Discuss Is Part Pee fit for purpose / who is policing this scam ??? in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

I agree, the scams are a waste of money and time, unless they are policed properly and actually achieved what they were designed to do (assuming the main goal was safety over profit).

However, the conscientious folk out there who are genuinely trying to comply who are conscious of safety and the wellbeing of society end up the people paying the price.

I believe there is a distinct difference between people who are struggling and trying to get on and those that are just blatantly cheating the system at the cost of everyone else.
Paying into a scam scheme doesn't make you conscientious it makes you compliant. Knowing your work is good makes you conscientious and being backed up by a scam who also take on 6 week wonders says nothing to the quality of your output.

Cheating a stupid bent system isn't automatically wrong.
 
my lad was considering a short course to get onto a scam, as he has all the practical knowledge and expertise (well most of it. I still have to help him with a few things), but I soon talked him out of it. He generally works with a mate who is napit so the part pee is no problem.
 
my lad was considering a short course to get onto a scam, as he has all the practical knowledge and expertise (well most of it. I still have to help him with a few things), but I soon talked him out of it. He generally works with a mate who is napit so the part pee is no problem.

I thought they recently changed the entry rules for all so the full NVQ level 3 etc was required?
 
I thought they recently changed the entry rules for all so the full NVQ level 3 etc was required?
I'm afraid it's a bit to late, to the rules for the full NVQ level 3 was required ( college trained and at least a bit of time served) the country is full of the 5 day wonder's calling themselves electrician's. Got two in my village.
 
Its not just in this industry, I did have a HGV class1 revoked it a few years ago because of the PCP scam.
Since 50% of young people are going to university we have to find jobs for them.

In many cases this has been done by inserting them between the tradesperson and their customer.

You can spot these job creation schemes a Mile off.

1, They offer the customer no protections.

2, They do not police the tradespeople they are meant to be regulating.

3, they have had zero positive impact in the sector they operate in.
 
Problem is there's not enough organisation of thr discontent to turn Thier numbers into voices loud enough to be heard. I'd like to think 100,000 sparks (time-served or otherwise - those with a moral compass say) would easily be rounded up, putting names on paper and this ---- needs to stop....but then CPSs will grease palms and it'll be for nought
 
I've always felt its a bucket with holes filling more buckets with holes (although I'm prepared to stand corrected as i don't have anything to do with domestic, so this is just my uneducated musings)

Part P includes notification of new circuits right?

When is a new circuit not a new circuit?

Say a redundant 16a radial in 2.5 to a single 20a DP switch is found in an airing cupboard. A competent homeowner decides to remove the DP switch, install a single socket, then extends this to 3 more sockets with more 2.5 in an adjacent room, creating a radial socket circuit.

It's not a new circuit - the run from MCB to first point was already there after all right? So I would assume its non notifiable - but the characteristics are significantly different.

Yet if someone were to run a new 2.5 radial from source of the same design, it would then become a new circuit? It's literally that one original length from MCB to first point making it an "existing circuit".

I'd say the addition of those extra sockets to an "existing circuit" leaves far more room for error than, say, adding a single PIR operated light next to the DB from a new, dedicated 6a MCB - but that would be classed as a new circuit and notifiable - despite being a far simpler task

Oh but hang on - what about if a new PIR light was installed next to the DB but instead of being fed from a new dedicated 6a MCB, was just fed directly from the output of an existing lighting circuit 6a MCB? It's not a new circuit - it's fed from the same MCB as an existing circuit, so it's just an addition to that circuit surely and wouldn't require notification?!

Why on earth would the latter be non notifiable, but the former would be ?

Take also replacement of damaged lengths of cable - I believe this is actually specified on some LABC guidance I read somewhere as being a reasonably acceptable DIY task. Example:

Homeowner drills through an out of zone RFC 2.5 cable between two socket outlets (Lets say its an RFC just feeding that room). Its in old colours. He pops to Wilko, buys a few metres of new 2021 date stamped 2.5 and proceeds to replace the damaged section and puts it in zone in the process. Sounds reasonable right?

