Is Part Pee fit for purpose / who is policing this scam ???

[Dustydazzler]

So mini rant coming up ...

While I am sure the wider majority of sparks follow the rules and certificate and notify their relevant work BUT in recent months I have been to numerous jobs where the customer has had significant wiring additions like new circuits in bathrooms , kitchens rewired and complete board swaps yet none of these jobs have any paperwork and non of them notified

Which is rather frustrating when I pay out significant fees to keep legit

 

[Electrics]

IMO part pee has made it a lot worse, its all over the place a right balls up.

Part P is a laughable joke, the rest of the world laughs at it when they hear about it.

Qualified men having to notify building control is a joke. If you're not trusted to be the expert what's the point in the training? It's a money making scam which is what this country is built on unfortunately.

'Part P will drive out the scammers!' Uh no. It will drive thousands of men to certified bodies with £600 in hand asking for a rubber stamp that their apprenticeship training has already given them at great cost, time and effort.

 

[7029 dave]

Part P is a laughable joke, the rest of the world laughs at it when they hear about it.

Qualified men having to notify building control is a joke. If you're not trusted to be the expert what's the point in the training? It's a money making scam which is what this country is built on unfortunately.

Its not just in this industry, I did have a HGV class1 revoked it a few years ago because of the PCP scam.

 

[Intoelectrics]

I'm starting to feel as a vetted sparks that I am the mug and those under the radar are the real winners in this situation

Absolutely, its the same old same old, the decent honest people get penalised and pay for the cowboys, work dodgers, tax dodgers...

 

[Electrics]

Absolutely, its the same old same old, the decent honest people get penalised and pay for the cowboys, work dodgers, tax dodgers...

In this day and age i'm not going to blame anyone for struggling to get ahead. Wages are stagnating, costs are rising, rents are ridiculous. Add the money on top to be registered with these scams and i'm surprised anyone bothers. If everyone told them where to go they'd have to stop them.

I don't blame the people telling them where to shove it.

 

[Intoelectrics]

In this day and age i'm not going to blame anyone for struggling to get ahead. Wages are stagnating, costs are rising, rents are ridiculous. Add the money on top to be registered with these scams and i'm surprised anyone bothers. If everyone told them where to go they'd have to stop them.

I don't blame the people telling them where to shove it.

I agree, the scams are a waste of money and time, unless they are policed properly and actually achieved what they were designed to do (assuming the main goal was safety over profit).

However, the conscientious folk out there who are genuinely trying to comply who are conscious of safety and the wellbeing of society end up the people paying the price.

I believe there is a distinct difference between people who are struggling and trying to get on and those that are just blatantly cheating the system at the cost of everyone else.

 

[Electrics]

I agree, the scams are a waste of money and time, unless they are policed properly and actually achieved what they were designed to do (assuming the main goal was safety over profit).

However, the conscientious folk out there who are genuinely trying to comply who are conscious of safety and the wellbeing of society end up the people paying the price.

I believe there is a distinct difference between people who are struggling and trying to get on and those that are just blatantly cheating the system at the cost of everyone else.

Paying into a scam scheme doesn't make you conscientious it makes you compliant. Knowing your work is good makes you conscientious and being backed up by a scam who also take on 6 week wonders says nothing to the quality of your output.

Cheating a stupid bent system isn't automatically wrong.

 

[telectrix]

my lad was considering a short course to get onto a scam, as he has all the practical knowledge and expertise (well most of it. I still have to help him with a few things), but I soon talked him out of it. He generally works with a mate who is napit so the part pee is no problem.

 

[catdog1121]

my lad was considering a short course to get onto a scam, as he has all the practical knowledge and expertise (well most of it. I still have to help him with a few things), but I soon talked him out of it. He generally works with a mate who is napit so the part pee is no problem.

I thought they recently changed the entry rules for all so the full NVQ level 3 etc was required?

 

[Dustydazzler]

I thought they recently changed the entry rules for all so the full NVQ level 3 etc was required?

Some scams are still taking short course applications until early next year

 

[Phillip]

I thought they recently changed the entry rules for all so the full NVQ level 3 etc was required?

I'm afraid it's a bit to late, to the rules for the full NVQ level 3 was required ( college trained and at least a bit of time served) the country is full of the 5 day wonder's calling themselves electrician's. Got two in my village.

 

[GBDamo]

Its not just in this industry, I did have a HGV class1 revoked it a few years ago because of the PCP scam.

Since 50% of young people are going to university we have to find jobs for them.

In many cases this has been done by inserting them between the tradesperson and their customer.

You can spot these job creation schemes a Mile off.

1, They offer the customer no protections.

2, They do not police the tradespeople they are meant to be regulating.

3, they have had zero positive impact in the sector they operate in.

 

[Lister1987]

Problem is there's not enough organisation of thr discontent to turn Thier numbers into voices loud enough to be heard. I'd like to think 100,000 sparks (time-served or otherwise - those with a moral compass say) would easily be rounded up, putting names on paper and this ---- needs to stop....but then CPSs will grease palms and it'll be for nought

 

[lozarus]

I've always felt its a bucket with holes filling more buckets with holes (although I'm prepared to stand corrected as i don't have anything to do with domestic, so this is just my uneducated musings)

Part P includes notification of new circuits right?

