Pete's Videos I know it's old hat.

[westward10]

Crack on I do.

 

[westward10]

All these schemes have done is take the pressure off LBC who would not have been able to cope when Part P came into effect. They have pulled in electricians who work in the new and existing domestic housing markets and for some good those like kitchen fitters etc.

How does this answer #12?

 

[Midwest]

Which is why I said you can work in the NON DOMESTIC sector without being registered with a scheme and earn more money doing so.

And what I'm saying, is there's bad boys in the non domestic market. Part P intention was to police the bad boys, it hasn't worked, cost good sparks money. Why should the non domestic market be different.

 

[Pete999]

my point is these schemes have come into being to admin for building control.

No Mate to make the Directors rich people. That's the only reason.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Not sure the intention of Part P was to police anyone.
If it was, then they went about it the wrong way.
As it is the onus of compliance with Part P falls on the householder or person ordering the work.
The Competent Person Schemes ar nothing more than a register and a method of notifying work after the fact.
If a registered person conducts substandard work or is shown to be incompetent, Part P has no mechanism with which to censure or take that person to task.
All Part P can do is chase the householder or person ordering the work to put things right.
Trading Standards might be able to step in if work is sub standard and the Competent Person Schemes might ask the person to put any substandard work to rights.

 

[Midwest]

Not sure the intention of Part P was to police anyone.
If it was, then they went about it the wrong way.
As it is the onus of compliance with Part P falls on the householder or person ordering the work.
The Competent Person Schemes ar nothing more than a register and a method of notifying work after the fact.
If a registered person conducts substandard work or is shown to be incompetent, Part P has no mechanism with which to censure or take that person to task.
All Part P can do is chase the householder or person ordering the work to put things right.
Trading Standards might be able to step in if work is sub standard and the Competent Person Schemes might ask the person to put any substandard work to rights.

Well anyway, disagree with your first paragraph.

Part P was brought into being, to 'which would bring domestic electrical installation work in England and Wales under the legal framework of the Building Regulations' (IET citation).

What other description would you give it then?

 

[Pete999]

Well anyway, disagree with your first paragraph.

Part P was brought into being, to 'which would bring domestic electrical installation work in England and Wales under the legal framework of the Building Regulations' (IET citation).

What other description would you give it then?

Doesn't it mention somewhere that Part P was brought in (whatever that means) to ensure that Domestic electrical work complied with BS 7671 the Regulations, now most Electricians I know work well within BS 7671, so why all the carp about being Part P qualified, it's just BS and I don't mean British Standards either.

 

[LankyWill]

I cant see how they can impose joining a scheme on you, lets say you carry out domestic work and arent registered with a scheme. Whats the worst they can do? write a letter to you or demand you join. If your works up to standard and you have all the correct insurances what leg do the schemes have to stand on?

 

[StephenRowley]

Who ever thought fused neutrals where a good idea?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well anyway, disagree with your first paragraph.

Part P was brought into being, to 'which would bring domestic electrical installation work in England and Wales under the legal framework of the Building Regulations' (IET citation).

What other description would you give it then?

Disagree all you want.
The fact is, that Part P is part of the Building Regulations.
As such, all that can be policed, is that the Building Regulations are complied with.
The method used is to serve improvement and enforcement orders on the householder.

 

[Rpa07]

I could smell the rain earlier now all I can smell is
REVOLUTION!

 

[Midwest]

Disagree all you want.
The fact is, that Part P is part of the Building Regulations.
As such, all that can be policed, is that the Building Regulations are complied with.
The method used is to serve improvement and enforcement orders on the householder.

Ok I will.

It seems the primary method, would be the local building control requiring improvement. However they could also use Sec 36, to require removal or alteration of offending work. The council could have that carried out, and recover the costs from the building owner.

They could also use Sec 35 to carry out a prosecution 'If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations' (and Sec 7, compliances or non compliance of approved documents).

Whilst the building owner is ultimately responsible for complying with planning rules and building regulations, the section & act above allows for prosecution of persons, i.e. builder, installer or main contractor, not just the building owner.

Part P is only one of the approved documents.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ok I will.

It seems the primary method, would be the local building control requiring improvement. However they could also use Sec 36, to require removal or alteration of offending work. The council could have that carried out, and recover the costs from the building owner.

They could also use Sec 35 to carry out a prosecution 'If a person contravenes any provision contained in building regulations' (and Sec 7, compliances or non compliance of approved documents).

Whilst the building owner is ultimately responsible for complying with planning rules and building regulations, the section & act above allows for prosecution of persons, i.e. builder, installer or main contractor, not just the building owner.

Part P is only one of the approved documents.

Building Control have the authority to issue improvement orders, enforcement orders, even engage a contractor to remove whatever doesn’t comply.
However about all they can do with regards Part P, is do the householder for failure to notify.
Other than notification all that is required, is for an installation to be safe.
As the majority of LABCs don’t employ electrically qualified persons, how would they know whether an installation is safe or unsafe?