Let's say instead he drills through both legs of the ring after they leave the DB . So he replaces both legs from the MCB to the first and last socket, with his 2021 embossed 2.5, leaving the main part of the ring intact.

It's not a new circuit - but would an inspector raise questions on seeing the new cable leaving the DB?

Sorry- I've clearly thought about this too much. Waiting to be corrected gladly.
 
Sounds about right.
But it's the customer / property owner who is responsible for ensuring the notification is done.

There's another thread today started by a customer about no notification, B.C are aware and have said get someone else to sign it off by EIC presumably.
B.C could prosecute the contractor as above it's the customers responsibility.
If the contractor isn't a Scheme member, no Scheme can prosecute the contractor.
Scheme membership isn't complusory.

As discussed many times in the past it's a bucket full of holes in a bucket with holes in it.
There is one thing that will come back and cause the homeowner an issue, when they go and sell the property they have to produce the correct documentation as requested by the buyers solicitors, this is will cause issues with the sale. They can lie of course and say that no additions /alterations have taken place within the property, but this will leave them wide open to a potential law suit.
 
I've always felt its a bucket with holes filling more buckets with holes (although I'm prepared to stand corrected as i don't have anything to do with domestic, so this is just my uneducated musings)

Part P includes notification of new circuits right?

When is a new circuit not a new circuit?

Say a redundant 16a radial in 2.5 to a single 20a DP switch is found in an airing cupboard. A competent homeowner decides to remove the DP switch, install a single socket, then extends this to 3 more sockets with more 2.5 in an adjacent room, creating a radial socket circuit.

It's not a new circuit - the run from MCB to first point was already there after all right? So I would assume its non notifiable - but the characteristics are significantly different.

Yet if someone were to run a new 2.5 radial from source of the same design, it would then become a new circuit? It's literally that one original length from MCB to first point making it an "existing circuit".

I'd say the addition of those extra sockets to an "existing circuit" leaves far more room for error than, say, adding a single PIR operated light next to the DB from a new, dedicated 6a MCB - but that would be classed as a new circuit and notifiable - despite being a far simpler task

Oh but hang on - what about if a new PIR light was installed next to the DB but instead of being fed from a new dedicated 6a MCB, was just fed directly from the output of an existing lighting circuit 6a MCB? It's not a new circuit - it's fed from the same MCB as an existing circuit, so it's just an addition to that circuit surely and wouldn't require notification?!

Why on earth would the latter be non notifiable, but the former would be ?

Take also replacement of damaged lengths of cable - I believe this is actually specified on some LABC guidance I read somewhere as being a reasonably acceptable DIY task. Example:

Homeowner drills through an out of zone RFC 2.5 cable between two socket outlets (Lets say its an RFC just feeding that room). Its in old colours. He pops to Wilko, buys a few metres of new 2021 date stamped 2.5 and proceeds to replace the damaged section and puts it in zone in the process. Sounds reasonable right?

Let's say instead he drills through both legs of the ring after they leave the DB . So he replaces both legs from the MCB to the first and last socket, with his 2021 embossed 2.5, leaving the main part of the ring intact.

It's not a new circuit - but would an inspector raise questions on seeing the new cable leaving the DB?

Sorry- I've clearly thought about this too much. Waiting to be corrected gladly.
Hahahaha!!! A minefield indeed.
 
I've always felt its a bucket with holes filling more buckets with holes (although I'm prepared to stand corrected as i don't have anything to do with domestic, so this is just my uneducated musings)

Part P includes notification of new circuits right?

When is a new circuit not a new circuit?

Say a redundant 16a radial in 2.5 to a single 20a DP switch is found in an airing cupboard. A competent homeowner decides to remove the DP switch, install a single socket, then extends this to 3 more sockets with more 2.5 in an adjacent room, creating a radial socket circuit.

It's not a new circuit - the run from MCB to first point was already there after all right? So I would assume its non notifiable - but the characteristics are significantly different.

