Part P investigation.

[BlueToBits]

I thought I would share this with anyone interested.

About 3 months ago I recieved a phone call from our local trading standards.
They had been contacted by a householder who was having a central heating system installed. The plumber informed her that her water supply was not correctly earthed. She told him that she had been fully rewired only a few months earlier and, after showing the certificate to the plumber he advised her to take it to Trading Standards as he incorrectly assumed that because it was written on a photocopied form it was not a legitimate certificate.

Trading standards asked me to do a PIR on the installation. There was a few defects and although the test results I recorded were very different from those on the certification they were all OK. I noticed that the water main had recently been changed. The old stop-cock was still there with a new bonding cable correctly attached to a cut pipe. It had not been moved with the pipework to the new main, hardly the fault of the electrician who did the rewire, but a code 1 defect nevertheless. I submitted the PIR as requested and heard nothing again until yesterday.

Trading standards have requested that we carry out remedial repairs on behalf of the client and it now transpires that the electrician had not notified building control of the work he carried out under Part P.

Had the water main not been upgraded the plumber would not mentioned anything to the householder and this would likely have never come to light. Apart from a few other minor defects (unmarked switch wires etc.), the quality of the installation workmanship wasn't that bad.

Because the client has a legitimate complaint and the law has been broken, building control and trading standards are obliged to investigate. The customer is now faced with a £350 bill for building control on top of my bill for carrying out remedial works. I'm pretty sure the client will be seeking re-imbursement from the electrician who is now also facing possible prosecution.
All because someone else failed to re-connect the water earth bond.

 

[pushrod]

Interesting read. Am i right in thinking that he did an ok job and somebody/water company then connected a new water supply and didn't change the bonding over and didn't flag up that it needed changing? Surely they are culpable and yet they seem to be not in the frame at all! They left the installation in the unsafe condition.
Am i also right in thinking that if you are not using a registered part p spark that the onus falls on the home owner to inform the LABC. I wonder if the original spark informed them he was not part P , tbh it should have been fairly obvious from the fact that it sounds like he has just used BS7671 form. It depends on what was said between the spark and the homeowner. It could well be that it is the home owner is the one who is cutting corners.

Also i tend to think that if i were the plumber i would have just moved the protective bond over when it was so obvious what had happened, rather than trying to get someone else in trouble.

Or am i just being biased towards the spark ??

edit : or was the spark using photocopied forms from a part p organisation of which he was not a member then of course my views are totally different.

 

[BlueToBits]

Yes, The job was basically ok other than a few minor defects and the fact that it was not compliant with part P
Yes, Who ever changed the water supply, didn't move the bond over. This is a seperate issue and the electrician is not being blamed for this.
Yes, (AFAIK) It is the installer who is required to comply with Part P. As I understand it, the housholder has chosen to take on this herself as she does not want an illegal installation and want's peace of mind. I'm pretty sure Trading standards will help her to claim this back from the installer if she has not already done so.
The plumber would also be in breach of Part P if he altered the earth system without raising certification and notification.
The client trusted the electrician to comply with all regulations. She was led to believe she would get a full professional job.
I don't feel sorry for the spark, after all, he has committed an offence. I would be livid if the client was my mother.
Edit: The certificates were proper and legitimate in that they were not photocopies of an NIC, ECA or Napit form

 

[grantr37]

so a plumber is a jobsworth and wants to have a go at a sparky(usual grudge which I cant understand) the building control would shaft anybody who didnt pay up to their demands or comply with their sometimes flawed way of doing things, or even if they just felt like it, I wonder if the building controls people are well trained, probably most of them dont have a clue and just transferred from the council estates office..
Basically either you join up to the different registered schemes and pay them silly money every year and bow to them, then you pay the building control more money and bow to them as well or you will end up walking funny...

I wonder if the sparky had registered everything up part P and paid out to the building control, would the trading standards (also Council, as usual) have done the same......I think they would have done the same...they would have probably demanded that another Electricians company do a new PIR, then carry out "repairs" and the sparky would have still got the bill, as well as complaints to the scheme provider from the council trading standards that would undoubtably led to him being classed as negligent and struck off, the council would still have pursued a prosecution for gross negligence for "leaving the primary water supply to the premises in an unsafe condition and putting the residents and others at risk to their safety" and when the prosecution examined about the water supply bond (nothing to do with the Electrician in this case) he would have just shrugged and then been hit with a large fine as well as losing his right to trade...



so if the plumber puts in a gas pipe for the boiler, and joe blogs comes along and hits it with a hammer when putting in some shelves next to it, then the Tiler doing the floor notices a dent in it and says "I would go to trading standards" most customers would do so thinking of either a free repair or compensation.....even if they done the damage themselves...they wont admit it was them as they would be worried about looking daft...and the plumber would get done for fitting a bent pipe on a Gas supply, get struck off of the Gas Safe register and hit with fines and legal expenses...


