Rescinding Amendment Three???

[PBC_1966]

As BAS has pointed out, I think that would create a mess. I don't think it is sensible to allow people to install things if they are not also competent to test them and, if necessary, fault-find if there are any problems.

In terms of basic electrical installations, I think that's true. Obviously there is scope for specialization for specific apparatus which might be installed in a house - video distribution, telephone systems, alarms and so on - but in terms of general things like lighting, sockets, and the associated distribution systems, we're talking about very basic electrical principles. Anyone who can't fault-find at such a basic level really has no business to be called an electrician of any description.

I certainly doubt that you could show that any reduction in "serious electrical accidents in domestic premises that could be attributed to poor workmanship" had resulted from the introduction of Part P

On the contrary, the published statistics showed an increase in such incidents a short time after its introduction - Until the government then decided to stop publishing the figures any more. I wonder why?

 

[PBC_1966]

EDIT: And because it was "new and magical", many were just scared of it. Today many people are "rather complacent" (remember that "is 240V really dangerous ?" thread ?) as it's one of those things that's "always been there".

I don't think you can talk about electricity being "new and magical" just 50 - 60 years ago; that is, after all, only back to the late 1950's/early 1960's era. Go back another 50 years and that would be a different story.

If society continues evolving in the way it has been evolving, I imagine that it will happen eventually. It has, of course, already happened (to lesser or greater extents) in a good few countries (one with a border with the UK).

It's interesting to see what's happened in Ireland. At one time it seemed to have very little regulation and a much more relaxed approach to many things compared to the U.K., but in more recent years the Irish government seems to have introduced legislation which is much more restrictive than the U.K. in many respects. The NCT (National Car Test) introduced about 15 years ago is one example; they went from having no MOT-like vehicle inspections at all to the NCT which was stricter than the MoT which existed at that time.

 

[JohnW2]

It's interesting to see what's happened in Ireland. At one time it seemed to have very little regulation and a much more relaxed approach to many things compared to the U.K., but in more recent years the Irish government seems to have introduced legislation which is much more restrictive than the U.K. in many respects.

Yes, that's interesting, and I don't know the explanation or background. Maybe just their attempt to assert themselves as a 'serious country', perhaps?

Much the same seems to have happened, perhaps for that same reason, in a number of 'developing countries'. In many fields, they have gone from a situation of having virtually (or literally!) no rules or regulations to introducing regulations more rigorous and demanding than many a 'Western' country.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

If you pay someone to provide a service, then you ought to be assured that they know how to do it.

Quite. Or, put another way, "Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill." From the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

[JohnW2]

If you pay someone to provide a service, then you ought to be assured that they know how to do it.

Quite. Or, put another way, "Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill." From the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Indeed. However, the great majority of consumers probably do not have the ability to judge whether the service is being performed "with reasonable care and skill", and, even if they do have that ability, obviously can't judge in advance whether it will (in the future) be performed "with reasonable care and skill". As a consequence, only some sort of official recognition of competence (as with 'registration'/'licensing') would really help consumers get some (albeit not guaranteed) indication as to whether they are likely to get a service "performed with reasonable care and skill" from any individual offering to provide them with services.

Merely having a law in place which allows them to seek some remedy and/or sanction against the perpetrator 'after the event' if they have been provided with an unsatisfactory service is not really what most consumers want.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's interesting to see what's happened in Ireland. At one time it seemed to have very little regulation and a much more relaxed approach to many things compared to the U.K., but in more recent years the Irish government seems to have introduced legislation which is much more restrictive than the U.K. in many respects.

Yes, that's interesting, and I don't know the explanation or background. Maybe just their attempt to assert themselves as a 'serious country', perhaps?

Much the same seems to have happened, perhaps for that same reason, in a number of 'developing countries'. In many fields, they have gone from a situation of having virtually (or literally!) no rules or regulations to introducing regulations more rigorous and demanding than many a 'Western' country.

That would seem to be what you are advocating and merely bureaucracy for its own sake rather than a specific trade-based solution to a problem.

 

[stillp]

Merely having a law in place which allows them to seek some remedy and/or sanction against the perpetrator 'after the event' if they have been provided with an unsatisfactory service is not really what most consumers want.

I'm sorry, I hadn't asked them. Would they prefer to have another registration/licensing regime and its associated bureaucracy for which they have to pay?

