Part P

[Guest77]

It is a Building regulation, thats right a Building regulation, not a Electrical qualification. If you read it (you can download it on-line) then you will see that some works, and only some as it is getting less now needs to be notified to the local building control. Now there is nothing to suggest an Electrician need notify the local building control authority, nothing at all anywhere, this is a myth, and a myth we are all getting fed up with. The customer is duty bound to do this just like if they decided to have a loft conversion or indeed a extension on their home. To be competitive some electricians join a scheme so they can notify for the customer on their behalf and the fees are usually a couple of quid instead of the 2-300 the local authority would charge the customer if an Electrician didn't do it for them, this way the customer gets to save some money and the Electrician wins work. The schemes have a policy which they suggest if they get people to join them they will guarentee to the local authority the people they approve are competant, for this privilage they take 400-500 off these people, usually Electricians, but some Plumbers and Kitchen Fitters join as well, The local authority building control then accepts the fact the people on these schemes are competant and do not go out to site to inspect the works, this is why the cost is just an administrative one at a few quid and not hundreds. If you are a competant Electrician for example with a Gold card and plenty of experience why do you need to pay a scheme hundreds of pounds a year to have them tell the Local authority you are competant? If you are Competant then get stuck in and start work. If the work you do does need to be notified then you can ask the customer to do it or include an extra couple of hundred on top of your quote for you to do it. There is no judge in the whole of the UK who will find you guilty of anything wrong doing if you carry out work to BS7671 correctly without being a member of a scheme, we don't need them do we? so why are we paying them 500 a year? I can confirm I no longer pay them, I have left the NICEIC, I am competant, I have over 30 years experience, I will not give them 500 quid to tell someone else I am competant.


Please do not keep going on about being part p qualified, it is all Rollocks, rant over.

 

[amckay]

Your right pal. But just to add to that, approved document p is a legal document which has to be abided by -by law. BS7671 is a regulation and is not law.departures can be made, but if they are made and something goes wrong and you end up in court, a judge will frown upon that.
Just saying.
And thanks for starting the thread, hopefully it will educate some people!

 

[trev]

Well said Mike.
Fight the power!

 

[uksparks]

I'm part p qualified too, I did the part p qualification, lol just kidding.. Nicely put MDJ, regardless I'm sill going to keep the Part P Approved decals on my van as for some reason people like to see it.

 

[Geoffsd]

But just to add to that, approved document p is a legal document which has to be abided by

No, it isn't.

It does contain TWO actual legal quotes, Part P itself and the Notification list (in the shaded boxes) but that's all.

The rest of it is someone's idea of what you should do (maybe correct) for those who can't work it out from the actual law in the shaded boxes.

 

[GMES]

I can add to the Part P fiasco, as most of you know I am industrial/commercial but have been asked by a friend to wire his new extension, so I agreed but explained I was not part p( he had no idea what this is ) I told him that because building control was involved we would have to go through them for signing it off, and there reply was that if I was 17th edition and I could supply a 17th certificate they would be ok with that. so my question is why are you all paying your subs to the parasites??

 

[amckay]

But just to add to that, approved document p is a legal document which has to be abided by

No, it isn't.

It does contain TWO actual legal quotes, Part P itself and the Notification list (in the shaded boxes) but that's all.

The rest of it is someone's idea of what you should do (maybe correct) for those who can't work it out from the actual law in the shaded boxes.

The shaded boxes are legal quotes. The document as a whole requires to be adhered to, if not its illegal. Its a civil matter not criminal (don't mix the two up) the law is complex, I know because I study it as a hobby.
Its a legal document but you have no legal obligation (in writing) to adhere to it, but are lawfully required to adhere to it. (Legal and lawful have two separate meanings)
Ask any solicitor to verify any of the above.

 

[amckay]

so my question is why are you all paying your subs to the parasites??

Labc notification is average £200.
If you do fifty notifications per year that's £10,000 per year.
Scam annual fee £600? + 50 notifications at £2.50 each totals £725 per year.
See where I'm going?

 

[GMES]

I can add to the Part P fiasco, as most of you know I am industrial/commercial but have been asked by a friend to wire his new extension, so I agreed but explained I was not part p( he had no idea what this is ) I told him that because building control was involved we would have to go through them for signing it off, and there reply was that if I was 17th edition and I could supply a 17th certificate they would be ok with that. so my question is why are you all paying your subs to the parasites??

Labc notification is average £200.
If you do fifty notifications per year that's £10,000 per year.
Scam annual fee £600? + 50 notifications at £2.50 each totals £725 per year.
See where I'm going?

Can you see where I'm going, no charge, they are happy for me sign my own cert without part p membership????

 

[amckay]

null

Yeah you can sign a cert but if its notafiable then it has to be notified.
And no one in the world has a part p membership.

