I meant when you've not seen the installation before.
Revised Part P 6th April
- Thread starter AdamCH
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Then what possible rational reason could you have for objecting to a law requiring you to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury?
If you were already doing that then the law would have had no detrimental affect on you, and insofar as it levelled, or attempted to level, the playing field where you competed against people who didn't do things properly it would only have been good.
Sorry - there is no reason whatsoever which even begins to make out rationality in the far distance why anybody already behaving in a certain way would object to a law requiring others to work to the same standards.
The only reason someone can have for objecting to a law is that they do not think that they or anybody else should have to obey it.
If you object to Part P there can be no reason apart from believing that nobody should have to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.
S
SaladFingers
No, you've gone off a tangent.
Can you prove any work doesn't comply with BS7671 or Part P for that matter, simply from what someone has said?
Precisely.
"I hereby certify that the work described below complies with all the applicable Building Regulations".
Want to be liable for that if you'd not seen, or had any involvement with, the work before it was all done?
The amount of work which is notifiable has been significantly reduced, but to those who think that for what remains 3rd-party certification will end up being a low-cost alternative to using an electrician or notifying the council I'd say can I have some of that herbal tobacco please.
Sponsored Links
Are you suggesting a full EICR on the installation must be carried out?
I am under the impression only the new work has to be inspected - new circuit, work within zones or CUs.
If all the circuits have to be tested then the CU virtually has to be redone so there is no point the DIYer doing it first.
If the circuits do not have to be tested then do we just check all the screws?
I know that, and never said that it was changing.
How on earth can you know that? It's one of the uncertainties which we're debating and speculating about.
They obviously often couldn't certify that (specifically, the installation bit) which is why some of us are assuming that they will not be asked to certify that the work undertaken has complied fully with Part P
Maybe, but, as I've said, I (and others) am under the impression that such is probably what is proposed.
Essentially the same answer - maybe, but this seems to me to be what the new system is proposing. I'm sure that no-one will be forced to undertake third-party certification of they don't want to.
Kind Regards, John
I have not gone off at a tangent.
In other words you said "Make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury? Pfffft."
Recently you had a signature which in effect said "I would like to ban the requirement for people to have to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury".
What does that have to do with your opposition to the principle that reasonable provision should be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury?
S
SaladFingers
You still have failed to prove anything I have asked you to.
No, not necessarily - that's why I said 'everything relevant'.
Again, I imagine that it would have to include 'everythong relevant' to the work that had been done - testing-wise, that would probably mean most or all of the tests that you would have performed had you undertaken the work - so,as you go on to say...
In the case of a new CU, that could well be true. In reality, of course, a 'new CU' might effectively be a total (or near-total) re-wire, all of the existing circuits being extended, modified and/or having their cables replaced (and maybe a few 'new circuits' added, for the attention of the 3rd-party certifier!). In such a case, the DIYer would have saved quite a lot of electrician work.
I don't think you can do any sort of EICR - complete or 'partial', without any testing, can you?
Kind Regards, John
The legislation is no longer a draft, or up for consultation.
It may not be in force yet but it has been finalised, has been laid before Parliament, and is on the website.
Err - I think you should think about that some more.
There is an clear requirement defined in Part P.
A 3rd party certifier will be expected to certify that Part P has been complied with (actually all of the appropriate Building Regulations) or to refuse to certify because either they have not or because he cannot, having exercised reasonable skill and care etc, be sure that they have.
Either the work complies or it does not - there is no half-way house when it comes to certification. There is Pass and there is Fail.
You are a professional inspector. You have duties and responsibilities prescribed by law. You have PLI with the to-be-expected terms & conditions. You have documents to sign where you attest to the quality of the checking you did and the compliance of the work with the Building Regulations.
Get real - are you going to sign off something you have no idea about?
No - the new system is proposing that 3rd parties can undertake verification of compliance with the Building Regulations.
I'm sure they wont.
