Volunteers and Part P

[Big_Spark]

So is your work and competence directly audited by an independent third party like the NIC, ECA?

Firstly let me Apologise..the illegal Immigrant comment was bit daft..meant tongue in cheek but it doesn't actually work in a written sense..

To answer your Question..Yes..Justin is an NICEIC Registered Contractor and his company (He owns it) is also a member of the ECA.

I'm serious when I say I get no special treatment from him...If he finds something wrong then he lets me know in no uncertain terms..(Thankfully this is rare)

I could probably join the NICEIC myself to be honest, but I object to the fees and being a small independent that often works under the unbrella of larger contractors it has never really been necessary since I walked away from the company I was a partner in.

 

[Softus]

No...I wasn't talking to you.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify who you were disparouging.

 

[Richard C]

This post seems to have gone a bit pear shaped so here is an understanding non spark venting:

Part P, or any such restrictive regulation, is meaningless as it stands; it just puts the emphasis on compliance with the householder which, in my view, is totally wrong. The vast majority don’t even know part P (or any regs for that matter) exist, let alone if the work that ‘sparky’, from the local free advertiser, has just done for them actually complies! How the hell is he supposed to know if it‘s been done correctly or that he’s supposed to get a piece of paper to say it does. Part P doesn’t protect the ignorant/innocent at all & the first ‘Joe Innocent’ will know about it will be years later when he comes to sell up; what good is that if, in the meantime, someone dies as a result of cowboy practice!

So called electricians that either don’t know or don’t give a toss are still carrying on regardless; in my view even the most incompetent DIYer will (probably!) at least try to find out how to do it properly to keep themselves safe; maybe on a forum like this!

IN my view, the future of ‘fail-safe’, electrical safety must lie in technology; but I though we were almost there already!

 

[Softus]

Part P, or any such restrictive regulation, is meaningless as it stands; it just puts the emphasis on compliance with the householder which, in my view, is totally wrong.

Leaving aside the argument about whether or not Part P is meaningless, mostly because I don't even understand that assertion, I have a different view of what you see as being totally wrong (sic.), viz:

Whilst I'd agree that Part P was inadequately 'marketed', there was plenty of notice of it coming into effect, and continuing publicity has led to a widespread (IMHO) knowledge of its existence.

In the world of domestic work, which is what Part P relates to, the unregulated, unqualified, untrained or incompetent tradesperson would have no work unless engaged by householders.

Anyone engaging an electrician, or handyman, or domestic installer, has a responsibility (a general duty of care) to oversee the work to ensure that it's done competently, because an incompetent job could be dangerous to family and friends living in or visiting the house - those truly innocent parties who have a right to expect the environment to be a safe one.

On this premise, the onus is, and always has been, on the householder.

What Part P has done is to formalise a means by which any householder, for the notifiable class of work (which is supposed to equate to the jobs that present more risk, if/when done badly), can be provided with a certificate of safety. For a householder who always acted responsibly the change is small, but for people who used to pay as little money as possible, they are now prevented (in law) from having a crap job done on the cheap.

In short, the problem has always been that cowboy tradespeople have exploited the uneducated and the greedy - the change in law, if properly publicised, should protect the former against the unscrupulous, and prevent the latter from endangering everyone else.

In my view, the future of ‘fail-safe’ electrical safety lies not in technology but in education and regulation - the law is there to protect, but you have to know about it AND be an honest and upright citizen for that law to be fully effective.

 

[dingbat]

This post seems to have gone a bit pear shaped so here is an understanding non spark venting:

Part P, or any such restrictive regulation, is meaningless as it stands; it just puts the emphasis on compliance with the householder which, in my view, is totally wrong.

Oh, bless you, Richard... wading in where so many others have helplessly sunk before. Part P is a single sentence, which reads, "Reasonable provision shall 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."

That's it. In my view a requirement that electrical work is carried out safely is neither restrictive nor meaningless. Like all the others you rail against the wrong thing.

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse or defence and - just as with all the other building regulations - anybody contemplating working on their (or anybody else's) property has a duty to acquaint themselves with the requirements, legal or otherwise.

