Part P? Are we all being misled?

[Elidor]

The building regulations are statutory and legally binding. No problem there. Part P on the other hand is a guidance document and NOT statutory? My understanding is that we are under NO obligation to adopt any particular solution detailed in any of the approved documents as long as the requirements of the building regulations are met in another way and do not compromise safety? Correct?

Where in the "Statutory" regulations is it a requirement to notify building authorities of any domestic electrical work or pay to register yourself as a competent person with one of the Part P scheme providers?

Surely it's in everyone’s financial interest to meet the requirements of the building regulations in a way that doesn’t involve handing over hard earnt cash to the likes of the NICEIC just for the fun of it? Do we really have to?

I understand and appreciate the importance of standards and on the surface the system looks like a good idea but does it work? Does it stop people carrying out poor quality, dangerous installation work?

Looks to me that it forces the minority of tradesmen who have good industry qualifications and are capable of carrying out the work with a genuine understanding of electrical safety charge so much more money than the "Kev's mate" who will do the best job ever for 20 quid no questions asked. As a domestic customer with no understanding of all this red tape who will you chose to carry out the work if you are paying for it?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for carrying out domestic electrical installation work safely and not being part of a scheme sponsor or informing the building authorities?

[FONT=&quot]Rant over, any feedback much appreciated.[/FONT]

 

[Electricalserv]

Whether it's statutory or not the general public believe it's law and that's the reason why we must be registered. Otherwise we'd get no work

 

[Antman]

Genral public idiocy as always but it's beneficial and keeps things in 'check' so to speak.

 

[malcolmsanford]

The need to notify any work under the Part P legislation that entails notifiable work is the statutory part of the building regulations. As like all the Parts to the legislation they are all guidance notes and do not preclude us in carrying out work in another manner that is consider within the scope of the regulations.

It is a lot like the BS 7671-2008 which are not considered statutory but by adherence to them it is deemed legal, as they can be used in a court of law to ascertain innocence or guilt in regards to electrical work. In reality if you conduct work to the BS 7671-2008 and take the guidance if Part P document, it would proove your compliance.

 

[Elidor]

It is a lot like the BS 7671-2008 which are not considered statutory but by adherence to them it is deemed legal, as they can be used in a court of law to ascertain innocence or guilt in regards to electrical work. In reality if you conduct work to the BS 7671-2008 and take the guidance if Part P document, it would proove your compliance.

I dont have a problem with compliance where technical and safety recomendations are made, I dont understand why its necessary to pay some organisation to officialy be part of a scheme. That part is clearly designed to profit from hard working tradesmen as its only the honest hardworking ones who bother to register.

How many electrical installations are carried out by non qualified tradesmen who profit by not working to the Part P recomendations? And what gets done about it? Nothing

What can be done about it? Can they be punished for not carrying out the installation in acordance with a document issued as guidance only?

 

[Matty o]

Doing a bit of searching i cant find anyone that's be prosecuted for not notifying or not being part of a part p organisation.
All prosecutions i have found have been down to poor non compliant work.

Its crazy that if not part p you can put up a light in a restaurant kitchen but not in a domestic one.

What we need is a level playing field and publicity like a Gas safe system that covers all electrical work not a half way house that is part P

 

[CJD]

I think something as simple and cheap! as the JIB card says enough it shows your quals and does away with registered schemes which after all are just all for profit organisations.

The more you try and regulate any industry the more the cowboys will infiltrate because it makes that industry more expensive and therefore gives the cowboy a greater return

 

[lsqpd03]

Until you stop the likes of B & Q ,Wicks,electrical wholesalers and hardware shops etc, from selling electrical equipment to joe public
you will never stop the cowboys from installing it.If they cant buy it they cant fit it.

 

[WayneL]

That's like saying 'Why do we have to pay 'Planning Fees' and 'Building Regulation Fees' to build my extension, lay new drains etc etc.
Because if you don't, it won't get signed off as compliant and they'll probably tell you to rip it down again.

Registration with a 'Part P' scheme gives you the means to bypass these fees and inspections and allows you to self-certify your work as compliant.

How is that so hard to understand?

You don't have to join a scheme - but the customer will then have to pay additional BC fees, so you probably won't get many jobs.

Part P of the building regs is 'statutory' and the documents are guidance on how to comply - they are not the only way to comply and it's not only 'Part P' that you, as an electrician, have to comply with - there are all the other parts as well.

