Another sad reason Part P just doesnt work

[jjnr78]

An old customer asked me if I could sign off another contractors work that was carried out in their property, so that they could achieve Building Regs sign off. (They used a main contractor for the whole build hence why we weren't involved). I let her know how part P works with self certification etc and the proper routes i.e. ask the local authority to appoint a contractor etc etc, so that the instruction lies with the local authority. She did this to the tune of £250. In return she received 2 EICR certs for the 2 properties; both CUs were 10-way and she has results for 3 circuits on each, so roughly 30%. The original installation was never tested, so the inspector had no paperwork to cross reference results. Whatsmore, of the circuits that were inspected and tested, there are departures that need to be rectified- hence why i was called and how I can see the reports. The inspector was there for under 2hrs, never inspected the origin of the installation (as he didnt have a key to unlock it) and so falsified those results and also missed glaringly obvious issues e.g. twin + cpc sub main 16mm, buried in the fabric, no RCD protection, no calculation on size of earth, though he did point out the 'earthing conductor is undersized, requires 16sqmm item. Surely if you sample test, you increase if you start finding problems??

What gets me is that I would never only test 30% of new work that I or my team installs and sign it off, nor can you for that matter. More than that I would never sign off, using a 30% yard stick, another contractors work without a full schedule of results and perhaps seeing the 1st fix etc. So how can the local authority instruct this contractor to only inspect 30%? If thats the case, i might as well stop my fully approved contractor status and get them to do it as we obviouslty present a full schedule of results that takes 3 times as long!

I've explained my concerns to the client but she has vehemently told me not to flag my issues with the local authority as she feels my way will end up costing her more money and time on a situation that has cursed her already over the last 2 years. so, no come back for the contractor or the local authority and i look like the bad guy who is trying to squeeze the client for extra work, before I've even visited! I've never managed to get a customer to complain to a governing body of the council when faced with these issues, so it will just keep happening.

From a business viewpoint, perhaps thats why others are so much cheaper than me on EICR, as we just arent doing the same job.

I'm really looking forward to taking over this family business......

 

[jdd]

Feel your pain mate, it can be pretty soul destroying if you think about it too much. I just try and avoid thinking about it and hope some day the regulations will be taken as seriously as gas regs..

 

[oldtimer]

She does not want you to highlight issues ???????????????????????????? Well she aint got an option you are the one that signs off its ok so you cannot go along with previous reports also 30% my understanding is you test the whole installation with regards to IR and Zs for each circuit yet again I&T is going the same way as PAT testing anyone with a part of a brain can dictate policy.

When i get calls like this I always explain I am not looking for problems but I am obliged to record any issues thats when I get the rant about how the builders or the last guy ripped them off so jut give me a cost to sign it off and I always reply look this is like a car MOT the garage cannot sign off any issues that fails the car. Thats when I get another rant and I have to explain your issue is not with me but with the person who did the job.

 

[jjnr78]

Oldtimer, thats exactly what I said. however, she has now retracted her offer of inviting me to rectify the work and she's going to go back to the original contractor who previously went bust and look to them to help out. And they will obviously try to sweeten her and poss overlook any issues to help repair an already fragile relationship. i'm glad there are some of us on the same song sheet!

 

[jjnr78]

Just spoken with the Building Control in question and discovered that they require their contractor to inspect every circuit in question and for this that would mean 100% of the installation. In fact they are quite embarrased about the situation. I have to say the officer i spoke with understood exactly how the scheme should work and looks to enforce it correctly. herein lies a further problem, who polices the police?? This appointed contractor is the building control agent essentially. they are a private firm who look to maximise profits like we all do and it seems they have adopted a ruling of their own. To be fair to Building Control, they probably dont understand the certificates and dont get funding to assess what their contractor does, so these inspectors been cashing in on a lovely little number. i just hope their professional indemnity insurance is valid! For the scheme to work, part p needs to handled by the local authorities, which means employing competent inspectors which is expensive and i cant see this happening.

 

[oldtimer]

I did a job for a London based lawer who had a flat up here she caused such a hassle I said well sorry I will retract from the job she said well I wont pay you I said fine because as they say when you are in a hole stop digging plus I just dont need the hassle so I lost 6 hours labour but thats the way it goes

 

[Paul.M]

jjnr78 I like the cut of your gib sir. More people like you is what the domestic industry needs, well done.