Yet if someone were to run a new 2.5 radial from source of the same design, it would then become a new circuit? It's literally that one original length from MCB to first point making it an "existing circuit".

I'd say the addition of those extra sockets to an "existing circuit" leaves far more room for error than, say, adding a single PIR operated light next to the DB from a new, dedicated 6a MCB - but that would be classed as a new circuit and notifiable - despite being a far simpler task

Oh but hang on - what about if a new PIR light was installed next to the DB but instead of being fed from a new dedicated 6a MCB, was just fed directly from the output of an existing lighting circuit 6a MCB? It's not a new circuit - it's fed from the same MCB as an existing circuit, so it's just an addition to that circuit surely and wouldn't require notification?!

Why on earth would the latter be non notifiable, but the former would be ?

Take also replacement of damaged lengths of cable - I believe this is actually specified on some LABC guidance I read somewhere as being a reasonably acceptable DIY task. Example:

Homeowner drills through an out of zone RFC 2.5 cable between two socket outlets (Lets say its an RFC just feeding that room). Its in old colours. He pops to Wilko, buys a few metres of new 2021 date stamped 2.5 and proceeds to replace the damaged section and puts it in zone in the process. Sounds reasonable right?

Let's say instead he drills through both legs of the ring after they leave the DB . So he replaces both legs from the MCB to the first and last socket, with his 2021 embossed 2.5, leaving the main part of the ring intact.

It's not a new circuit - but would an inspector raise questions on seeing the new cable leaving the DB?

Sorry- I've clearly thought about this too much. Waiting to be corrected gladly.
You are not alone I have thought of these situations too. Electricity is Electricity no matter what the dangers are still the same.

Its just the scam bull that tries to differentiate.
 
There are still sparks out there and some I know are scam registered / were scam registered who only issue a MWC for a board change and have never notified a board change in their life to this very day

Yet others have to go through the entire EIC process along with building control notification along with the associated costs

It really does feel like one rule for some and one rule for another with absolutely no one steering the ruddy ship
 
You are not alone I have thought of these situations too. Electricity is Electricity no matter what the dangers are still the same.

Its just the scam bull that tries to differentiate.
I remember when the scams first reared their ugly heads around the mid 00s and even something like fitting a new pond pump was notifiable under the part pee scam ?
 
There is one thing that will come back and cause the homeowner an issue, when they go and sell the property they have to produce the correct documentation as requested by the buyers solicitors, this is will cause issues with the sale. They can lie of course and say that no additions /alterations have taken place within the property, but this will leave them wide open to a potential law suit.
From my experience and that of everyone else that I know who's bought/sold property... nobody cares less about whether any electrical alterations have been done. In any case, there's standard indemnity insurance that's taken out to cover all this.

A mate of mine built an extension... then sold the house, but couldn't find the completion certificate straightaway. The very next day he took the certificate to the solicitor who told him not to bother as she'd already taken out indemnity insurance ! He wasn't impressed. That's how it works these days. The argument that if works are not certificated/notified it'll cause problems doesn't hold water.

It's similar to EPC certificates... almost meaningless nonsense. Nobody ever buys or not buys a house due to the Energy rating. In any case, the way it works is crazy... I recently removed a storage heater as it was costing way too much to run it... this caused the Energy rating to go down from C to D !
 
From my experience and that of everyone else that I know who's bought/sold property... nobody cares less about whether any electrical alterations have been done. In any case, there's standard indemnity insurance that's taken out to cover all this.

A mate of mine built an extension... then sold the house, but couldn't find the completion certificate straightaway. The very next day he took the certificate to the solicitor who told him not to bother as she'd already taken out indemnity insurance ! He wasn't impressed. That's how it works these days. The argument that if works are not certificated/notified it'll cause problems doesn't hold water.

