge the BCO.

 

[Taylortwocities]

How is this unreasonable? We have Part P since 2005 and there has never been a process where a homeowner does the installation and sends in an EICR. If this was the case, there would be no need for the CPS. If the job had been notified properly, the BCO would have explained that they arrange for an inspector, from their list, to work with Rick and then I&T the job on behalf of the LABC. The BCO has some leeway to waive the I&T if Rick was suitably qualified. This process has covered every notifiable electrical installation in England and Wales since 2005, so I don't see any grounds to challenge the BCO.

Hooray. Someone who understands , and can simply explain, the situation!!
LABC want an easy life. An easy life is like this:
Notifiable electrical work is carried out by an electrician who is a member of a CPS.
Electrician advises his CPS that notifiable work has been done.
CPS advises client and LABC that work has been completed in accordance with building regulations.
Sorted, job done, simples.

Any other approach is difficult, time consuming and a ball ache. So LABC won’t accept it, or makes it very difficult. I don’t blame them.

 

[JohnW2]

How is this unreasonable?

Good to see you. I hope all is well with you and yours.

As you go on to explain, it is 'reasonable' in terms of a strict application of the rules/laws/bureaucracy.

However, what seems unreasonable (at lesat to me) in terms of common sense is that, if I understand the situation correctly, the LABC would be happy to accept I&T (now inevitably an 'EICR') which they organised (which they have admitted would be 'contracted out' - inevitably to someone who hadn't undertaken the installation work) but would not accept exactly the same I&T undertaken by someone that they had not instructed.

Or am I misunderstanding the situation ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

How is this unreasonable? We have Part P since 2005 and there has never been a process where a homeowner does the installation and sends in an EICR.

Actually, in practice there has - though it's been more of how to cope when the law simply doesn't meet with reality rather than a legal process.

Hooray. Someone who understands , and can simply explain, the situation!!
LABC want an easy life. An easy life is like this:
...
Any other approach is difficult, time consuming and a ball ache. So LABC won’t accept it, or makes it very difficult. I don’t blame them.

But that doesn't make it right. It is well known that LABC people "make up" rules as they go along - I've seen the result of that where the builder (who to be honest was a bit of a clueless ****wit*) lacked the knowledge to turn round and say "no it doesn't - show me the reg that says otherwise" every time they came up with yet another project delaying requirement.
* There were plenty of genuine things he didn't know he needed to do

Back to the OPs situation, LABCs CAN and DO accept EICRs done by a third party electrician in lieu of EICs. Cases I know of include the electrician having "disappeared", or one I know where he claimed to be registered but it turned out he wasn't and was hoping to use the install as one of the examples for getting registered. That they are refusing to do so is petty jobsworthing - anyone else they employ will not produce anything different to the EICR that's already been done.

 

[denso13]

However, what seems unreasonable (at lesat to me) in terms of common sense is that, if I understand the situation correctly, the LABC would be happy to accept I&T (now inevitably an 'EICR') which they organised (which they have admitted would be 'contracted out' - inevitably to someone who hadn't undertaken the installation work) but would not accept exactly the same I&T undertaken by someone that they had not instructed.

I suspect they want to retain some measure of control over the process. If it was simply a case of getting a post completion sign off by your own friendly electrician where would it stop. Why not fit your on boiler, or anything else which would normally be part of a buildings regs application, and get a simple gas check, or whatever, done when your finished which can be submitted to the LA instead?

I know there always be unique cases but, I'm guessing, they won't want to set any precedent.

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect they want to retain some measure of control over the process. If it was simply a case of getting a post completion sign off by your own friendly electrician where would it stop. Why not fit your on boiler, or anything else which would normally be part of a buildings regs application, and get a simple gas check, or whatever, done when your finished which can be submitted to the LA instead? .... I know there always be unique cases but, I'm guessing, they won't want to set any precedent.

Yes, that may well be at least part of their thinking. However, even what is happening is establishing a precedent - that the LA are prepared to 'accept' a situation in which (for a price) to arrange for I&T to be undertaken 'after the event' for work that has already been completed.