 

[Knobhead]

I’d just written one of my anti scam diatribes. Then thought what’s the point!

It’s your collective fault because you let the scams in!

 

[UNG]

I can add to the Part P fiasco, as most of you know I am industrial/commercial but have been asked by a friend to wire his new extension, so I agreed but explained I was not part p( he had no idea what this is ) I told him that because building control was involved we would have to go through them for signing it off, and there reply was that if I was 17th edition and I could supply a 17th certificate they would be ok with that. so my question is why are you all paying your subs to the parasites??

And this is where Part P holds qualified and very experienced electricians to ransom

Yeah you can sign a cert but if its notafiable then it has to be notified.
And no one in the world has a part p membership.

So having produced a certificate for an installation why does it cost £2.50 for a scam member to notify or £300 for a non scam member to notify when the non scam member may be more qualified and experienced to produce the necessary certification for the installation


The industry is being screwed over by Part P ably assisted and bolstered by all those quick trained recruits who know no better who believe the be all and end all is scam membership and Part P

 

[jimmymac]

I don't want to upset anybody but....what is part P?? :smartass2:

 

[UNG]

I don't want to upset anybody but....what is part P?? :smartass2:

A building regulation that applies to domestic installations south of Hadrian's wall

Your lucky up there you don't have crap like this

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Labc notification is average £200.
If you do fifty notifications per year that's £10,000 per year.
Scam annual fee £600? + 50 notifications at £2.50 each totals £725 per year.
See where I'm going?

well heres where i`m going:

I am NIC approved contractor
this allows me to notify work though the NIC scheme.....but hold on a mo...

this does not mean i agree with Part P....or the schemes riding it..

the reason i went NIC approved contractor is that most insurance companies ask for it and councils request it to work in/on their property/s

and before anyone starts on about "well thats just for domestic".....WRONG!!

 

[amckay]

null

I'm not a scam member as I don't hold t+I quals at the mo. But aside from drastically reduced notifications, what do they offer?
-seriously reasonable answers chaps!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

I'm not a scam member as I don't hold t+I quals at the mo. But aside from drastically reduced notifications, what do they offer?
-seriously reasonable answers chaps!

your really struggling here arn`t you...

not with the fact you dont hold any inspection & testing quals....but the fact that you seem to seriously believe that you actually NEED such a qualification...to join one of these rackets...

last time i looked i thought it was all about competency...

this is a concern to me:
the idea (put about by the rackets) that you need to have this ticket & that ticket to operate safely....when in reality its all about whether your competent...or not

mind you the rackets have their own little agenda`s ...dont they....such as NAPIT with its "NAPIT 2391"....a worthless bit of arse paper if ever there was one....

 

[Geoffsd]

The shaded boxes are legal quotes.

That's what I said and there are only two in the whole document.

The document as a whole requires to be adhered to,

No, it doesn't.

Please read the preface and page i.
Note the number of times it says 'guidance'.

It is no more statutory than the On-Site GUIDE.

if not its illegal. Its a civil matter not criminal (don't mix the two up) the law is complex, I know because I study it as a hobby.

You now sound unsure. More studying required?
What is the legal meaning of 'guidance'?

Its a legal document but you have no legal obligation (in writing) to adhere to it, but are lawfully required to adhere to it. (Legal and lawful have two separate meanings)

Wtf does that mean?

Ask any solicitor to verify any of the above.

Why would I believe what they said?


You did say you hoped this thread would educate some people.

 

[Guest77]

I'm not a scam member as I don't hold t+I quals at the mo. But aside from drastically reduced notifications, what do they offer?
-seriously reasonable answers chaps!

Nothing, didn't you read my opening post?

 

[telectrix]

just when you thought life could not get any worse:

 

[Guest77]

This really is going off track now, I might have to ask Marvo to edit it and then close it lol

 

[GMES]

Are they mange tout on the floor to the right of the trap.

 

[GMES]

This really is going off track now, I might have to ask Marvo to edit it and then close it lol

Sorry Mike, so I'm guessing #22 doesn't help

 

[amckay]

I'm not a scam member as I don't hold t+I quals at the mo. But aside from drastically reduced notifications, what do they offer?
-seriously reasonable answers chaps!

your really struggling here arn`t you...

not with the fact you dont hold any inspection & testing quals....but the fact that you seem to seriously believe that you actually NEED such a qualification...to join one of these rackets...

last time i looked i thought it was all about competency...

this is a concern to me:
the idea (put about by the rackets) that you need to have this ticket & that ticket to operate safely....when in reality its all about whether your competent...or not

mind you the rackets have their own little agenda`s ...dont they....such as NAPIT with its "NAPIT 2391"....a worthless bit of arse paper if ever there was one....