The Electrician should have been offered the chance to put it right (provide satisfactory remedy) even though it was not his fault if he was going to have to take the blame in the end due to impatient "legal professionals" then do another test himself or get in another company of his choice to do a test and pay the test fee himself, then contact the water board with the assistance of the building control/trading standards to claim back at least a proportion of reasonable costs incurred.... but what happened instead was that the trading and the control both turned on the little guy, now his reputation is going to be ruined, he is basically going to lose his job and be hit with any amount of possible fines and penalties... as usual the big guys beat on the little guys...

If you or I were to do some work, and somebody else comes in afterwards and alters/modifies or damages that installation, then it seems that it is on US and we will take the blame.

I for one will be taking digital photos of jobs done for my records from now on to keep with the paperwork, in case somebody else breaks something and the finger of blame gets pointed...



This could happen to any one of us and we wouldnt be able to defend ourselves from taking the hit for somebody elses mess...

 

[telectrix]

just put into words, very eloquently, what i was thinking. maybe this is where professionalm indemnity insurance should come in. get the insurers big gun lawyers on your side.

 

[BluSparx]

I always take photographs of my finished work - and have in my T&C's that any modification to ANY work completed by blu sparx voids the 12mnth warranty I provide as standard on parts & labour.

Customers sometimes ask "why i am taking pics" and my answer is I am required to for assesment purposes. normally keeps them quiet

 

[grantr37]

and at the end of the day if any of us do a job and it could quite legitimately be referred to as "Perfect" by many others, there are always tradesman who will be willing to give an opinion otherwise, if it will bring extra work for them to "put it right" just my 2 cents but you just have to be honest and think, especially with the economy the way it is now ...... how many other tradesmen out there would shaft me at the drop of a hat to get themselves some extra work?.... be honest with yourself probably at least 20% of them would....you really have to look over your shoulder on a regular basis these days...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I'm not sure that the panic button is entirely justified on this...despite grantr37's excellent post my thinking is that if the rewire had been properly tested and certified AND registered with LABC the installer is covered.This has only gone ---- up because the original installer cut corners with the paperwork. Do it right and you wont get caught out even if some bod cock's it up after you've finished. A proper certificate registerd through the proper channels is all the proof required to show that the bonding was in place at the time of the install.

 

[BlueToBits]

Grant.
I agree with everything you say and here's the but...
The issue is the fact that the electrician is not part P and he led his customer to believe that all his work would be 100% compliant. The earth bond is undisputably not his error, but it was the catalyst that revealed the installation was illegal. We may not like part P, and FWIW I don't either, but it is the law.
The plumber actions were fair enough. If you noticed that the gas connection to a boiler was loose, would you fix it?

 

[brizospark]

It's the amount of paperwork, health and safety legislations that are crippling this country's trade and industry. We are becoming far too Americanised

 

[brizospark]

The way I see it, the guy has went in done a decent job and bonding was fine when he left the job. What the hell has it got to do with him?

 

[ukpablo]

This comment may upset some people on here, but i pay to be registered, so u do the crime, u do the time in my eyes.....................some people can drive cars, but if they have no liscence then they are breaking the law. The homeowner prob does not know all the ins and outs so could plead ignorance, they look to us to be straight up and professional and promote the trade we are in!
so if the spark (who may have done a tidy job) gets the book thrown at him then so be it................and hope that it be a lesson learnt! Otherwise why do we all bother being legite and trying to earn an honest living!
Its unfortunately people like him or her in that case that makes a mochary out of the registration process!

