part p miss info

[thekingiam]

i live in newport not far from england, been updating website and was going to put in the new regs on part p after recieving lots of info from elecsa and niceic on how the regs are going to affect me from april. went to elecsa website and apparently wales are keeping old part p? not informed of this! so does that mean my company can sign off work in england 10 miles away?
whats the new forms?

 

[Richard Burns]

If you are doing work in Wales then the old system still applies. it does say on pages 1 and 2 in the the 2013 Part P approved document that it is for use in England and excepted energy buildings in Wales.

If you are doing work in England then the new requirements apply.
If you are member of a competent persons scheme then this should be applicable for work in either location.
It would be just that different rules on the requirements for notification would apply.
There are no changes of any forms, it is still a building regulations compliance certificate that is sent to the customer.

 

[thekingiam]

thanks but confused with excepted energy buildings? does that mean solar installs in domestics? looks like every time they change rules i am not notified had off niceic notifying of the change but registered with elecsa only just looked at it and seen only in england? will complain to elecsa for not being given no info apart from a few months ago implying all part p was going to be changed.
As for the implication of forms thankyou for your response i was actually thinking of the new requirement that you can sign off other peoples work! what system has been put in place or is this only for multi national companies?

 

[Farmelectrics]

Don't they complicate things why not keep it simple

 

[telectrix]

don't be silly. if it were simple, we'd get even more plumbers joining.

 

[boffy35]

Hi,

I sat the C&G in Part P a few weeks ago with SWET in Port Talbot. The course tutor, Phil, was very enlightening when it comes to Part P and current legislation. In England they have elected to reduce safety levels by re-classing the elements covered by Part P to try to make it easier for consumers to understand. In other words joe bloggs can now do more. In Wales, whilst acknowledging that Part P is not perfect, they decided that a reduction in notification was a big mistake, I tend to agree. I also think that it should be tightened further, everyone has heard of Corgi and Gas-safe for gas working, very few consumers are aware of Part P, hence 12,000 electrical fires every year, 1 or two gas explosions every year, more people get killed and injured through electrics.

The IMHO the problem for us is that the IET effectively pull all the strings and their attitude can sometimes stink, I have actually heard this "I have been an electrical engineer for over 30 year,s are you telling me that I can not wire a socket safely?"......erm yes, unless you have BS7671, I can solder a gas pipe but wouldn't it isn't about how difficult something is, its about doing it right....different thing

So rant over...your Part registration is effective both sides of Offa's Dyke, there is only a chnage in what justifies notifcation, if you are unsure, notify.

 

[telectrix]

how can you say that part p makes things safer, when these fast-track courses are churning out domestic installers with hardly any knowledge, except how to part with cash and comply with part p, while not having a clue what they are doing. scrap part p and make it illegal for unqualified persons to install anything more lethal than batteries in a remote control.

 

[boffy35]

how can you say that part p makes things safer, when these fast-track courses are churning out domestic installers with hardly any knowledge, except how to part with cash and comply with part p, while not having a clue what they are doing. scrap part p and make it illegal for unqualified persons to install anything more lethal than batteries in a remote control.

Unfortunately, you, like many many people totally misunderstand Part P. "These" courses are not qualifications.... and even if you pass, does not "allow" you to do anything. There is no such thing as a fast-track course.....I have lost count at the number of times that electricians have totally misunderstood Part P.

I am fully indentured, fully qualified and hold 2394 & 2395, I went on the Part P course to understand what it was all about as no one could explain it to me. So now I know.

Part P compliance is a legal obligation that ALL installers in a domestic setting HAVE to comply with. DIY'ers or non-registered electricians can notify the local authority of their work BEFORE they start and pay the £200-£800 fee. A Part P registered electrician pays £1.50 to notify AFTER work is complete. To get registration he has to prove his

The problem is your term "qualified", to register for Part P you need to prove competence. A piece of paper is no guarantee of competence, and anyone can do it wrong for years.

Part P was a quick hash-up, it is not perfect but it is a start. There are still electricians out there that think that this legal requirement does not involve them as they are "qualified". That my friend is how the cowboys exploit the system.