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus..I must say that what you just wrote, for me, is one of the best descriptions of the aims of the Part P legislation I have seen for some time...

However, there are problems with things the way they stand.

• 1: Non-electrically qualified people (kitchen fitters etc) are still able to undertake electrical work so long as they have completed a course that says they are "competent" (I use that word losely)
  
  2: The Government have singularly failed to truly make the general public fully aware of the what, why, how of Part P. The efforts on this front have been largely left up to the contracting industry.
  
  3: The LBC's have not been given enough resources or powers to properly manage the Part P legislation.
  
  4: Part P schemes have actually succeeded in causing confusion. Before there was the NICEIC, now there are several schemes and many members of the public do not understand that non NICEIC contractors can now do work in many cases.
  
  5: The legislation itself, has been poorley formulated. There are many types of electrical work that should have been banned EXCEPT by fully qualified and registered electricians.
  
  6: The DIY chains should have been severally restricted on the electrical accessories they are allowed to sell to the General public. (They could still sell to registered contractors though)
  
  7: The expense of joining for fully qualified electricians is too much, the systems need to be streamlined, made easier for the already qualified and Free for those registered with organisations operating Part P schemes (Such as NICEIC registered Contractors etec)
  
  8: Non-electrically qualified tradepeople should have been restricted to the connection of appliances, such as boilers, hard wired white goods and controls. They should have been prevented from the installation of actual circuits.
  
  9:Electricians, whilst able to test and should check their own work, should not be allowed to issue a certificate for their actual work. A totally independent tester should do the certification, that way should a mistake be made, it is not overlooked by familiarity with the installation, ignorance, indifference or simply negligence. It would force the contractor to observe the Regs more and be more diligent in their actions.
  
  

Now I know there are some things there that you may disagree with. but there are very valid reasons for them being there. I think we would agree on the fact that BAD electrical work is BAD regardless of who does it, whether qualified, DIYer or other tradeperson. All bad electrical work is a potential hazard and we should all be eager to see it's demise and prosecutions for those who scam, con or harm householders with or by such works, as such this can only be achieved with any kind of effectivness with a tightening of the regulations.

Many Sparks see Part P schemes as a Tax, perhaps as much tongue in cheek as real, but never the less, many competent electricians have stopped doing any domestic work as they object to having to pay to do a job they may have been doing, very comepetently for very many years, as such this actually harms the industry as it leaves the door open to the dodgy lot, especially when it comes to the matter of certification.

I understandthe DIY lot when they argue it is their right to work in their own home, but no-one complains about CORGI for gas (except plumbers!!), so it makes sense, when electricity in the home kills more than gas, that stringent safety measures should be employed.

 

[empip]

Blair's plan to cut red tape
...More than 520 measures have been identified by Whitehall departments in "simplification plans" as part of a target to cut burdens by a quarter by 2010.
Drivers with personalised number plates, electricians, satellite television viewers and the bereaved will be among individuals to enjoy less regulation. Firms with good safety records could benefit from a reduction in inspections as part of the shake-up of bureaucracy...

Any detail - anyone??

Found more..

...Among the cost-cutting measures that will be introduced over the next four years are plans to scrap the paper part of driving licences to end time consuming roadside police checks.

The Department of Transport will launch a consultation which could see an end to annual MoT tests and personalised number plates will only have to be reregisted every five years, rather than every 12 months as at present.

Planning permission for second satellite dishes will also be scrapped.
In a crackdown on health and safety paperwork, electricians will no longer have to fill in a form every time they complete a job...

 

[dingbat]

"electricians will no longer have to fill in a form every time they complete a job..."

To do that you would have to withdraw BS7671. The requirement for certification has never been statutory, but it has always been a part of the wiring regulations. You would also have to have a good long look at regulation 29 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, for how else would an electrician prove that he 'exercised all due diligence'?

This won't happen.

But, yet again, nobody seems to actually get it. Who could possibly object to Part P?... I paraphrase:

A) If you're going to 'do electrics' do it correctly.
B) Be prepared to face the consequences of getting it wrong.

That is all it requires.