In this particular case, we're presumably not talking about 'failure to notify', since the electric work would have, implicitly if not explicitly, been part of the Building Regs application for a project as a whole - the only really issue being that they are asking for an EIC provided by the person who did the work. I suspect (but obviously don't know) that if the OP had, after undertaking the work, himself provided the LA with an EIC which looked credible, they may well have accepted it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

In this particular case, we're presumably not talking about 'failure to notify'

Understood, but a new boiler for example could also have been shown on plans, installed by the householder then a gas safety cert issues post completion for LA purposes. Multiply that by how ever many for diyers/homeowners having a go themselves, then getting things signed off post completion, doesn't sound satisfactory to me.

 

[JohnW2]

Understood, but a new boiler for example could also have been shown on plans, installed by the householder then a gas safety cert issues post completion for LA purposes. Multiply that by how ever many for diyers/homeowners having a go themselves, then getting things signed off post completion, doesn't sound satisfactory to me.

I think you're complicating things a bit by bringing boilers into the discussion, since they are subject to gas regulations (about which I know very little) as well as Building Regs approval.

As I've said, in terms of electrical work (which is what we are discussing), (a) anyone who undertakes electric work (including the OP) can issue an EIC and (b) in the OP's case, the LA seem to be establishing a precedent that if (for whatever reason) there is no EIC available, then they are prepared to accept an 'after the event' EICR from an outside contractor - but only if they have commissioned it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

As I've said, in terms of electrical work (which is what we are discussing), (a) anyone who undertakes electric work (including the OP) can issue an EIC and (b) in the OP's case, the LA seem to be establishing a precedent that if (for whatever reason) there is no EIC available, then they are prepared to accept an 'after the event' EICR from an outside contractor - but only if they have commissioned it.

I know, I get all that. I still suspect the LA want to have some control over the process, and I understand why.

 

[JohnW2]

I know, I get all that. I still suspect the LA want to have some control over the process, and I understand why.

I could understand, too - but I don't think they achieve that control if they establish the precedent that they are prepared to accept an 'after the event' EICR (provided only that they are paid for arranging it). What does that 'control'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

(provided only that they are paid for arranging it)

They won't just call up any old contractor. They will normally have a framework of contractors who go through a selection process where things like competence, training, references and such like are checked.

It sounds like in this case, again I'm guessing, the LA have given the OP a way out rather than ask for the work to be redone "properly". They can then demonstrate that they have some control over the process by using their vetted contractor. I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[JohnW2]

They won't just call up any old contractor. They will normally have a framework of contractors who go through a selection process where things like competence, training, references and such like are checked.

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.

It sounds like in this case, again I'm guessing, the LA have given the OP a way out rather than ask for the work to be redone "properly".

I suppose you could think of it like that.

We are perhaps losing sight of the fact that we are only talking about a garage. As I wrote before, given that all the wiring is probably surface-mounted or in surface-mounted conduit, it would probably only take a few minutes for the OP to 'undo' all his work (by disconnecting both ends of a few cables) and then not a lot longer for an electrical to 're-do it all' (by re-connecting the cables) and then issuing an EIC.

They can then demonstrate that they have some control over the process by using their vetted contractor. I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

Perhaps not 'wrong' but, as above, 'inconsistent', because they don't (s far as I am aware) undertake any such 'vetting' of the individual concerned if things are 'done properly'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

Perhaps not 'wrong' but, as above, 'inconsistent'

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

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.

 

[JohnW2]

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

No, I meant inconsistent with the situation when things are 'done properly', according to their rules - when (as far as I am aware) there is no LABC "selection process" or "vetting" in relation to whoever has undertaken and 'certified' the work (provided an EIC).

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.

We (at least, I) don't know what happens in relation to other trades. In terms of electrical work, it would seem that the OP's LABC (and probably many/most others) have effectively already taken that "big step" by establishing the precedent that they will accept an 'after the event' EICR - the only caveat being the "selection processes" and "vetting" which you think LABCs exercise (but I am not so sure!).

Kind Regards, John