When you notify your work via a 'scheme', you are self-certifying that it complies with ALL building regulations and BS7671.....if not, someone has to fork out for it to be inspected - or the customer doesn't get their 'completion' certificate.

 

[Marnik]

Do away with Part P!,and register all who passes C&G 2391 to certify electrical work,after all the 2391 is the hardest of all exams and surely proves your competency to carry out and test/certificate electrical work.(and BTW i sit mine in august)

 

[WayneL]

Let's not single one out - do away with 'Part B' & 'Part M' as well, I say!

How can you say 'do away with' a part of the building regulations?

Should we do away with part of the 'Traffic Regulations' as well because some people don't like them?

 

[Engineer54]

This is where a national registry of Licensed Electricians would come into it's own!! You get rid of a multitude of fee paying organisations.

 

[timo1]

Personally I'm all for part P schemes. Lets face it how many of us would callibrate testers yearly and have all the proper docs bang up to date unless we were being checked? I think it helps with customers and offers some form of comeback if they are not happy with work. Yes, I agree there will always be cowboys, but you will never stop that and getting the work is not always about the price, in my experience cutomers invest in you and how professional you present yourself. The ones that dont usually end up on t.v crying that the £500 rewire they paid for was not up to scratch.

LABC have made it so the fees are so expensive membership of a scheme is a must. I also have found that most people are aware of part P and certification. Given the local authority fees, joining a scheme is actually fairly good value with it paying for itself in a couple of jobs. It also means that you keep up to date with new working practices which people just would not do if you qualified and were left to it and not regulated. Just my opinion...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Until you stop the likes of B & Q ,Wicks,electrical wholesalers and hardware shops etc, from selling electrical equipment to joe public
you will never stop the cowboys from installing it.If they cant buy it they cant fit it.

This idea is a non starter unless it is made illegal for joe public to carry out any electrical work.....what is the point of telling people they cant buy stuff but they can fit it ???
The constant banging on about stopping the sheds selling gear which anyone can legally install gets on my goat.....makes as much sense as saying fat blokes shouldnt be allowed to buy pork pies.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

This is where a national registry of Licensed Electricians would come into it's own!! You get rid of a multitude of fee paying organisations.

For once I'm totally with you E54

 

[Elidor]

Part P of the building regs is 'statutory' and the documents are guidance on how to comply - they are not the only way to comply...

Ok, Where does it state they are statutory?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I’m just confused to hell as everyone makes authoritive statements on this and many other forums that these "Approved Documents" are "Mandatory", "Legally binding", "Statutory" etc. yet the Part P document itself states clearly under the "use of guidance section" that there is no obligation to adopt any solution contained in the approved documents...

I was originally questioning the requirement to notify building control either directly or through a scheme sponsor. If this a requirement clearly detailed in the Building Regulations then fine, not a problem (I don’t have a copy yet). If it’s a requirement under Part P, and I’m interpreting the above statement correctly then I’m under no obligation to adopt any solution contained in the approved documents... So I’m under no obligation to notify the building authorities directly or via a scheme sponsor? (Question not statement)

I’m still learning and have probably missed some key point but rather than just tell me im worng is anyone able to show me with reference to relevant docs? Its the only way I learn lol

I don’t have a copy of the building regulations to refer yet, anyone know where I can get a copy or is purchasing a hard copy from HMSO the only option? I did have a link to a online version in my coursework but the link no longer works.

 

[Apollo]

Do away with Part P!,and register all who passes C&G 2391 to certify electrical work,after all the 2391 is the hardest of all exams and surely proves your competency to carry out and test/certificate electrical work.(and BTW i sit mine in august)

Whilst I understand what you’re saying in the most general of terms this isn’t and would never be the right way.

The 2391 really when all said and done is a course for PIR's (in the broadest of terms) everything else you learn earlier in your courses to become an electrician. Unless you undertake PIR's day in day out IMHO there is very little need for the 2391.

Granted it will open doors for you and allow you to undertake PIR's with the legal system partly behind you should you fall foul.

I know of a few plumbers (why is there the dislike between sparky's and plumbers????, I digress) who have sat their Part P course done the 2382 and then go onto sit and pass their 2391, all by reading the books available. Does that make them more able to certify work than me... Does it F**K!!! but on paper it does. I've been a sparky for a long time, only now that I am going into business for myself am I contemplating doing the 2391, does that mean I don’t know how to test or do PIR's no it does not, I’m very proficient in both.

