Part P sign off problem

[yorkshireskippy]

Hi there...I'm pleased to find, hopefully, somewhere to answer a situation I find myself in. I'll try and compress the long saga...

In July 2020 I had a full rewire done on my house. Qualified electrician, tick. Registered with NECIEC (I now find out he wasn't). Competent, now I find out not part of the scheme. That's the problem.

He gave it big licks how the competency scheme was well worth it when he was showing the job, however it has transpired he either wasn't on the competent scheme nor in fact registered with NICEIC (I found this today) as he was about to move from self employed to employed.

We chased him for full sign off for over 12 months before he turned around and said its our fault for not opening an account with Building Control and getting them to sign it off when he'd finished. Obviously we argue we didn't do that because he never told us he wasn't competent scheme registered. He says he assumed we knew what we were doing and he assumed we'd gone to BC before he started, thus never mentioned the Part P sign off.

Who's at fault, us for being naive and assuming he was competent because he told us he could sign it all off, or him for not making it clear at the start we needed BC and he couldn't sign off because he wasn't on the competent register?

Thank you in advance.

 

[yorkshireskippy]

Sorry for your confusion
I have read your update
I gave a reply to the original question



Who's at fault, us for being naive and assuming he was competent because he told us he could sign it all off

No problem or confusion, Merry Xmas.

 

[EricMark]

Oh I see a problem here, I am competent, that is I possesses sufficient technical knowledge, relevant practical skills and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger and, where appropriate, injury to him/herself and others.

However I am not a member of a competent persons scheme, they are two completely different things.

I blame the government for selecting a name which already had a defined meaning in the wiring regulations, had they called it a part P scheme there would have been no confusion.

It is not helped by the scheme providers, NICEIC / Elecsa sell forms, seems daft as FOC download from IET, but the green forms are for use by electrical contractors not enrolled or registered with NICEIC or Elecsa and for Approved Contractors working outside of their scope of enrolment. Careful reading tells you these forms are not issued as part of the competent persons scheme, however it means the whole idea that a non scheme member should not show anything which can lead the home owner into thinking they are a scheme member a little difficult. As it was be it on any paperwork or overalls, or van any reference to NICEIC / Elecsa was seen as trying to con the home owner into thinking they were scheme members.

The LABC when I got caught out were very clear that unless the contractor has some thing to show scheme membership it is up to the home owner to inform them. We made the error in thinking the builder had done that for us. It seems often they do, but it is up to home owner to verify.

Had the same problem with new front door and fensa certificate, lucky less than 50% glazed so got away with it. But I asked for fensa certificate before the job started, so rather peeved to then find not a fensa member.

But I did not even think of getting it in writing, I suspect few do. Here in Wales there is very little an electrician can do without being a scheme member, so basic point if if you work on Domestic you need to be a member of a scheme, however this is not the case in England, and for membership to be worth while you need to do mainly domestic, so some one like me who mainly does commercial it is not financially viable to be a scheme member. Until I retired the membership of IET cost me enough without NICEIC / Elecsa as well.

There have been the odd jobs, when doing work for the disabled the LABC charges are waved, so did work on mothers house and registered the work, as no charge. However when I came to sell her house I mislaid the paperwork, I was shocked to find getting replacements would take 4 months and there is no set charge, it costs how long it takes a council worker to find it. I thought the solicitors would request the copy direct from LABC, that way they know not altered, however looking at the paperwork which I did in the end find, I realised it was not really worth the paper written on as there was no cross reference between the installation certificate and the completion certificate, so I could have raised a new installation certificate with correct date and included anything I wanted, had I marked it copy, it would have been near impossible to show it was not the one submitted to LABC.

It would be interesting to read about the court case, as if the electrician says I thought it was covered with the application made to the LABC hard to show he didn't. What should happen is the LABC issue a permit to work, and until the electricians gets that permit he should do no work requiring registering, however the LABC don't issue a permit to work, and seem to consider issuing of completion certificates as a money tree, and the fact the LABC inspector never visited my mothers house after I submitted the installation certificate but simply sent the completion certificate in the post, seems to support that.

Clearly poor workmanship is another thing, if not up to standard we have always been able to take a tradesman to court for not showing a warranty of skill, that was always the case well before Part P. But to take to court because they were not a scheme member is normally done by the scheme providers, usually for showing their logo when not in the scheme.

So I hope you will keep us updated, look forward to seeing the outcome.

 

[yorkshireskippy]

Oh I see a problem here, I am competent, that is I possesses sufficient technical knowledge, relevant practical skills and experience for the nature of the electrical work undertaken and is able at all times to prevent danger and, where appropriate, injury to him/herself and others.

However I am not a member of a competent persons scheme, they are two completely different things.

I blame the government for selecting a name which already had a defined meaning in the wiring regulations, had they called it a part P scheme there would have been no confusion.

It is not helped by the scheme providers, NICEIC / Elecsa sell forms, seems daft as FOC download from IET, but the green forms are for use by electrical contractors not enrolled or registered with NICEIC or Elecsa and for Approved Contractors working outside of their scope of enrolment. Careful reading tells you these forms are not issued as part of the competent persons scheme, however it means the whole idea that a non scheme member should not show anything which can lead the home owner into thinking they are a scheme member a little difficult. As it was be it on any paperwork or overalls, or van any reference to NICEIC / Elecsa was seen as trying to con the home owner into thinking they were scheme members.