 

[Midwest]

Building Control have the authority to issue improvement orders, enforcement orders, even engage a contractor to remove whatever doesn’t comply.
However about all they can do with regards Part P, is do the householder for failure to notify.
Other than notification all that is required, is for an installation to be safe.
As the majority of LABCs don’t employ electrically qualified persons, how would they know whether an installation is safe or unsafe?

You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes.

One thing we disagree on; you case is that only the building owner or a person ordering the work can be prosecuted for contravening building regulations.

Whereas my case is that a person (other than the building owner) can be prosecuted for contravening building regulations.
Some examples;

Part P prosecutions begin with fines of more than £16,000. - The Power Service - https://www.thepowerservice.co.uk/hotel-owner-fined-for-five-breaches/
Successful Building Regulations Prosecution - https://www.fareham.gov.uk/latest_news/pressreleases/pr-130713-3.aspx
Electrician and bathroom fitter prosecuted for breach of PART P of the building regulations - https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/electrician-and-bathroom-fitter
Builder prosecuted for unsafe electrical work | South Gloucestershire Council - http://www.southglos.gov.uk/news/builder-prosecuted-for-unsafe-electrical-work/

If you have a read of the Part P document, you'll see that in addition to Notifiable Work as a legal requirement from the regulation, there is also a Design & Installation requirement, as a legal requirement from the regulation.

As per how a LBC would build its case for a successful prosecution (contravening Part P), I do not know. But it appears they may use other electrical contractors as expert witnesses (EICR's).

As per the question on the amount of successful prosecutions (Part P), and how active councils are on this matter, I can only agree they appear few & far between. But that does not preclude that the intention is to prevent sub standard installations.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have read the Part P document.
I have also read the Statutory Legislation.
All that is required, is for the work to be notified (which is the responsibility of the Householder or person ordering the work and for the finished installation to be safe.
Yes tradespersons can be prosecuted if they fail to comply with Building Regulations.
However with regards to Part P, it would have to be shown that the work done had resulted in an unsafe installation.
It would be more likely that an Electrician would be prosecuted for failing to comply with one of the other parts of the Building Regulations than for failing to comply with Part P.

 

[Midwest]

I have read the Part P document.
I have also read the Statutory Legislation.
All that is required, is for the work to be notified (which is the responsibility of the Householder or person ordering the work and for the finished installation to be safe.
Yes tradespersons can be prosecuted if they fail to comply with Building Regulations.
However with regards to Part P, it would have to be shown that the work done had resulted in an unsafe installation.
It would be more likely that an Electrician would be prosecuted for failing to comply with one of the other parts of the Building Regulations than for failing to comply with Part P.

This is going on somewhat, I don't see why you cannot except (or agree) that an individual (other than owner) can be prosecuted under Part P regs for either failing to notify or incorrect design or installation (the later uses BS7671 as the standard). There are examples of each in the links from my previous post.

 

[Des 56]

I read one of them links towards the end and almost burst a gut laughing,here is part of a statement at the end of the case by the local authority

This is a great result for us; we are the only council in the country in three years to achieve a successful prosecution under electrical safety regulations contained with the building regulations. The building regulations are there to protect householders from cowboy builders, and this result sends a very clear message to contractors that local authority Building Control are here to protect the interests of householders



Is that not a big incentive to stick 2 fingers up to the part P procedure

 

[Midwest]

I read one of them links towards the end and almost burst a gut laughing,here is part of a statement at the end of the case by the local authority

This is a great result for us; we are the only council in the country in three years to achieve a successful prosecution under electrical safety regulations contained with the building regulations. The building regulations are there to protect householders from cowboy builders, and this result sends a very clear message to contractors that local authority Building Control are here to protect the interests of householders



Is that not a big incentive to stick 2 fingers up to the part P procedure

Yep I was waiting for someone to comment on that; but when you get people having a slap on the wrist for serious physical assaults, and blind eye turned to other criminal offences, what else should you expect these days?

Not that good are gooling such stuff, but at least there are some prosecutions. Right at the beginning of this discussion, I said there are some nefarious contractors in the commercial & industrial sector (that I've come across), but that part of the industry seems to police itself? Domestic market might be more infested with those that have poor standards?

 

[Midwest]

I know this is a contentious issue, but its the limited best we have at the moment. The Approved Document must stay in my opinion, the process for Notification it that Document needs revision.

But bearing in mind we have already had one Select Committee spending tax payers money deliberating the subject and not ending with a 'Part P Brexit'; would the removal of Schemes make things better or worse? For me it would mean me (removal of Schemes) remaining in the industry as a sole trader, but I can't help thinking, it goes someway towards policing the domestic side, I think £50 to be in a Scheme seems fair, Ms Clancy?

I'm off to look for other work.

 

[westward10]

One scheme then no competition which was the original intention. Then as you say the yearly fee of £50.