 

[stephanjs]

Hi jjnr78 and others,

Whilst I am sympathetic to your concern please note certain facts. If it is new work, the installer should arrange for an Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) to be issued "before the installation is put into use". This is the most important point. Clearly this was not done. This law is only enforceable if a competent person notices that the installation is obviously dangerous or if someone gets injured property get damaged or worse the loss of life due to the dangerous work. Then the criminal law is broken and the installer can be prosecuted under the Building Regulations 2000.

If someone else is called to do the "testing" after the installation has been put into use, they cannot issue an EIC. The best they can do is to conduct a periodic inspection on the installation and issue an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) regardless of the condition. The person ordering the report will set the scope and limitations of the inspection, say, only the new installation. From your comments this was not done either.

The other issue is the competence of the person conducting the test. This is not under "Part P". This is under the ECS (Electrotechnical Competence Scheme). I have argued for about 30 years that the way forward is that only registered electricians (approved electricians and above) should be able to do any electrical work without supervision. I know this to be the case in France and Germany years ago. Not sure if it is the same now.

Yes argue against it but we must get the facts of the argument right or else we will be shot down in flames. (This is possibly why anyone can do electrical work in the UK at the moment).

One Love

 

[Guest55]

The bottom line is this....
Local authorites all over the country dont have the time , money or resources to implement part p.
In addition they dont have the stomach or will to inforce part p either , it was dumped on them by the previous Labour goverment.
All the certificates and notifications that you all send in for every crappy little kitchen socket and bathroom light that gets fitted is just another pile of paperwork dumped in the corner of some office serving no use to anyone.

 

[Guitarist]

If you get messed about, send in an invoice for your time. If they refuse to pay, then so be it. At least you get the satisfaction of telling them that they are now on your blacklist

 

[jjnr78]

Hi jjnr78 and others,

Whilst I am sympathetic to your concern please note certain facts. If it is new work, the installer should arrange for an Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) to be issued "before the installation is put into use". This is the most important point. Clearly this was not done. This law is only enforceable if a competent person notices that the installation is obviously dangerous or if someone gets injured property get damaged or worse the loss of life due to the dangerous work. Then the criminal law is broken and the installer can be prosecuted under the Building Regulations 2000.

If someone else is called to do the "testing" after the installation has been put into use, they cannot issue an EIC. The best they can do is to conduct a periodic inspection on the installation and issue an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) regardless of the condition. The person ordering the report will set the scope and limitations of the inspection, say, only the new installation. From your comments this was not done either.

The other issue is the competence of the person conducting the test. This is not under "Part P". This is under the ECS (Electrotechnical Competence Scheme). I have argued for about 30 years that the way forward is that only registered electricians (approved electricians and above) should be able to do any electrical work without supervision. I know this to be the case in France and Germany years ago. Not sure if it is the same now.

Yes argue against it but we must get the facts of the argument right or else we will be shot down in flames. (This is possibly why anyone can do electrical work in the UK at the moment).

One Love

I can't remember stating anything different than what you wrote above. I'm very aware how the scheme works. My point is that the scheme is fundamentally wrong when you have a private organisation undertaking work on behalf of an authority when that authority doesnt have the technical know-how to query or instruct the ncessary tenets of the job that is being undertaken. As Biff55 points out (and in fact echoed by the Building Control Officer i spoke with) there are no resources for this to work effectively and local authorites dont make any money from it...perhaps an admin fee at best as they have to outsource it. then when there is an issue, we as contractors cant complain due to certain conflict of interest factors, so it rests with the client who is now so confused and tired of contractors being in their home, (plus the fact that they may face further remedial works) that they want out of the whole sorry situation.

 

[jjnr78]

If you get messed about, send in an invoice for your time. If they refuse to pay, then so be it. At least you get the satisfaction of telling them that they are now on your blacklist

its not that i'm being messed about, its the annoyance that there are firms out there that i am competing with on a daily basis, that are less than honest, less competent and there's nothing that can and will be done about it. people still dont know about part p, let alone the difference between an EI and a EICR; a downlight and a fire-rated downlight; an approved contractor and a domestic installer and a time-served, qualified electrician and qualified electrician from an 8 week course at the local inductrial estate.

 

[Vito04]

As mentioned previously the policing of Part P cannot be managed without customer co-operation. If the customer doesn't know about Part P then they are unaware that it needs registering with LABC unless building control are already involved with building work and also that a EIC should be issued. To be honest probably 90% of customers aren't even bothered.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

when it comes to an INITIAL VERIFICATION..i thought it was clear.....so where did this tool get 30% from?....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

and even if it was a periodic...still wouldn`t have been right as when sampling you start with 10%....any crap you up it to 50% and so on....