I'm not struggling mate I agree with all of the above with 1 exception... I do not seriously believe I have to have a t+I qual to join a scam. I need to do the course so I am knowledgeable (albeit more) to be able to do it as I currently have a lack of experience in that area. I don't want it to use to join a scam, I want it to show an employer when I go for a job...
That as was ment to be and...sorry

 

[chcnorris29]

Would i be right to say that some form of licensing for competent sparks so that only licensed people can carry out electrical work (inc DIY) where there is no yearly fee or notification fees or crap and that electricians must be proved to be competent, licensed without the need for the scams?
Thanks

 

[amckay]

Would i be right to say that some form of licensing for competent sparks so that only licensed people can carry out electrical work (inc DIY) where there is no yearly fee or notification fees or crap and that electricians must be proved to be competent, licensed without the need for the scams?
Thanks

I think that is what a lot of forum members want too. I'm not sure of what kind of system required to implement it tho..
Maybe just stick with jib cards or have a card alongside it with a brand known to the gen public for easy recognition? Either way it needs to be as well advertised as as known as gas safe

 

[Manutd4life]

Would i be right to say that some form of licensing for competent sparks so that only licensed people can carry out electrical work (inc DIY) where there is no yearly fee or notification fees or crap and that electricians must be proved to be competent, licensed without the need for the scams?
Thanks

Scrap Part P and only have qualified sparks doing the work. Or the at the very least, you MUST have 17th edition or the latest one that is out. And then you can do other electrical courses.

 

[telectrix]

wrong way round. nobody should be allowed to take the 17th until after they have got a core qualification.

 

[amckay]

wrong way round. nobody should be allowed to take the 17th until after they have got a core qualification.

I agree with you tel.
I'm sure there was an "Indian" fella on here a while ago calling himself an electrician after passing 17th but asking how to do very basic things!
As stated in other threads 17th as we know is open book so anyone who can read can pass it but it doest teach the technical skills

 

[Gavin A]

I can add to the Part P fiasco, as most of you know I am industrial/commercial but have been asked by a friend to wire his new extension, so I agreed but explained I was not part p( he had no idea what this is ) I told him that because building control was involved we would have to go through them for signing it off, and there reply was that if I was 17th edition and I could supply a 17th certificate they would be ok with that. so my question is why are you all paying your subs to the parasites??

If building control were already involved with the job, then they could be notified of your work at no extra cost.

If you were just doing a straight new circuit in an existing house that requires notification, then how would you have notified building control about this work? Go direct and it'd be a lot more expensive per job than via a CPS.

By my reading of the legislation it's the person carrying out the work that is responsible for the notification, not the person paying to have the work done - ie it's the electrician who is responsible for ensuring the work is notified, with either building control or trading standards able to take action against you if you failed to comply with this.

 

[trev]

If building control were already involved with the job, then they could be notified of your work at no extra cost.

If you were just doing a straight new circuit in an existing house that requires notification, then how would you have notified building control about this work? Go direct and it'd be a lot more expensive per job than via a CPS.

By my reading of the legislation it's the person carrying out the work that is responsible for the notification, not the person paying to have the work done - ie it's the electrician who is responsible for ensuring the work is notified, with either building control or trading standards able to take action against you if you failed to comply with this.

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified. They can do this by either using LABC or a CPS registered person to notify on their behalf.

Where LABC/trading standards get involved (or rather as they don't) it is to take action against poor quality/non compliant work and the person or organisation who carried it out but how many times have you heard of that happening?

The whole point is that a properly qualified and competent person should not have to join a club to be told he or she is competent.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Scrap Part P and only have qualified sparks doing the work. Or the at the very least, you MUST have 17th edition or the latest one that is out. And then you can do other electrical courses.

which effectively amounts to what we have now.

just holding the 17th edition does not maketh an electrician...

 

[Geordie Spark]

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified. They can do this by either using LABC or a CPS registered person to notify on their behalf.

Where LABC/trading standards get involved (or rather as they don't) it is to take action against poor quality/non compliant work and the person or organisation who carried it out but how many times have you heard of that happening?

The whole point is that a properly qualified and competent person should not have to join a club to be told he or she is competent.

The same argument applies to CORGI / Gas Safe too.

 

[Gavin A]

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified. They can do this by either using LABC or a CPS registered person to notify on their behalf.

I'm aware that's how you interpret the act, personally I can't see it and am pretty sure you've got that wrong. If you know of a legal precedent that supports your opinion though then I'll concede the point, if not then it's simply your interpretation of what the phrase 'the person who intends to carry out buildings work' means, and I think you're on very dodgy ground.

