Enforcing Part P

[Guitarist]

Last week it was discussed how nobody is taking ownership of enforcing Part P. Just thought I'd quote this except from the "Electrician's guide to the Building Regulations".

"The primary responsibility for achieving compliance with the Building Regulations rests with the person carrying out the building work. If electrical installation work is non-compliant, the local authority will usually take action against the electrician...."

Has anybody ever known LBC take action against such an electrician/pretend electrician?

 

[Mark_Burgess]

Nope, a customer of mine had a large extension done and the electrics were not signed off, building control came round for a final inspection and asked him for the EIC, he said he did not have one. Building control said, get an inspection done then. Thats it, they did not want to know who did it or anything.

 

[sedgy34]

They are not bothered they all want an easy life in the council offices so they won't pursue anything they would probably refer anything to trading standards

 

[Guitarist]

Isn't it an odd society we live in when the Government will hound you if you owe a pound of income tax, yet they turn a blind eye when it involves someone's safety....

 

[Des 56]

they would probably refer anything to trading standards
​

I would be surprised if they even go that far,Part p is of no importance to them
I have met a building inspector who hardly knew of its existence

​

 

[sedgy34]

If that's the response from labc WHY are we paying scams money

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I think they are only likely to take action if non compliant work actually caused an accident/incident.....the cost and hassle involved in persueing someone who has just wired a socket in their kitchen just wouldnt be worth their while. Part P is really there to keep tabs on the honest and professional electricians who do notify and comply,to make it harder to do cash jobs,and so that the scams can empty our wallets,nothing more.

 

[KFH]

On two jobs recently involving extensions and the LBC I was asked to provide a copy of the EIC for the LBC. On one occasion I was there when the LBC guy was inspecting a flue and he was very keen to ensure I was registered. Don't know what would have happened if I was not registered though.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The quote from the electrician's guide is misleading.
It is the Householder or person ordering the work, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with Building Regulations, not the tradesman.
The LABC will issue any instructions or enforcement orders, and if necessary take legal action against the householder, not the tradesman.
The Local Authority will take action against the tradesman (at the householder's request) through Trading Standards.
However by the time Trading Standards have decided that there is no action they can take, Building Control will have arranged demolition of the house (charging the householder the cost) for non-compliance.
The LABC's job is to ensure that the Building Regulations are complied with, not to ensure the householder employs competent persons to carry out the work.

 

[Guitarist]

Misleading or not, that's what it says. It does go on to say...

"Alternatively or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner of the building."

I agree that the person ordering the work is responsible for employing someone who complies with the regs, however, the primary responsibility for achieving compliance rests with the person carrying out the work.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

That's just so not the case.
Think about it.
If an electrician conducts work that doesn't comply, then refuses to put the work right, for whatever reason, the LABC have the authority to demolish that work.
Someone pays out to have an extension added to their property, they employ a buider to do the work, who in turn employs an electrician.
Because of a disagreement over pay or work schedules, the electrician walks off site.
BC attend the property, are not happy with the height of the socket-outlets, do you really think, they will contact the electrician to put them right?

 

[Guitarist]

That's just so not the case.
Think about it.
If an electrician conducts work that doesn't comply, then refuses to put the work right, for whatever reason, the LABC have the authority to demolish that work.
Someone pays out to have an extension added to their property, they employ a buider to do the work, who in turn employs an electrician.
Because of a disagreement over pay or work schedules, the electrician walks off site.
BC attend the property, are not happy with the height of the socket-outlets, do you really think, they will contact the electrician to put them right?

No, I don't mate. I was merely quoting the building regs, which are the law. How BC interpret the law, or indeed their obligations are an entirely different matter.
What I'm saying, is that the law is there to ensure that "the person who carries out the building work" complies with all the regs. We all know that BC turn a blind eye and tell the owner to get an EICR. I think it's purely a lack of understanding which is causing this mess within the industry.

 

[Engineer54]

I think they are only likely to take action if non compliant work actually caused an accident/incident.....the cost and hassle involved in persueing someone who has just wired a socket in their kitchen just wouldnt be worth their while. Part P is really there to keep tabs on the honest and professional electricians who do notify and comply,to make it harder to do cash jobs,and so that the scams can empty our wallets,nothing more.

I would also image it'll be very easy for Inland Revenue to check-up on your Tax returns to find out if what your declaring is accurate, ...or Not!! ...lol!!!

 

[Dave 85]

I would also image it'll be very easy for Inland Revenue to check-up on your Tax returns to find out if what your declaring is accurate, ...or Not!! ...lol!!!

If you are willing to carry out tax evasion you'd have to be a bit simple to actually notify the jobs you are evading tax on.