The LABC when I got caught out were very clear that unless the contractor has some thing to show scheme membership it is up to the home owner to inform them. We made the error in thinking the builder had done that for us. It seems often they do, but it is up to home owner to verify.

Had the same problem with new front door and fensa certificate, lucky less than 50% glazed so got away with it. But I asked for fensa certificate before the job started, so rather peeved to then find not a fensa member.

But I did not even think of getting it in writing, I suspect few do. Here in Wales there is very little an electrician can do without being a scheme member, so basic point if if you work on Domestic you need to be a member of a scheme, however this is not the case in England, and for membership to be worth while you need to do mainly domestic, so some one like me who mainly does commercial it is not financially viable to be a scheme member. Until I retired the membership of IET cost me enough without NICEIC / Elecsa as well.

There have been the odd jobs, when doing work for the disabled the LABC charges are waved, so did work on mothers house and registered the work, as no charge. However when I came to sell her house I mislaid the paperwork, I was shocked to find getting replacements would take 4 months and there is no set charge, it costs how long it takes a council worker to find it. I thought the solicitors would request the copy direct from LABC, that way they know not altered, however looking at the paperwork which I did in the end find, I realised it was not really worth the paper written on as there was no cross reference between the installation certificate and the completion certificate, so I could have raised a new installation certificate with correct date and included anything I wanted, had I marked it copy, it would have been near impossible to show it was not the one submitted to LABC.

It would be interesting to read about the court case, as if the electrician says I thought it was covered with the application made to the LABC hard to show he didn't. What should happen is the LABC issue a permit to work, and until the electricians gets that permit he should do no work requiring registering, however the LABC don't issue a permit to work, and seem to consider issuing of completion certificates as a money tree, and the fact the LABC inspector never visited my mothers house after I submitted the installation certificate but simply sent the completion certificate in the post, seems to support that.

Clearly poor workmanship is another thing, if not up to standard we have always been able to take a tradesman to court for not showing a warranty of skill, that was always the case well before Part P. But to take to court because they were not a scheme member is normally done by the scheme providers, usually for showing their logo when not in the scheme.

So I hope you will keep us updated, look forward to seeing the outcome.

Hi.
Quite simple really. He led us to believe, by conversation, he was part of the register and could sign off for LABC. After doing the work AND after 12 months of excuses told us he wasn't.
He said in writing, in reply to the court case, he came off the register just before our job to go employed from self employed. NICEIC confirmed to me he actually came off the register a full 12 months before our job.
The mediator had little work to do as the electrician effectively shot himself in the foot.
There was no confusion on our part, we had the conversation about sign off before he started and even during the first week off the works. He simply tried to pull a fast one and got caught out.

 

[EricMark]

He said in writing, in reply to the court case, he came off the register just before our job to go employed from self employed. NICEIC confirmed to me he actually came off the register a full 12 months before our job.
The mediator had little work to do as the electrician effectively shot himself in the foot.

Thank goodness for that, in my case the LABC got in first, and the firm folded before I could take them to court.

 

[Lister1987]

Hi.
Quite simple really. He led us to believe, by conversation, he was part of the register and could sign off for LABC. After doing the work AND after 12 months of excuses told us he wasn't.
He said in writing, in reply to the court case, he came off the register just before our job to go employed from self employed. NICEIC confirmed to me he actually came off the register a full 12 months before our job.
The mediator had little work to do as the electrician effecti

vely shot himself in the foot.
There was no confusion on our part, we had the conversation about sign off before he started and even during the first week off the works. He simply tried to pull a fast one and got caught out.

Use the recent case brought by Trading Standards under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Poor EICR report results in prosecution - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/poor-eicr-report-results-in-prosecution.197408/ ) and seek legal advise. As there has now been a prosecution under the legislation for unfair practice (Drive-by EICR in the aforementioned case), there is now a model to follow (can't spell precident for love nor money).

Even is LABC don't want to entertain the prosecution, Trading Standards will, especially as thr person is no longer registered with a CPS, nor were they at the time in question.

Guide to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - Consumer protection from unfair trading | Business Companion - https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/good-practice/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading

 

[loz2754]

Precedent is spelled "precedent".

 

[EricMark]

We have always had prosecutions for work without a warranty of skill being unsafe, but as yet not seen one for listing items which really should not be coded as Code C2.

My son worked for a firm doing inspecting and testing back around 2005 he did not do it for long, and he was told always find fault, that way one can claim one did not do a full inspections as clearly it would need repairing and it would be tested at that point.

Yes I know rather under hand, which is one reason he left the firm. The firm had a high turn over of staff, either they left like my son did, or sacked, because they had such a high turn over of staff, any complaint was answered with yes sorry about that, that guy is no longer with us.

I have gone to jobs where they have failed a PIR/EICR and have looked at it scratching my head wondering what the inspector had seen, as I could see no reason to say unsatisfactory. So the big question was he trying to generate work, or had he seen some thing I had missed? So often the report was rather lacking as to exactly why failed.