 

[JohnW2]

Would they prefer to have another registration/licensing regime and its associated bureaucracy for which they have to pay?

I would imagine that they would much prefer some 'official system' which allowed them to identify in advance those who were (probably) going to provide services "with reasonable care and skill" than legislation which enabled "something to be done" after someone had provided them with unsatisfactory, perhaps dangerous, services.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Echo the husky]

Does tri-rated count as sheathed ? It looks just like a single layer of insulation to me, which surely precludes it being used (eg) between meter and CU and it wouldn't normally be practical to provide the mechanical protection right up to the meter terminals that the over-sheath of the "normal" meter tails provides.

I did say insulated and sheathed tri-rated cable. I've only got green/yellow to hand for the photo, this bit is 25mm².

 

[Risteard]

they went from having no MOT-like vehicle inspections at all to the NCT which was stricter than the MoT which existed at that time.

It should be remembered however that the MoT which remains in place in the north is far more onerous than that in Britain. Private garages do not conduct this test - it can only be carried out at one of the government-run test centre. The same with the PSV test for vans, etc.

 

[JohnW2]

That would seem to be what you are advocating and merely bureaucracy for its own sake rather than a specific trade-based solution to a problem.

I'm not sure what alternative "trade-based solution" you have in mind. Are you perhaps suggesting that, for example, people should only be allowed to trade as an electrician if they are a member of a self-cert team? If so, that's essentially what I'm suggesting - it's common for 'registration' to be administered by third-party bodies.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Would they prefer to have another registration/licensing regime and its associated bureaucracy for which they have to pay?

I would imagine that they would much prefer some 'official system' which allowed them to identify in advance those who were (probably) going to provide services "with reasonable care and skill" than legislation which enabled "something to be done" after someone had provided them with unsatisfactory, perhaps dangerous, services.

Kind Regards, John

History shows us that 'official systems' are rarely if ever a satisfactory means of identifying competent persons. Pro-active regulation by peers seems to work in some areas, such as medicine, but even there it is not infallible. If prosecutions for unsatisfactory services became more common, the incompetent providers of those services would find themselves out of pocket, and would eventually either improve, or cease trading.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That would seem to be what you are advocating and merely bureaucracy for its own sake rather than a specific trade-based solution to a problem.

I'm not sure what alternative "trade-based solution" you have in mind. Are you perhaps suggesting that, for example, people should only be allowed to trade as an electrician if they are a member of a self-cert team? If so, that's essentially what I'm suggesting - it's common for 'registration' to be administered by third-party bodies.

No. I try to write correctly.

I am saying you want a regulatory system simply because you want a regulatory system;

not because there is any problem with the trade which needs a solution.

 

[JohnW2]

History shows us that 'official systems' are rarely if ever a satisfactory means of identifying competent persons.

Not a totally satisfactory, let alone, infallible, means, no - but surely an awful lot better than 'no system'.

Pro-active regulation by peers seems to work in some areas, such as medicine, but even there it is not infallible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro active" regulation. Nor am I sure why medicine keeps getting singled out - but, if you want to talk in that sort of area, virtually every one of the many healthcare professions is regulated (by bodies analogous to the GMC) in a manner similar to that applicable to medicine. As I recently wrote to EFLI, mandatory registration of electricians could be delegated to the 'scheme operators'.

Particularly some of the views that have been expressed in the past, I'm rather surprised that there is so much apparent resistance to what I am suggesting. Those current electricians who have anything approaching what I would regard as 'proper qualifications' or experience would automatically get their 'registration' without any hassle or significant inconvenience (just as a doctor would get GMC registration automatically by presenting the appropriate 'certificates'). It is only those who had no training/qualifications, or 'qualifications' based on a 2-day, 5-day or 5-week 'training course' who might have some difficulty in convincing the body concerned that they should be 'registered' to be allowed to trade as an electrician - and I, for one, don't reckon that would be too bad a thing!

Am I missing some reason why trained, qualified and competent electricians should oppose (or 'fear') such a system?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Perhaps they have nothing to gain from another system? Do you really think it would stop the 5-day wonders from undercutting them? There would inevitably be a grey area. If I do some work for a friend, and they give me some money to show their thanks, am I trading? What if I do such work for a friend of a friend?

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro active" regulation

Up-front regulation, rather than punitive action after the event.