 

[jimmymac]

Never thought of it like that dave.................. i'm worried now, :sweatdrop:

 

[Dave 85]

Isn't it an odd society we live in when the Government will hound you if you owe a pound of income tax, yet they turn a blind eye when it involves someone's safety....

Guitarist are you suggesting the governments should be putting more effort into enforcing safety and less effort into trying to make sure taxation meets public spending? Not sure if I agree with this. Infact I dont.

Enforcing part P is not really about safety anyway. Its not as if an installation done by a timed served, non registered spark (and there are plenty about) then EICR'd by a registered spark is going to be more dangerous than an installtion carried out by a Electrical Trainee with a scheme membership, and not subjected to an EICR.
If people are so against Part P then why complain about the lack of enforcement?

 

[Dave 85]

Never thought of it like that dave.................. i'm worried now, :sweatdrop:

Dont worry dude just tell HMRC you do all yer jobs for free to gain experience.

 

[jimmymac]

Well thats true, i have never recieved one single penny in payment...honest boss....

 

[hermetic]

Part P has nothing to do with improving electrical safety, if you think that you are being incredibly naive. when part p was introduced, the claim made on the ODPM website (ODPM introduced it, thank you Mr prescott) was "this legislation is introduced to stem the rising tide of electrical accidents in the home". Unfortunately that statement is a barefaced lie as there was no "rising tide". Both DTI and RoSPA figures showed that electrical accidents in the home flattened in 1960, began falling in 1962, and have been falling steadily year on year ever since. Although evidence is difficult to put together it seems that accidents have begun to RISE since part P was introduced. Whether this rise is due to the huge increase in "registered" Electrical Trainee's is anyones guess. I personally don't do much domestic work, but what I do is under the inspection of our LBC who have a very good dedicated inspector (apprentice trained elec engineer with HND) who is much cheaper than registering with the scams, which are staffed by largely unqualified ppl now anyway. Part P was introduced so that a lot of suits could live off the backs of the qualified, as no one else would give them a job. They lobbied the government for it and they got it. rant over

 

[Engineer54]

If you are willing to carry out tax evasion you'd have to be a bit simple to actually notify the jobs you are evading tax on.

I thought that was the whole point of Scam providers and Domestic installers, so how do you get out of notifying, if your issueing EICR and the like??

Look, i'm sure there are way's around everything if it's worth the trouble to do so. All i'm saying is that IR will have access as to what work you have done and when, by going through the scam provider/LABC route. Whether you want to go down the line of tax evasion is down to the individual.. lol!!

 

[Guitarist]

Guitarist are you suggesting the governments should be putting more effort into enforcing safety and less effort into trying to make sure taxation meets public spending? Not sure if I agree with this. Infact I dont.

Enforcing part P is not really about safety anyway. Its not as if an installation done by a timed served, non registered spark (and there are plenty about) then EICR'd by a registered spark is going to be more dangerous than an installtion carried out by a Electrical Trainee with a scheme membership, and not subjected to an EICR.
If people are so against Part P then why complain about the lack of enforcement?

If you think that it's ok to ignore a law because it's too much trouble to enforce, then we may as well just throw away the statute book and all do whatever we like.
I don't think most of us would be against Part P if we felt that it was being enforced correctly. We pay our yearly fees and follow the rules, while the chancers (I don't personally believe that most electricians who avoid being part P registered are time-served, qualified guys) undercut us and don't bother testing or certifying.

Enjoy your evening ​

 

[JD6400]

I would also image it'll be very easy for Inland Revenue to check-up on your Tax returns to find out if what your declaring is accurate, ...or Not!! ...lol!!!

From day one of the current fiasco coming into affect , I have firmly believed this was probably the true reason for it !

 

[Dave 85]

If you think that it's ok to ignore a law because it's too much trouble to enforce, then we may as well just throw away the statute book and all do whatever we like.
I don't think most of us would be against Part P if we felt that it was being enforced correctly. We pay our yearly fees and follow the rules, while the chancers (I don't personally believe that most electricians who avoid being part P registered are time-served, qualified guys) undercut us and don't bother testing or certifying.

Enjoy your evening ​

Im not sure about this one. I personally know of and have heard of, a lot of older electricians, who, when Part P was introduced, said "balls to that I know my business Im not paying somone just so I can prove it to them" and carried on as normal. They may or may not be the majority but they certainly are a large portion.
Of course you still get un qualified builders and other trades who do a lot of their own work, and this should be stopped but I think it happens less than it used to due to the fact most trades don't realise that part P is not enforced.

 

[Guest55]

From day one of the current fiasco coming into affect , I have firmly believed this was probably the true reason for it !

Completely agree with dp.
The promise of improved electrical safety from introducing part p was just another bare-faced lie by Misters Blair & Brown.
Electrical accidents have been dropping for years anyway as has been mentioned earlier , part p has had no real effect on this.
Its real purpose was to ensure domestic building works are declared and tax paid on.
Its ALWAYS about the money.