When is a new circuit not a new circuit?

Say a redundant 16a radial in 2.5 to a single 20a DP switch is found in an airing cupboard. A competent homeowner decides to remove the DP switch, install a single socket, then extends this to 3 more sockets with more 2.5 in an adjacent room, creating a radial socket circuit.

It's not a new circuit - the run from MCB to first point was already there after all right? So I would assume its non notifiable - but the characteristics are significantly different.

Yet if someone were to run a new 2.5 radial from source of the same design, it would then become a new circuit? It's literally that one original length from MCB to first point making it an "existing circuit".

I'd say the addition of those extra sockets to an "existing circuit" leaves far more room for error than, say, adding a single PIR operated light next to the DB from a new, dedicated 6a MCB - but that would be classed as a new circuit and notifiable - despite being a far simpler task

Oh but hang on - what about if a new PIR light was installed next to the DB but instead of being fed from a new dedicated 6a MCB, was just fed directly from the output of an existing lighting circuit 6a MCB? It's not a new circuit - it's fed from the same MCB as an existing circuit, so it's just an addition to that circuit surely and wouldn't require notification?!

Why on earth would the latter be non notifiable, but the former would be ?

Take also replacement of damaged lengths of cable - I believe this is actually specified on some LABC guidance I read somewhere as being a reasonably acceptable DIY task. Example:

Homeowner drills through an out of zone RFC 2.5 cable between two socket outlets (Lets say its an RFC just feeding that room). Its in old colours. He pops to Wilko, buys a few metres of new 2021 date stamped 2.5 and proceeds to replace the damaged section and puts it in zone in the process. Sounds reasonable right?

Let's say instead he drills through both legs of the ring after they leave the DB . So he replaces both legs from the MCB to the first and last socket, with his 2021 embossed 2.5, leaving the main part of the ring intact.

It's not a new circuit - but would an inspector raise questions on seeing the new cable leaving the DB?

Sorry- I've clearly thought about this too much. Waiting to be corrected gladly.

 

[EddieB]

Sounds about right.
But it's the customer / property owner who is responsible for ensuring the notification is done.

There's another thread today started by a customer about no notification, B.C are aware and have said get someone else to sign it off by EIC presumably.
B.C could prosecute the contractor as above it's the customers responsibility.
If the contractor isn't a Scheme member, no Scheme can prosecute the contractor.
Scheme membership isn't complusory.

As discussed many times in the past it's a bucket full of holes in a bucket with holes in it.

There is one thing that will come back and cause the homeowner an issue, when they go and sell the property they have to produce the correct documentation as requested by the buyers solicitors, this is will cause issues with the sale. They can lie of course and say that no additions /alterations have taken place within the property, but this will leave them wide open to a potential law suit.

 

[EddieB]

I've always felt its a bucket with holes filling more buckets with holes (although I'm prepared to stand corrected as i don't have anything to do with domestic, so this is just my uneducated musings)

Part P includes notification of new circuits right?

When is a new circuit not a new circuit?

Say a redundant 16a radial in 2.5 to a single 20a DP switch is found in an airing cupboard. A competent homeowner decides to remove the DP switch, install a single socket, then extends this to 3 more sockets with more 2.5 in an adjacent room, creating a radial socket circuit.

It's not a new circuit - the run from MCB to first point was already there after all right? So I would assume its non notifiable - but the characteristics are significantly different.

Yet if someone were to run a new 2.5 radial from source of the same design, it would then become a new circuit? It's literally that one original length from MCB to first point making it an "existing circuit".

I'd say the addition of those extra sockets to an "existing circuit" leaves far more room for error than, say, adding a single PIR operated light next to the DB from a new, dedicated 6a MCB - but that would be classed as a new circuit and notifiable - despite being a far simpler task

Oh but hang on - what about if a new PIR light was installed next to the DB but instead of being fed from a new dedicated 6a MCB, was just fed directly from the output of an existing lighting circuit 6a MCB? It's not a new circuit - it's fed from the same MCB as an existing circuit, so it's just an addition to that circuit surely and wouldn't require notification?!

Why on earth would the latter be non notifiable, but the former would be ?

Take also replacement of damaged lengths of cable - I believe this is actually specified on some LABC guidance I read somewhere as being a reasonably acceptable DIY task. Example:

Homeowner drills through an out of zone RFC 2.5 cable between two socket outlets (Lets say its an RFC just feeding that room). Its in old colours. He pops to Wilko, buys a few metres of new 2021 date stamped 2.5 and proceeds to replace the damaged section and puts it in zone in the process. Sounds reasonable right?

Let's say instead he drills through both legs of the ring after they leave the DB . So he replaces both legs from the MCB to the first and last socket, with his 2021 embossed 2.5, leaving the main part of the ring intact.

It's not a new circuit - but would an inspector raise questions on seeing the new cable leaving the DB?

Sorry- I've clearly thought about this too much. Waiting to be corrected gladly.

Hahahaha!!! A minefield indeed.