 

[grantr37]

no Bluetobits ,thats not the issue, dont try to say that I said the plumber should fix the earth because I never said that... what I would do if I seen what was obviously a fault or damage in answer to your question is I would have asked for the plumbers number, went outside and phoned him on the mobile to "ask him about something about plumbing" and told him about it so that he could come in right away, before that I would have asked the lady where the gas shut off tap was and asked her if it was ok if I turned it off while I work beside it just incase of an accidental spark or something to be on the safer side of safe, and then the plumber could turn up and make a free repair to it citing "needed to change that bit of pipe out anyway, product recall so thats it ok now, and I'll just do one final check to make sure everythings A-OK" then everybody is happy.....I wouldnt just turn round and throw him to trading standards, and although it may have cost him an hour or two and a piece of pipe to replace the bent/dented one, he would probably be grateful for the grief that he had been saved from...
Of course if the Plumber didn't want to play ball and tried to blame me for it, I would just keep my photograph taken before I had brought my tools in and done any work in my support, if I didn't then there is a good chance that the householder would turn around and say "well that was OK before the Electrician came along" instead of "My Friend hit it with a hammer last week"

 

[tonys]

Whats the worse out come, the Electrician gets a very small fine, but only if Building Control choose to pursue the issue and they will only pursue on the advice given by their legal team and they will more than likely weigh it up as a waste of public money.

Lets put this into perspective, Electricians/companies certified their work before Part P reared its ugly head.

Fair play to any qualified Electrician who sticks their fingers up to this Part P money grabbing scheme.

Join the NICEIC Fullscope Approved Contractor Scheme and you get automatic entry to Part P lol

 

[ian.settle1]

Whats the worse out come, the Electrician gets a very small fine, but only if Building Control choose to pursue the issue and they will only pursue on the advice given by their legal team and they will more than likely weigh it up as a waste of public money.

Lets put this into perspective, Electricians/companies certified their work before Part P reared its ugly head.

Fair play to any qualified Electrician who sticks their fingers up to this Part P money grabbing scheme.

Join the NICEIC Fullscope Approved Contractor Scheme and you get automatic entry to Part P lol

And the way councils have got to find savings any prosecutions like take a back burner I think.

 

[tonys]

And the way councils have got to find savings any prosecutions like take a back burner I think.

Exactly mate, the only people concerned with others working outside the remit of Part P is its members lol and I only laugh because its so true and the truth can be a bugger at times.

 

[BlueToBits]

Exactly mate, the only people concerned with others working outside the remit of Part P is its members lol and I only laugh because its so true and the truth can be a bugger at times.

It appears that the customer, Trading Standards and Building Control are also somewhat concerned, not to mention the electrician in question. TV consumer programs love this type of content because it makes for good viewing figures, so someone out there must be interested.

The truth is, like it or not, Part P is the law in England and Wales, and failure to comply with it is a criminal offence.

The general public don't understand electrical regulations. They rely on, and pay for electricians to do this for them.

 

[pushrod]

Yet to see a definitive answer from someone on this thread as to who is ultimately responsible for notifying the LABC when a non part P contractor is employed. I thought it was the homeowner, Bluetobits thought it was the contractor. In this case it could be that the electrician has told the owner that they will leave the installation in a safe, compliant state ie the test results , but that it was down to the owner to notify the LABC.. The spark has not used part p certs, just bs7671 ones.

I think there are responsibilities on all of us to understand the law, including the owner in this case. Did they not expect some correspondence from the LABC, or was it not a surprise that they didn't receive any? We do not know for sure exactly what has happened in this case, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the spark was under the impression that the owner was going to inform LABC. Maybe the owner has not bothered to do what they should have done and are now trying to get out of it by blaming the spark. If the electrician was a complete cowboy would they have bothered with any certs?

 

[SMB]

If you noticed that the gas connection to a boiler was loose, would you fix it?

No, but im fairly confident that I would give him / her a phone call.

 

[BlueToBits]

Yet to see a definitive answer from someone on this thread as to who is ultimately responsible for notifying the LABC when a non part P contractor is employed....

It is the installer's responsibility to notify LABC, be it the householder as a DIY job, or a contractor.
If the installer is registered under an approved scheme (NIC, NAPIT etc) the notification must be made within 30 days of completing the job.
If the installer is NOT registered under a scheme, an application must be made to LABC BEFORE work commences. Work may proceed when the application is approved. The LABC will inspect the job on completion and issue certification. They may also want to inspect at an interim point, say after first fix before approving the 2nd fix. Their charges are high due to the cost of appointing an inspecting engineer for possibly 2 inspections.
The procedure may vary slightly between different local authorities.
If a contractor untertakes the installation without notifing LABC it will be deemed to be a DIY job unless the householder can demonstate otherwise.