It's similar to EPC certificates... almost meaningless nonsense. Nobody ever buys or not buys a house due to the Energy rating. In any case, the way it works is crazy... I recently removed a storage heater as it was costing way too much to run it... this caused the Energy rating to go down from C to D !
Was just going to make this point. Solicitors want the deal to go through so they get paid. Estate agents want the deal to go through so they get paid. Sellers want the sale to go through so they get paid. Buyers want the sale to go through so they can get their house - moneys the driver, noone wants to be waiting any longer than necessary because a bit of paper is missing
 
a 60 quid indeminity policy will get a missing electrical cert / notifiaction through no problem

heck for a 150 quid you can get a policy that will cover a 2 storey extension thathas no paperwork
 
Yep...And its time someone like the BBC did a major program about these schemes . "Gas safe" also !!
Why would they do that when Matt Allright has been promoting them for years under the Watchdog banner
I agree, the scams are a waste of money and time, unless they are policed properly and actually achieved what they were designed to do (assuming the main goal was safety over profit).

However, the conscientious folk out there who are genuinely trying to comply who are conscious of safety and the wellbeing of society end up the people paying the price.

I believe there is a distinct difference between people who are struggling and trying to get on and those that are just blatantly cheating the system at the cost of everyone else.
The problem the CPS's need to address is how the larger multi operative companies and their operatives are assessed.
What also needs to looked at and possibly published is qualification and experience level of all operatives for the tasks they are approved to undertake no matter what size the company is so the consumer knows what they are buying into when they employ someone to provide an EICR for example
Problem is there's not enough organisation of thr discontent to turn Thier numbers into voices loud enough to be heard. I'd like to think 100,000 sparks (time-served or otherwise - those with a moral compass say) would easily be rounded up, putting names on paper and this ---- needs to stop....but then CPSs will grease palms and it'll be for nought
You need to look back a few years to the parliamentary committee that was tasked with reviewing part P, when it wasn't going their way Clancy and Co circumvented the committee and met with the relevent government minister and got the legislation revised which is what they wanted before the committee had even reported

Part P is only fit for purpose if you are HMRC the only 2 people I ever heard of being taken to court under Part P was for tax evasion or misdeclaring tax and not for poor workmanship

People who buy into these schemes need to see them for what they are, they are by no means a guarantee of good compliant workmanship as has been seen from some of the threads on this forum.
 
There is one thing that will come back and cause the homeowner an issue, when they go and sell the property they have to produce the correct documentation as requested by the buyers solicitors, this is will cause issues with the sale. They can lie of course and say that no additions /alterations have taken place within the property, but this will leave them wide open to a potential law suit.
The OP is in possession of a EIC
 
I'm totally disillusioned with it all too. Nearly every week I see atrocious and occasionally dangerous recently done electrical work, often by registered contractors too ! And I had an e mail from Certsure a few weeks ago explaining that I'll automatically transfer from being an Elecsa Registered Contractor to the NIC Domestic Installer Scheme soon when they 'retire' the Elecsa name. I'm feeling quite insulted as a conscientious tradesman with over 36 years of post-apprenticeship experience. So tempted to knock the Part P registration on the head and just carry on as normal......
 
I'm totally disillusioned with it all too. Nearly every week I see atrocious and occasionally dangerous recently done electrical work, often by registered contractors too ! And I had an e mail from Certsure a few weeks ago explaining that I'll automatically transfer from being an Elecsa Registered Contractor to the NIC Domestic Installer Scheme soon when they 'retire' the Elecsa name. I'm feeling quite insulted as a concientious tradesman with over 36 years of post-apprenticeship experience. So tempted to knock the Part P registration on the head and just carry on as normal......
Don't like the sound of that......are you saying the Domestic Installer Scheme is equivalent to the Elecsa Registered Contractor.....or are they downgrading you?

Plenty of us were saying on here over 10 years ago, how things had been deteriorating for years....and warning of the upcoming consequences.
It is indeed, constantly getting worse, be it work practice standards or the class of basic materials available.
Plenty of todays rules and regulations seem to be making allowances for sub standard users. Take 'maintenance free' joint boxes as an example.... If a 301 or 401 is installed correctly, what is the problem? I'm sorry but, these days, some 'electricians' can't be trusted to do so.
 

Reply to Is Part Pee fit for purpose / who is policing this scam ??? in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock