- Reaction score
- 7,758
It beggers to believe that peaple having work done on the property and check before the horse has bolted.
Discuss Part P sign off problem in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Yep I agree with that, so in my eyes the only mr meaner that has been committed is the rewire not being notified to BC
Here's some, (Free and without liabilty)...don't bother, pay the £150 and save yourself some griefStep 1; get off here and get legal advise.
now the dispute is settled and the other electrician has sighed off the work ,so this how it stands the NICEIC will not let any spark with them sign off other peoples work ,NAPIT will only do third party testing .so for insurances goes if and if your house catches fire then you will need to argue with the body the spark is with. just add theirHe coughed up the court fee and £150 towards paying another sparky to sign off the job properly for BC
Agreed. Hence I took the sparky to court for the breach of our contract in which he led us to believe he was competent and registered and could sign off the work.I may be wrong, I'm a common spark not some legal eagle
Building regs only requires (of the householder) a set standard is met
The householder can pass on the responsibility by engaging someone who can self certify
If the tradesman is not registered it remains the responsibility of the householder ( householder should check any registration for who he engages)
It would appear the only contention would be breaking the terms of a written contract between the householder and the tradesman
The BC matter to remain the householders problem
Sorry for your confusionAgreed. Hence I took the sparky to court for the breach of our contract in which he led us to believe he was competent and registered and could sign off the work.
No problem or confusion, Merry Xmas.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
Hi.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.
Thank goodness for that, in my case the LABC got in first, and the firm folded before I could take them to court.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.
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
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).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.
Reply to Part P sign off problem in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
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.