Having to have 2391 to certify your work is unfeasible it would diminish the qualification we all have and prove to make them worthless. When inspection and testing is done at grass roots level....


Paper only goes so far to provide competency experience is the key!!!


There is no sure fire way to eradicate all the cowboys around, it’s not just the kitchen fitter and the like it’s also time served sparky’s that will not change with the times. Despite what we all think Part P is more than likely here to stay so embrace it, don’t fight it!

Personally the way I see it as long as I know my work is 100% right and I can rectify other peoples mess ups then I’m happy, it keeps me in work. Why should I worry about what other people are doing and that they're taking my work, at the end of the day if you’re not getting any work its cause your doing something wrong. You have to be more than a sparky to be in business these days!!!

 

[Apollo]

Ok, Where does it state they are statutory?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I’m just confused to hell as everyone makes authoritive statements on this and many other forums that these "Approved Documents" are "Mandatory", "Legally binding", "Statutory" etc. yet the Part P document itself states clearly under the "use of guidance section" that there is no obligation to adopt any solution contained in the approved documents...

I was originally questioning the requirement to notify building control either directly or through a scheme sponsor. If this a requirement clearly detailed in the Building Regulations then fine, not a problem (I don’t have a copy yet). If it’s a requirement under Part P, and I’m interpreting the above statement correctly then I’m under no obligation to adopt any solution contained in the approved documents... So I’m under no obligation to notify the building authorities directly or via a scheme sponsor? (Question not statement)

I’m still learning and have probably missed some key point but rather than just tell me im worng is anyone able to show me with reference to relevant docs? Its the only way I learn lol

I don’t have a copy of the building regulations to refer yet, anyone know where I can get a copy or is purchasing a hard copy from HMSO the only option? I did have a link to a online version in my coursework but the link no longer works.

The way it works is this:

Parliment pass an act, in this case the building Act 1984 for that Act come regulations in our case Part P of the building regulations 2010. so yes they are law and are statutory.

Part P is part of the said Building regulations and so yes this requires you to either notify LABC or sign up to a scheme. BS7671 is the standard we work to.

Have a look on legislation.gov.uk about the building regulations and you can obtain copy's of the complete building regulations fairly cheaply if not free. try googling and it'll come up with loads of options.

 

[Bradzz]

Maybe this is why places like B & Q/ Wickes/ homebase/ and the like can sell electrical items to jo public, as it is not law, and just a guidance?

The building regulations are statutory and legally binding. No problem there. Part P on the other hand is a guidance document and NOT statutory? My understanding is that we are under NO obligation to adopt any particular solution detailed in any of the approved documents as long as the requirements of the building regulations are met in another way and do not compromise safety? Correct?

Where in the "Statutory" regulations is it a requirement to notify building authorities of any domestic electrical work or pay to register yourself as a competent person with one of the Part P scheme providers?

Surely it's in everyone’s financial interest to meet the requirements of the building regulations in a way that doesn’t involve handing over hard earnt cash to the likes of the NICEIC just for the fun of it? Do we really have to?

I understand and appreciate the importance of standards and on the surface the system looks like a good idea but does it work? Does it stop people carrying out poor quality, dangerous installation work?

Looks to me that it forces the minority of tradesmen who have good industry qualifications and are capable of carrying out the work with a genuine understanding of electrical safety charge so much more money than the "Kev's mate" who will do the best job ever for 20 quid no questions asked. As a domestic customer with no understanding of all this red tape who will you chose to carry out the work if you are paying for it?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for carrying out domestic electrical installation work safely and not being part of a scheme sponsor or informing the building authorities?

[FONT=&quot]Rant over, any feedback much appreciated.[/FONT]

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Maybe this is why places like B & Q/ Wickes/ homebase/ and the like can sell electrical items to jo public, as it is not law, and just a guidance?

Exactly....joe public can do whatever they like in their homes if it doesnt come under part p,if it does then they can still do it and notify and pay the fee.....thats why it's pointless to keep bleating on about stopping the sheds selling them the gear.....The only difference between them and us is we pay into a scam to self notify.

Remember as well that probably the majority of minor works jobs likely to be attempted by non electricians dont come under part p anyway.

 

[topquark]

Plus a lifetime's experience, training and a conscience

 

[telectrix]

and those that do most likely will not be notified anyway. if a householder buys a CU from B&Q, £60, installs it, do you think he's going to pay LABC £300 on top. apart from testing.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

and those that do most likely will not be notified anyway. if a householder buys a CU from B&Q, £60, installs it, do you think he's going to pay LABC £300 on top. apart from testing.

No......but you cant blame B&Q for that.

 

[Elidor]

For anyone who didn’t know (myself included. All my course work still references the building regulations 2000) The Building Regulations 2000 and all amendments were revoked on 1 October 2010 and are no longer in effect. The Building regulations 2000 have been replaced with Building Regulations 2010. Available for free download from here.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk

Part P was also updated from 6th April 2006 (Just in case anyone was not aware) and available for free download from here.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf

On the theme of my original post, notification is a requirement of the building regulations which is reinforced in the Part P approved document. The Building Regulations 2010 is only 56 pages long and not as intimidating or difficult to read as i expected it to be. I know some of you already replied to the post to this affect but I needed to see references to relevant regulation and documentation etc. Reference to the requirements for notification can be found in many places and is pretty much a central theme of the regulations. Some main areas include schedule 3 (Page 45), schedule 4 (Page 49) and part 3 (Page 10).

Thank you all for your comments and feedback, i can sleep easy with a little more understanding now. Until my next post lol

 

[telectrix]

no, i know that. my point is that because part p is not policed and it's only when things go pear=shaped that all the pundits leap out of the woodwork with the ( perfectly sound ) advice of " should have had the job done by a qualified spark" . that's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. what is needed is this advice publicised before work is done as has been said on this and other forums many times, a scheme similar to gas safe is required for all electrical work over and above changing accessories. even then we would get members of the public fitting class I fittings to lighting circuits without cpc. whatever happens will not affect me as i am nearing the end of my working life. might be able to drag it out longer with more testing and less installation. LOL. better stop now or Bill will be on my back for competing with his post lengths. hehe.

 

[Ponty Massive]

Whether it's statutory or not the general public believe it's law and that's the reason why we must be registered. Otherwise we'd get no work

I can't agree with that. Most of the customers I have done work for have never heard of part P. I have only been asked once if I was "registered with anyone" and even then was never asked to prove it. It wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to me whether I'd been registered or not.

As many previously have said,I do believe there should be some registrations (as gas safe) but not a DI scheme where the chippy can install a 40A shower. Electricians only. How do you define an electrician, well that's another thread again.

Needs to go back to the start and get rid of all the nonsense.

 

[johnboy6083]

just a thought, i read part P a whuile ago, and it states, that the work must be notified to the LABC before work conmmences. if the LABC are needed to inspect thework, this shall be carrioed out free of charge to the householder.

or words tio that effect.
whats stopping me, going about and doing a good job, but stating in mt terms and conditions, that it uptio the householder to notify, and that it is checked by the LASBC. of course i would certify the installation as per normal

 

[telectrix]

where is that?the bit about inspecting FOC?

 

[johnboy6083]

ill, try and find it tel. im sure its there

 

[johnboy6083]

right tel. read from 1.24 to 1.26, and pay particular attention to the last few lines of 1.26

 

[Bradzz]

Yep i have read the same thing. But i wonder how much they charge to sign of the Building Regulations Certificate? that could be the thing, i bet it cost an arm and a leg, and i bet they charge different rates, all over England.

just a thought, i read part P a whuile ago, and it states, that the work must be notified to the LABC before work conmmences. if the LABC are needed to inspect thework, this shall be carrioed out free of charge to the householder.

or words tio that effect.
whats stopping me, going about and doing a good job, but stating in mt terms and conditions, that it uptio the householder to notify, and that it is checked by the LASBC. of course i would certify the installation as per normal

 

[telectrix]

ambiguous. when it says "at their expense" does it mean LABC's expense or the expense of whoever they contract to do the testing.?

 

[johnboy6083]

either way, it doesnt say its us!

 

[Bradzz]

And as for not been able to sign off other peoples work, erm, so how does Napit get around this as they put you on to the register of approved testers, so that you can as they say, sign off other peoples work like shower installs and the like.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/approveddocuments/downloads

 

[topquark]

And as for not been able to sign off other peoples work, erm, so how does Napit get around this as they put you on to the register of approved testers, so that you can as they say, sign off other peoples work like shower installs and the like.

