fit for purpose?...i think not...

[Rockingit]

Re: PartP...who is responsible

In fairness, in thinking about all the new builds I've done over the last few years, I reckon BC would have been quite happy with the EIC and not noticed if they got sent the F150 from a scam. The next time I've got my own BC on site I'll ask him.

 

[telectrix]

Re: PartP...who is responsible

yes. they are happy with certs. from a qualified spark at no cost provided that they have already been paid a fee for building control in the first place by the builder or owner. as i said, it's all about £££££££.

 

[Geordie Spark]

Re: the rackets...why are we paying them?

what's wrong with Blunderland?

It's twinned with Scouseland.

 

[telectrix]

Re: the rackets...why are we paying them?

It's twinned with Scouseland. [/QUOT]

OIY!!!!!

 

[Marvo]

Cute. Nine similar threads merged. Please don't start any more in this vein, moderating one thread like this is bad enough..

 

[Octopus]

Yawn!!!

 

[R G]

You get a sticker for the van and a sucker to sit in it ...

 

[Rockingit]

Cute. Nine similar threads merged. Please don't start any more in this vein, moderating one thread like this is bad enough..

Whilst I appreciate the modding hassle, I do think that its worth protecting the fact that the issue is so contentious that there have been nine threads started by different people. No matter how hard it gets swept, it's never going to fit under the carpet.

 

[Rockingit]

OKaaaay........ I'm going to put a different spin on this now: Given that the NICEIC and the ECA have existed for a very long time and way before anyone had ever dreamed of creating a shambles such as part p schemes, there once was a time (surely?) when it actually meant something to be an AC (for example).

So, where did it all derail? Was it just Part P, or was the rot deeper before then?

 

[moospark]

Whilst I appreciate the modding hassle, I do think that its worth protecting the fact that the issue is so contentious that there have been nine threads started by different people. No matter how hard it gets swept, it's never going to fit under the carpet.

Respect, Mr Rocks, but unless I'm mistaken, Glynis spark started most of them on a part peed-up rant.

 

[HandySparks]

Whilst I appreciate the modding hassle, I do think that its worth protecting the fact that the issue is so contentious that there have been nine threads started by different people. No matter how hard it gets swept, it's never going to fit under the carpet.

If it were nine threads by different people, you may have a point. However, nine threads by one person is just a reflection of that individual.

Edit: As above.

 

[Rockingit]

Well, fair enough, and clearly that teaches me to at least have bothered to read the other eight before making an assumption! However, my post #54 remains a valid one.

 

[UNG]

OKaaaay........ I'm going to put a different spin on this now: Given that the NICEIC and the ECA have existed for a very long time and way before anyone had ever dreamed of creating a shambles such as part p schemes, there once was a time (surely?) when it actually meant something to be an AC (for example).

So, where did it all derail? Was it just Part P, or was the rot deeper before then?

I think there was some rot before but Part P and the money making industry that sprang up from it accelerated it to a whole new level the problem is the money makers aren't going to go quietly as seen from the political manipulation of M's Clancy recently by lobbying the minister directly and circumventing the work of the select committee she got her way with the revised Part P

 

[Richard Burns]

Part P merely legitimised what was already going on.
The work seen now is similar to the standard of work seen before Part P but now the perpetrators can say, but I am registered with a scheme.
The low level of entry is to permit the existing operators to enter a scheme and perhaps improve, however, as with all laws, this only applies to those that wish to keep within the law. (I am reminded of the quote "I feel much safer in a "gun free" place, because that means the criminals can't use guns; isn't that how it works"!)
There is still a vast mass of people who will do poor work and not follow either BS7671 or BR.
The unfortunate knock on is that this also allowed people to enter the schemes without having been previously working in the area.
This is the advantage of being a scheme operator as there are few negatives.

 

[Marvo]

Whilst I appreciate the modding hassle, I do think that its worth protecting the fact that the issue is so contentious that there have been nine threads started by different people. No matter how hard it gets swept, it's never going to fit under the carpet.

Merging nine threads on the same topic by the same person who's obviously just trying to emphasize a point isn't sweeping the issue under the carpet, all the threads are still visible just in the same place. Running multiple threads just splits the replies and causes confusion, not to mention a lot more workload for the staff when the issue is contentious like this one. Duplicate threads serve no useful purpose and even if they were all started by different members they'd still have to be merged or closed as duplicates.