Quite the opposite actually, but then i have to take final responsibility for all electrical work carried out, where the likes of Scam providers take literally no responsibility for it's members...
That misses my point, to throw out an accusation like that with absolutely no proof is not making an argument. The scheme providers responsibility is ascertain 'competence'
Trying to get any action from the Scams needs almost a threat of legal proceedings. Now how many times has that been proved here!!!
It's not their job to prosecute, it's the local authority's. And before anyone says there have been none or not many, I know. I'm not on here to defend part p and the policing of it.
They'd always be at least one or two muppets that would come on here complaining about something or other as to why they had failed, but there has been NONE to my knowledge.
I doubt that's true. But are you implying by extension that no one ever fails, or just people on this forum.
As far as i'm aware from other previous threads on the subject, what normally happens if something gets picked up, is all that's needed is photographic evidence that something has been rectified at a later date, ....they don't just fail these chancers.
Do the 'muppets' come on here complaining or not? or is this based once again on hearsay?
And they do fail these chancers.
Funny you should say that, because whenever anyone comes on here prior to a Scam assessment the majority here, quite literally tell them not to worry so long as the 400 quid check has cleared!! lol!!
Eng, you should know better. Just preceding a statement with 'quite literally' does not make it a fact.
50 thousand members & the majority tell them not to worry? The truth is a small minority who are against part p & the scheme providers jump on it.
I'll make up my own fact (but I think it's probably true). The majority of those on here who slate the scheme providers and are totally against part p are not involved with domestic work or scheme members.
Perhaps you can explain, how a guy that had no previous experience undertakes a 17 day/5 week course and can fly through one of these so-called Scam assessments
No I can't, but give me his number and I will give him a ring to find out. I assume you know this guy otherwise once again I'd have to assume that you are basing your argument on hearsay.
Think i'll stick to my pinch of salt theory!! lol!!
Taking things with a pinch of salt is not a theory. It's a method of putting up with something you don't like, like part p perhaps.
I respect your position on this Eng and I know you're sincere. I'm not actually happy with part p in its present form and the enforcement is non existent. Going back to your Electrical Trainee, before part p he could start doing rewires, board changes etc whenever he liked with no test gear, no insurance, regs, no knowledge of testing or anything. And he quite often did, Electrical Trainee are not new. At the very least now he will either be breaking the law or will be assessed as to competence once a year. So he will have to have insurance, test instruments, relevant publications, certificates and show a couple of jobs and the ability to test. Not perfect by any means, but in my opinion better than what we had.