Planning Portal - Approved Documents - Downloads

Register of approved testers? Please explain.

 

[Bradzz]

Sorry should of said Napits Approved Register, well this is what they said when i made an Enquiry, is this true? is there such a thing.

 

[topquark]

What I find on the Napit site is this:

Can I notify a job if I carry out the electrical inspection & testing?

Approved Document P is quite clear that a scheme member [B][U]can only self-certificate (in other words notify the work through NAPIT) if they have carried out the installation work[/U][/B] (clause 1.19). All other routes involve the work being notified to a building control body (the local authority or an approved inspector) before work starts. From that point there are still two ways in which a NAPIT member could be involved.

Clause 1.22 allows an unregistered installer to submit the BS7671 installation certificate and says that the building control body will take this into account. If an appropriately qualified NAPIT members has carried out third party electrical inspection and testing for such an unregistered installer then they can complete the BS7671 installation certificate providing they follow the advice given in the question & answer above and only sign off the inspect and test element. [B][U]The member cannot notify the job in this case[/U][/B].

Clause 1.26 allows the building control body to contract out inspection and testing. It is clear that the building control body must pay for this work and cannot require the householder to pay. In this case building control bodies would normally appoint a member of a Competent Persons Scheme. [B][U]Again, the member cannot notify the job in this case[/U][/B].

 

[topquark]

Sorry should of said Napits Approved Register, well this is what they said when i made an Enquiry, is this true? is there such a thing.

I think you'll find they are just refering to their membership list. I am not aware of there being any official register of approved installers.

 

[Bradzz]

[FONT=&quot]13.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Can I notify a job if I carry out the electrical inspection & testing?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Approved Document P is quite clear that a scheme member can only self-certificate (in other words notify the work through NAPIT) if they have carried out the installation work (clause 1.19). All other routes involve the work being notified to a building control body (the local authority or an approved inspector) before work starts. From that point there are still two ways in which a NAPIT member could be involved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clause 1.22 allows an unregistered installer to submit the BS7671 installation certificate and says that the building control body will take this into account. If an appropriately qualified NAPIT members has carried out third party electrical inspection and testing for such an unregistered installer then they can complete the BS7671 installation certificate providing they follow the advice given in the question & answer above and only sign off the inspect and test element. The member cannot notify the job in this case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clause 1.26 allows the building control body to contract out inspection and testing. It is clear that the building control body must pay for this work and cannot require the householder to pay. In this case building control bodies would normally appoint a member of a Competent Persons Scheme. Again, the member cannot notify the job in this case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leaves me scratching my head sometimes,LOL.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[johnboy6083]

i cant see how on earth you could be prosecuted for not being registered with a scam as long as

a)your work is kosher, and tested/inspected and certified
b) you get the housholder to notify, and dont mislead them in any way.

the approved document seems to contradict itself.

is it possible that the NICEIC/napic/elecsa ect have jumped on the bandwagon, and interpreted in a way that the councils are happy with, because it means less work and cost for them?

if the councils suddenly had to approve a lot of installs, it seems to me, like it wouldnt be long before they resorted to allowing qualified sparks to do it themselves, without part p. they wouldnt have a choice, and their budget wouldnt permit them do allow anything else.

 

[Big n Daft]

Its a mad bad sad world!
There has to be some middle ground in all this. I've just come back to the game having had time out. 20+yrs on everthing from a socket for Mrs Jones to commissioning trains with all manner of install and testing to find it now counts for bugger all.
I suppose its all about proving competance and an understanding of electrical safety, thought I'd done that.
HoHum cant change the system, just pay the money and stand out from the crowd.

 

[Markthisoneout]

I've posted on this subject elsewhere on the Forum but it's worth repeating it here:

When B&Q issue advice notices that state:

"As of 1 January 2005, changes to the Building Regulations affected domestic electrical installations in England and Wales. You don't need to be a qualified electrician to make changes to your home's electrical system, but the work must be done in accordance with the standards in the Regulations."

it's hardly surprising that DIYers do their own work - they are being told they can!

It is made worse by advice pages like this on their website which give superficial guidance on laying SWA cable for an outdoor lighting circuit and without any consideration of the load, cable length, type of supply etc, etc.

B&Q Online: From Kitchens & Bathrooms to Sheds & Paving; plus planning tools

Someone needs to get a grip of the whole licence/certification business or we are all out of a job.