new part p document.... thoughts.

[fylthespider]

just read the new part p.
got link from napit.

anyone else read it?

main difference is the reduction in whats notifiable.

new circuits, CU changes, and work in bathrooms.
o yeah, and 'third party certification' (whatever the hell thats going to mean).

i know there was input from sparks and scam providers (i filled in 2 or 3 questionaires )
but IMO looks like they ignored me/us.

looks like anyone can now 'alter' work in kitchens, gardens, and god knows what else with impunity.

am i just being pessimistic or does this look like a serious watering down of part p?

cheers

 

[fylthespider]

so, do the work to the best of ability. test and cert. leave customer with copy of highlights of the relevent legislation and written info informing that THEY are responsible for notifying LABC and as such its up to them.
if you do the job right there is almost no chance of getting pulled on it, and if you do the only thing you did wrong was not notify BC you were starting work.
whats the fine for that? anybody know anyone who's ever been fined? i dont and i got 25+years in the building/sparky trade.

any holes in this train of thought?

i know its another post but pet hate..."while your here, can you just...."

 

[topcat]

Yes mate page 9 3.5 onwards the way I read it you will still need to be registerd to do 3rd party sign off follow the link above

 

[Geoffsd]

Yes mate page 9 3.5 onwards the way I read it you will still need to be registerd to do 3rd party sign off follow the link above

Yes, of course and I would assume the 3rd party will have to view the work as it progresses so that he can sign that the cables are installed correctly.

Not just go in after completion and note "cannot verify installation methods".

Perhaps remaining registered will lead to a lot more work certifying the work of those who have left the scams.


In fact, just as you could now.

 

[topcat]

I think you may be right Geoffsd but I think a lot will just not bother just like now.

 

[kingeri]

They should concentrate on finding a way to ensure that the public have a way of making sure that the person they choose to do the work knows what they're doing. Part P has never achieved this.....it's just a load of red tape.

 

[saveloy]

keep the first 2 ring cables or radial leaving the cu up to a jb or whatever & replace the rest with as many accessories as you like ! no new circuit tests needed + no more part p , BANG ! Welcome back to the dark ages lol

Why bother leaving the first part of the circuit. You can replace these cables on a like for like basis (maintenance-not notifyable) and alter, extend and modify away to your hearts content. I would still test and issue an EIC for peace of mind, but for all intents and purposes under the new Part Poo it could be argued that this is all minor works unless in a bathroom etc.

 

[Guest55]

If i was working in the domestic sector , i'd be looking at ways of taking advantage of 3rd party inspections and all the potential income that could be generated from it.
i'd probably start with devising my own installation cert , probably a merger between an EIC and an EICR.

or you can moan about it on the internet while others look to get ahead early.
your choice ;-)

 

[Geoffsd]

It seems to me that this may be quite a clever (yet another) scam to transfer the inspection from the LABC to us.

Obviously those who take no notice now will not change.

However, instead of registering or paying the LABC it will be registering or pay another electrician - no different really - cheaper to register.
If you are registered - no different. Maybe more work.
If you are not registered - no different. Pay a different person so still have to charge customer extra for job.

The conscientious would do it properly - probably better than the LABC.
If it were you, you would not want any comebacks because, unlike the Authority, we would have to take our own flack and pay our own fines - if it happened.

So, how much would you have to charge?
Several visits plus full testing for EIC.

Is anything going to change?

 

[FAA Greenie]

The way i read the new document is that a third party registered person has five days to issue an EICR, not an EIC. I assume that it would be no different to any other EICR - point out all the faults, take money - walk away....

 

[Geoffsd]

Yes, you are right. It does say EICR.

Does that mean we wouldn't have to do it very well?
That is not a complete inspection and test.

 

[FAA Greenie]

I think it would be more fun to do it right by the book, to the letter.

 

[simpson93]

just so no one gets confused these come into use after 6 April 2013.

 

[sparkdog]

I wonder if a Third Party Registered Person is going to mean a new catagory of registered person costing even more money.

 

[Des 56]

I wonder if a Third Party Registered Person is going to mean a new catagory of registered person costing even more money.

There was a system put in place fore registered people to take on the Labc testing responsibility 2 years ago#

The criteria was having the 2391 within the last five years and public indemnity insurance and there was an administration cost applied ( no surprise that)

If there were to be some sort of register for Part p 3rd party inspections, which will have even less compliance than the present load of nonsense.it will be charged and you can bet your Grannies savings on that

 

[Robert Turnbull]

3.10 An installer who is competent to carry out inspection and testing should give the appropriate
BS 7671 certificate to the building control body, who will then take the certificate and the installer’s qualifications into account in deciding what further action, if any, it needs to take. Building control bodies may ask installers for evidence of their qualifications.