 

[Guest55]

Im not sure about this one. I personally know of and have heard of, a lot of older electricians, who, when Part P was introduced, said "balls to that I know my business Im not paying somone just so I can prove it to them" and carried on as normal. They may or may not be the majority but they certainly are a large portion...

That number grows by the day looking at the posts put on here and elsewhere.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Its a job growth opportunity- chance to build a new 30,000 strong team of PCSO EQIVALENT 16k a year "enforcers". Job market problems? The Govt should employ me as a solutions architect

 

[Guest55]

.....The Govt should employ me as a solutions architect

You sound like just the sort of "blue skies thinker" they are desperate to recruit lol.
;-)

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Theres nowt blue about my sky

 

[hermetic]

Im not sure about this one. I personally know of and have heard of, a lot of older electricians, who, when Part P was introduced, said "balls to that I know my business Im not paying somone just so I can prove it to them" and carried on as normal. They may or may not be the majority but they certainly are a large portion.
Of course you still get un qualified builders and other trades who do a lot of their own work, and this should be stopped but I think it happens less than it used to due to the fact most trades don't realise that part P is not enforced.

Thats me to a T, and I can assure you that it is the vast majority im my area, Our BCO elec is a good guy, and I use him when I need to, but I wouldnt have anything to do with the schemes/scams or the crooks who run them.

 

[Guitarist]

Im not sure about this one. I personally know of and have heard of, a lot of older electricians, who, when Part P was introduced, said "balls to that I know my business Im not paying somone just so I can prove it to them" and carried on as normal. They may or may not be the majority but they certainly are a large portion.
Of course you still get un qualified builders and other trades who do a lot of their own work, and this should be stopped but I think it happens less than it used to due to the fact most trades don't realise that part P is not enforced.

Maybe it's just the area I live in then. All the time I come across jobs which haven't be certified, let alone notified, and I know that it's not the local "old boys" as I know most of them, and they are all registered (usually NIC).
I think you are right about a lot of builders "having a go" to save money, along with plumbers doing jobs "while you're here".

As for the whole part P machine, I think that it was conceived with good intentions and became about the money (as with most things).

 

[SPARTYKUS]

And the answer is?

 

[Dave 85]

Maybe it's just the area I live in then. All the time I come across jobs which haven't be certified, let alone notified, and I know that it's not the local "old boys" as I know most of them, and they are all registered (usually NIC).
I think you are right about a lot of builders "having a go" to save money, along with plumbers doing jobs "while you're here".

As for the whole part P machine, I think that it was conceived with good intentions and became about the money (as with most things).

You can always tell builder wiring the second you open a socket, they always leave 2 inches of sheath unstripped in the backbox. Im working in a house at the mo, rewired in blue and brown, Wickes fuseboard, downstairs sockets not on RCD side, no continuity on any ring, all lighting circuits on 16amp MCB's, all connections done in terminal block unenclosed, 3 core flex used instead of 3c&e. Rough b**t***s. It makes me look like an --- cos I go in to wire a bathroom and all of a sudden I've got a crap load of rectifying to do just to make the 2 circuits I wanna use comply.

 

[Guitarist]

You can always tell builder wiring the second you open a socket, they always leave 2 inches of sheath unstripped in the backbox. Im working in a house at the mo, rewired in blue and brown, Wickes fuseboard, downstairs sockets not on RCD side, no continuity on any ring, all lighting circuits on 16amp MCB's, all connections done in terminal block unenclosed, 3 core flex used instead of 3c&e. Rough b**t***s. It makes me look like an --- cos I go in to wire a bathroom and all of a sudden I've got a crap load of rectifying to do just to make the 2 circuits I wanna use comply.

And the customer just thinks you are touting for work.... They tell their friends who agree that as "it was rewired not long ago" you must be a shark. Makes me mad!

I had one the other week, same thing. RFC's on non-RCD side, hole on top of CU you could land a rocket in, no certificate. When I tried talking to the householder he just told me "well everyone does things differently. That doesn't make the other guy wrong."

 

[kingeri]

As someone with inside knowledge of LABC, trust me, they ain't gonna prosecute. They don't even have the processes set up to do it. Every council department is being reviewed and cut to the bone....now is not the time to be taking on a major new project....which enforcing Part P would be.

 

[Guitarist]

As someone with inside knowledge of LABC, trust me, they ain't gonna prosecute. They don't even have the processes set up to do it. Every council department is being reviewed and cut to the bone....now is not the time to be taking on a major new project....which enforcing Part P would be.

So, a money-making scheme, or something which was brought in to "look like" the Government cares?

 

[kingeri]

So, a money-making scheme, or something which was brought in to "look like" the Government cares?

That's the way I see it!