Revised Part P 6th April

[SaladFingers]

Awwwww is ickle bassy wassy getting all upsetty wetty woo woo over some words?

Awwwwww bless.

No - just making sure people don't forget what a disgusting and dangerous cowboy you are who does not believe that electrical work should be safe.

You yourself have done the reminding of what a pathetically immature child you are.

Awwwww little BAS!!

Disgusting and dangerous cowboy? Now, you've never seen or heard of my work, so these words you speak are nothing more than sour grapes, as I am able to work and you being wheel chair bound are only able to spout hatered over the internet. No one ever sees you writing anything positive.

You yourself have done the reminding of what a pathetically immature child you are, who's rude, arrogant and seeminly insanely jealous of others.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

YOU are the one who is, not for the first time, dismissive to the point of contempt of a law requiring electrical work to be even reasonably safe, and I can't think of ANY reason why someone would do that unless they were unable and unwilling to do work which was reasonably safe. If they could then they would have no possible reason to object to the law.

YOU are the one who thinks that this:

Awwwww is ickle bassy wassy getting all upsetty wetty woo woo over some words?

Awwwwww bless.

is the way that a mature adult speaks.

And as I'm not wheelchair bound that assertion simply shows that you are deranged, and thrashing around because you have not one single thread of rationality you can bring to bear.

Come on then t**t - give us all a laugh, and put forward a cogent argument in favour of the theory that people in wheelchairs must be wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

With self-certification, I had always assumed that 'notification'eventually got back to LABC - since they are really the guardians of notifiable work (and the people who would/could pursue people for non-notification) - is that true? If so, I would assume that the same would/will probably apply to third-party-certification.

I (don't actually know but) would assume that they are informed but as I said earlier I would think that the registering bodies merely send electronically or enter on a database.

However, this could only be a name and address and type of work.
No details are sent by me apart from a choice of types of work i.e. 'new consumer unit', 'outside lighting or power', 'new circuit' etc.

The customer then receives the Compliance Certificate from the registering body.

I have no contact whatsoever with the LABC and have never been asked for any detailed description of work.

 

[SaladFingers]

YOU are the one who is, not for the first time, dismissive to the point of contempt of a law requiring electrical work to be even reasonably safe, and I can't think of ANY reason why someone would do that unless they were unable and unwilling to do work which was reasonably safe. If they could then they would have no possible reason to object to the law.

YOU are the one who thinks that this:

Awwwww is ickle bassy wassy getting all upsetty wetty woo woo over some words?

Awwwwww bless.

is the way that a mature adult speaks.

And as I'm not wheelchair bound that assertion simply shows that you are deranged, and thrashing around because you have not one single thread of rationality you can bring to bear.

Come on then t**t - give us all a laugh, and put forward a cogent argument in favour of the theory that people in wheelchairs must be wrong.

Awww bless you bas, I've only gone and upset you, haven't I dear?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Awww bless you bas, I've only gone and upset you, haven't I dear?

No, but you have refreshed my disgust for you.

And doesn't your speak volumes about your contemptible attitude.

 

[SaladFingers]

Awww bless you bas, I've only gone and upset you, haven't I dear?

No, but you have refreshed my disgust for you.

And doesn't your speak volumes about your contemptible attitude.

You know what, I can always rely on you for a laugh

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There we have it, ladies and gentleman.

Saladbrains is opposed to safe electrical work and his reason for being here is to make himself laugh, which he does by behaving like a pathetic mewling child.

 

[SaladFingers]

There we have it, ladies and gentleman.

Saladbrains is opposed to safe electrical work and his reason for being here is to make himself laugh, which he does by behaving like a pathetic mewling child.

Opposed to safe electrical work? You're talking nonsense.

Prove what you've said.

 

[JohnW2]

If you can find a 3rd-party certifier who is prepared to put his professional reputation (and liability) on the line by certifying that work which he has had absolutely no chance to inspect before it's presented to him as a fait accompli complies with Part P (which in practice will mean certifying that it complies with BS 7671). (That's a big "If", BTW)

It sounds as if you have a different understanding of what is proposed from what EFLI and I think - but goodness knows who`s right. I thought (and I think EFLI also thinks) that the third-party-certifier will merely be asked to undertake an `EICR` and thereby confirm that the installation (after the work) is `satisfactory` (to the extent that any EICR can, which presumably includes confirming that all new work which is visible, accessible or testable is compliant with Part P/BS7671) - not to confirm that new work has been undertaken totally in compliance with Part P/ BS7671 (which,as you imply, is often/usually impossible after the event).

No, because work started between those dates required notifying.

That is obviously literally true but, as EFLI and myself have said, in practice no-one will know (and, probably, no-one will care!) when the worked was undertaken.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Opposed to safe electrical work? You're talking nonsense.

Prove what you've said.

OK - here you are:

part pee, pfffft.

And you used to have a signature which said "Ban Part P".

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do agree with John.

After all, what else can it be?
Is that not all the LABC do now when someone has, for whatever reason, not received an EIC.

An EIC cannot be given after completion.

Though bearing in mind the limited amount of notifiable works there will be remaining, I don't see a lot of work in it.

As I queried earlier, how does anyone carry out an EICR on a completed consumer unit?

 

[SaladFingers]

Opposed to safe electrical work? You're talking nonsense.

Prove what you've said.

OK - here you are:

part pee, pfffft.

And you used to have a signature which said "Ban Part P".

How does that prove non compliance with BS7671?

Compliance with BS7671 is something I have done for years, long before Part P.

I didn't need the introduction of Part P to tell me how to work safely and correctly, obviously, you did.

 

[JohnW2]

I do agree with John. After all, what else can it be? Is that not all the LABC do now when someone has, for whatever reason, not received an EIC. An EIC cannot be given after completion.

I agree with all that.

As I queried earlier, how does anyone carry out an EICR on a completed consumer unit?

I'm not sure that I completely understand your point/question, here. If one is undertaking an EICR after work has been completed (per our understanding of the new system), then presumably one inspects and tests everything relevant in the same manner (and to the same extent) as one would when doing any other EICR on the installation?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It sounds as if you have a different understanding of what is proposed from what EFLI and I think - but goodness knows who`s right. I thought (and I think EFLI also thinks) that the third-party-certifier will merely be asked to undertake an `EICR` and thereby confirm that the installation (after the work) is `satisfactory` (to the extent that any EICR can, which presumably includes confirming that all new work which is visible, accessible or testable is compliant with Part P/BS7671) - not to confirm that new work has been undertaken totally in compliance with Part P/ BS7671 (which,as you imply, is often/usually impossible after the event).

Part P is not changing.

And although the scope of notifiability is reduced, electrical work will remain a controlled service. Any 3rd-party certifier will be certifying compliance with all of the Building Regulations (just like a self-certifier currently does), and specifically will be certifying that reasonable provision has been made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

I don't think that an EICR will hack it, quite honestly, not once the 3rd parties stop and seriously think about professional liability issues.

That is obviously literally true but, as EFLI and myself have said, in practice no-one will know (and, probably, no-one will care!) when the worked was undertaken.

Depends where the 3rd party certifier is on the responsible professional - cynical money grabbing charlatan spectrum. Plus I genuinely doubt that anybody providing that service who ought to be providing it would have anything to do with a client who says "I've finished this rewire could you come along and certify it please".

In reality I expect there will be cowboys who DGAS about standards and professionalism, and duty of care, and who have no sense of self-worth or of taking pride in what they do, but hopefully the majority will insist on being involved right from the outset.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

An EIC cannot be given after completion.

Why not?