I've said it before and I have no issue with repeating it... the majority of electricians are no more than skilled labour; no more deserving of the title 'electrician' than the kitchen fitter they so readily deride. Unless you understand the nature of the energy source you are dealing with and understand and comply with all the regulations that govern its use you have no business trading under that title.

 

[Softus]

Softus..I must say that what you just wrote, for me, is one of the best descriptions of the aims of the Part P legislation I have seen for some time.

It humbles me that you can say that (in the light of recent debates).

However, there are problems with things the way they stand.

I agree with points 1, 2, 3, 4 (although I'm not convinced that many punters even know what NICEIC is).

5: The legislation itself, has been poorley formulated. There are many types of electrical work that should have been banned EXCEPT by fully qualified and registered electricians.

Not convinced on this one - legislation has to be a compromise between being completely prescriptive and its ability to be policed. Part P will largely rely on self-policing by householders, because the penalty for not getting yerself a safety certificate is a reduction in house value and/or saleability. The glaringly poor attribute of the formula is that the seller's pack, and a general reform of the conveyancing process, are lagging in effectiveness, which is what makes Part P pointless (not meaningless) to many people.

6: The DIY chains should have been severally restricted on the electrical accessories they are allowed to sell to the General public. (They could still sell to registered contractors though)

Restrictions on trade are a notoriously good way to create a black market in banned goods and for driving down quality; so much so, IMO, that the criminally incompetent wouldn't feel any constraint at all, and honest punters would end up paying more for goods obtained legitimately.

7: The expense of joining for fully qualified electricians is too much, the systems need to be streamlined, made easier for the already qualified and Free for those registered with organisations operating Part P schemes (Such as NICEIC registered Contractors etec)

Hm. I don't know much about these costs, but it sounds as though the only way to implement your suggestion would have been subsidise fully qualified electricians during a transition period covering some time from 1st January 2005. I don't know if such a thing was considered.

8: Non-electrically qualified tradepeople should have been restricted to the connection of appliances, such as boilers, hard wired white goods and controls. They should have been prevented from the installation of actual circuits.

My intuitive response is to agree, because one of the most popular questions on the forum centres on the correct calculation and rating of cables for existing and new circuits, for example the "how thick a cable must I have for my shower" question.

9:Electricians, whilst able to test and should check their own work, should not be allowed to issue a certificate for their actual work. A totally independent tester should do the certification, that way should a mistake be made, it is not overlooked by familiarity with the installation, ignorance, indifference or simply negligence. It would force the contractor to observe the Regs more and be more diligent in their actions.

In principle I agree, completely, but the tenor of many small jobs is such that this is impractical and would therefore drive up the price of such jobs. Hugely. Unfortunately, because so many householders are so mean about the cost of work, many people would still prefer to engage the less scrupulous tradespeople.

...All bad electrical work is a potential hazard and we should all be eager to see it's demise and prosecutions for those who scam, con or harm householders with or by such works, as such this can only be achieved with any kind of effectivness with a tightening of the regulations.

My answer to this might surprise you, because I blame mean householders, not scammers. If householders were less selfish and penny-pinching and met their general duty of care more of the time, the scamming problem would automatically reduce without expensive prosecutions.

Many Sparks see Part P schemes as a Tax, perhaps as much tongue in cheek as real, but never the less, many competent electricians have stopped doing any domestic work as they object to having to pay to do a job they may have been doing, very comepetently for very many years, as such this actually harms the industry as it leaves the door open to the dodgy lot, especially when it comes to the matter of certification.

The door isn't left open, it's being repeatedly opened by mean/greedy/crooked customers.

I understand the DIY lot when they argue it is their right to work in their own home, but no-one complains about CORGI for gas (except plumbers!!), so it makes sense, when electricity in the home kills more than gas, that stringent safety measures should be employed.

I think it's too early to say whether or not the notifiability boundary is in the right place, but I'm not convinced by the statistical argument because electricity reaches hugely many more homes in the UK than gas does, and hugely many more rooms in each home than gas will ever do, so there's bound to be a greater number of electrical injuries/deaths than those resulting from gas.