And I'm equally sure that those who are not cowboys or hard of thinking will see how they cannot possibly certify anything with which they've had no prior involvement.
I said above that I expect there will be cowboys, but hopefully the majority will insist on being involved right from the outset. I fear that I've missed a third group - those who simply haven't thought it through, and for whom the penny has not dropped about how scrupulous they will need to be given the liability they will have.
You asked me to prove that you were opposed to safe electrical work, which I did by quoting you, and referring to previous statements of yours, which clearly showed that you are opposed to legislation requiring that electrical work be safe.
There simply is no rational reason why anyone should object to a law which says "A must be done" or "B must not be done" other than that they don't want to have to do A, or do want to do B.
If you object to a requirement to have to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury then nothing makes sense apart from you not wanting to have to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.
But I guess I should offer you the opportunity to admit that you are completely irrational and make posts which are nonsensical.
We all know that, and have discussed the contents - but that doesn't mean that we are clear on exactly how the system is meant to, or is going to, work.
As above, how do you know what the certifier will be expected to certify? Part P imposes obligations on those undertaking the design and installation of electrical installations. Whilst a 'certifier' appearing in the scene 'after the event' can verify the design, (s)he will often not be able to confirm that all aspects of installating' have been undertaken in compliance with Part P.
So, however the new system meant to work, it therefore cannot really be one which requires 3rd parties to certify that all aspects of design and installation have been in compliance with Part P, or else every truthful 'after the event' certifier would refuse to certify anything! It is, I agree, possible that 'they' have not thought of this (such that the new system would not be workable), but I'm more inclined to think/hope that they have, and that the 3rd party certifier will be require to certify something which is 'certifiable' (maybe just by adding some caveats to what they have to sign).
We'll see - not too long now! Presumably the 'schemes' will all start communicating with (and maybe inviting payments from!) their members about all this fairly soon - at which point things may possibly start getting a bit clearer.
Kind Regards, John
It doesn't take much thought to see how it will have to work if it is meant to work.
Compliance with the Building Regulations, of course, otherwise what is the point. Read the Building Regulations Explanatory Booklet on the Planning Portal site. It talks about approved inspectors there, and that is all and everything that these 3rd party certifiers are.
Then (s)he cannot certify that the work complies with the Building Regulations, and the client will have no proof that the work complies with the Building Regulations and the whole thing will have been a waste of time and money with which the client will be justifiably aggrieved.
Or s(he) could lie, not carry out due diligence, falsely certify that something (s)he has no idea about is OK, and God help him/her if (s)he is ever held to account for any losses which result from his/her negligence.
It really is that simple. The job is to certify compliance with the Building Regulations. Even if for some nonsensical reason it's watered down to just Part P (which will leave householders between a rock and a hard place at sale time when the buyer's solicitor asks about the regulations as a whole), the same applies.
Indeed, and I do not see a problem with that - it just means that people need to engage the 3rd-part certifier before the fact, just like they do now if they choose to use an approved inspector's Building Control Service in preference to their LABC.
Why wouldn't it?
You engage the certifier, he checks your design and installation plan, he insects at stages and tests at the end.
I fail to see the problem.
The the whole thing is pointless.
Third party certification:
*Completed by a registered installer (no new registration or membership required, if you are already a member of a domestic installers scheme)
* Registered third party must be informed of work prior to installation beginning, so work can be inspected and tested.
* within 5 days of completion, the installer, must contact the 3rd party, so an EICR can be completed.
* The 3rd party installer is required to fill an EICR out, not an EIC.
*Completed by a registered installer (no new registration or membership required, if you are already a member of a domestic installers scheme)
* Registered third party must be informed of work prior to installation beginning, so work can be inspected and tested.
* within 5 days of completion, the installer, must contact the 3rd party, so an EICR can be completed.
* The 3rd party installer is required to fill an EICR out, not an EIC.
S
SaladFingers
No you didn't prove a thing. It's words against words.
PROVE that my work doesn't meet BS7671.
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