 

[telectrix]

i agree with you to some extent, but my gripe is why on earth do LABC need to raise a "building notice" at a cost of some £300 ( if the spark is not a scam member ), when no building work is involved. the gas safe register is a far simpler and less costly scheme and works well, without having all these pen -pushers involved. in the case of a new-build or a building project ( such as an extension) which is subject to building control involvement, there is no requisite for a qualified spark to be a member of a money grubbing scam: just submit a copy of the EIC to BC - job done.

 

[Guitarist]

Ultimately, the biggest problem with Part P is that only a handful of us bother complying with it anyway. I bet every single one of you professional electricians on here see work which has been carried out and not notified on a weekly, if not daily basis.... I know I do. What gets done about it? Nothing!

 

[telectrix]

also see work that has been done by scam members (and presumably notified) which has been a complete abortion that even a plumber would be embarrassed to own up to having done.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

also see work that has been done by scam members (and presumably notified) which has been a complete abortion that even a plumber would be embarrassed to own up to having done.

had a look at an ECR carried out by an electrical firm the other day...it was on a sikh temple in Leeds..

various oddities in there such as 63A OPDs being checked off as 0.4 sec disconnection time....
hmm....

missing blanks being given a 3 on boards with flip up lids....
not on my watch it isnt...

a lot of unverified`s on finals....
the author of this had carried out (R1 R2)...but no IR and Zs (which were both marked as U/V)...
so, how does that work then...he obviously had the ability/permission to isolate supply to circuits under test...
hmm...

he`d gone for the old classic `dis boards not up to 17th edition`....
lol....

together with no RCD...this was awarded a 2....
hmm..

look lads, i`ll see if i can get a copy of it....scan it and put it up in here for you to have a look at....
made me chuckle when i saw it......

 

[boffy35]

Ah yes my other pet hate.... filling in test certification.

Again I believe that we are way behind other industries. What experience or qualifications do you need to complete a test certificate....erm well none actually. You just need to be "competent", and as you have clearly shown above, the guy/girl who completed that inspection was no way near competent to do so.

Unless we make a stand and reveal the jokers out there who will?

I have seen prosecutions with £5k fines to installers who did not notify, haven't seen one for filling out a test certificate incorrectly though... anyone else?

 

[Guitarist]

Ah yes my other pet hate.... filling in test certification.

Again I believe that we are way behind other industries. What experience or qualifications do you need to complete a test certificate....erm well none actually. You just need to be "competent", and as you have clearly shown above, the guy/girl who completed that inspection was no way near competent to do so.

Unless we make a stand and reveal the jokers out there who will?

I have seen prosecutions with £5k fines to installers who did not notify, haven't seen one for filling out a test certificate incorrectly though... anyone else?

Really? The only time I've heard of any prosecutions have been when sub-standard work ends in injury or death.

 

[boffy35]

Really? The only time I've heard of any prosecutions have been when sub-standard work ends in injury or death.

Nope, the ball has started rolling.

An electrician in Newcastle and a bathroom fitter from the Bath and Somerset area are the first to be successfully prosecuted for offences under Part P of the Building Regulations.


Able Electrical based in Newcastle and the company’s director John Waugh, an electrician with 28 years experience, admitted 23 counts of breaching building regulations and was fined total of £16,000.


Able Electrical carried out rewiring on a property which, according to Newcastle magistrates’ court, could have resulted in death or serious injury. Waugh admitted to 23 offences including falsely claiming to be registered with the NICEIC, failing to notify work to Building Control, installing cables under the landing floor in a poor manner, using old wires which are no longer covered by current regulations and not using Residual Circuit Breakers for sockets.

A bathroom fitter was fined a total of £1,500 and required to pay £1,066 in costs after pleading guilty to contravening the Building Regulations with regard to electrical work in a bathroom. The prosecution was brought by Bath & North East Somerset Council’s Building Control section.


The defendant who was not an electrician, had failed to comply with BS 7671 when installing an electric shower. Also, while the installation of the shower was incomplete, the complainant had not been advised that the shower was awaiting inspection and testing and should not be used.


The fitter pleaded guilty to three charges at a hearing at Bath Magistrates Court. He was fined £1,000 for the Part P offence, and £250 each for the two other offences. These were that he had failed to give a Building Notice to the Council prior to commencement of the work and that he had failed to give notice of commencement and completion of certain stages of the work.

THE MORE OF US THAT REPORT ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR THE SAFER WE WILL ALL BE AND TEH QUICKER THE COWBOYS RIDE OUT OF TOWN