12.—(1) This regulation applies to a person who intends to—
(a) carry out building work;

This later point in the explanatory notes for the act makes it pretty clear that this phrase means the actual person doing the actual work, and not the building owner.

EXPLANATORY NOTE
<snip>

Part 5 contains provision about self-certification schemes. Membership of self-certification schemes exempts persons carrying out relevant work from the normal requirements under the
Building Regulations to notify the local authority of an intention to carry out the work.

I don't see how that can be read in any other way than to mean that it's the person who is actually doing the work that's responsible for the building control notifications, as otherwise there would be nothing for this clause to exempt the tradespeople from in the first place.

It's clearly identifying that the members of the competent persons schemes would be the people carrying out the work, and uses the exact same phrase as is used in 12-(1) to describe who the responsibility to notify building control applies to.

The building owner may well also be liable for this, but the act fairly clearly identifies the person carrying out the work as being responsible for the notifications / building control applications.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/pdfs/uksi_20102214_en.pdf

 

[Manutd4life]

which effectively amounts to what we have now.

just holding the 17th edition does not maketh an electrician...

Well maybe I was going on how I got my 16th edition, 4 years college, log books and an AM2. I don't know how easy it is for someone to just do 17th edition with no experience but it should be changed then.

Maybe all have to do an apprenticeship or make it so everyone does the AM2 that doesn't have any experience or is just coming in to the trade. All these short courses should be stopped

 

[dazza1981]

OK lets just clear this ****e up so people understand...... to be " QUALIFIED " you do 3 YEARS {not days} at college and gain your core qualifications preferably whilst working alongside a sparks gaining practical experience !!!!!!!!!!!
NEXT........ do your NVQ3 followed by your AM2 which demonstrates you have carried out a variety of work outlined by city and guilds!!!!!!!!
THEN you apply for your jib card and get graded as an ELECTRICIAN !!!
Now regardless at to whether some of you think the NVQ is a farce and pointless and jib cards are crap this is how it is to be qualified and that is that im afraid like it or not !!!!!
Obviously there are many more qualifications to gain after your NVQ3 is complete but these 4-5 years doing a time served apprenticeship gaining valuable knowledge and experience is the ONLY way to be recognised as a REAL sparky.
Just having a 17th cert = NOT QUALIFIED
PART P BOLOX = NOT QUALIFIED
Just because you did a 5 week course and joined a scheme = NOT QUALIFIED
SIMPLES !!!!!!

 

[trev]

I'm aware that's how you interpret the act, personally I can't see it and am pretty sure you've got that wrong. If you know of a legal precedent that supports your opinion though then I'll concede the point,

There are no legal precedents Gavin, any idea why?
Because no one in a position to do anything about it has the resources or the inclination to do anything about it.

 

[Gavin A]

The whole point is that a properly qualified and competent person should not have to join a club to be told he or she is competent.

you aren't.

you're joining the club to enable you to self certify and notify the work to building control at in the region of 10% of the cost of making an individual building control application for your work.

The act does give local councils dispensation to relax the regulations at their discretion, so some may choose not to apply the regulations / turn a blind eye as long as the work is of a good standard, but that's entirely at their discretion and doesn't set a precedent from one council to another.

I appreciate where you're coming from with this, but your advice could get other electricians in other council areas in trouble, if not from building control or trading standards directly, then through liability for costs incurred if for example, building control insisted on being able to inspect the work on cables buried in the walls / floor / ceiling on an installation that they found hadn't been notified to them. Ok so this is unlikely to happen with quality work, but it is a possibility. If people want to risk it then fair enough, but they should at least know what the risk is, rather than thinking they had no liability for it.

 

[Gavin A]

There are no legal precedents Gavin, any idea why?
Because no one in a position to do anything about it has the resources or the inclination to do anything about it.

so what you were originally saying was wrong then.

You're actually recommending people do this because they're unlikely to get caught, not because there isn't a law that says they should notify building control themselves if they're doing work.

If that's your position then it's a valid opinion, but let's not mislead people into thinking they don't actually have a legal responsibility to do something when they clearly do.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

so what you were originally saying was wrong then.

You're actually recommending people do this because they're unlikely to get caught, not because there isn't a law that says they should notify building control themselves if they're doing work.

If that's your position then it's a valid opinion, but let's not mislead people into thinking they don't actually have a legal responsibility to do something when they clearly do.

and lets not mislead people into thinking that its the duty of the person employed to carry out the work to notify LABC shall we...

OK guys:

definately 2 camps in here....

some seem to cling to part P like its a grail or something....

 

[trev]

If I were to register with a CPS I have to have someone (probably younger and less experienced than me) to visit to tell me that, after nigh on 35 years experience and constant updating of qualifications, I'm on the same level as some former IT bloke/shelf stacker who only holds a bit of paper that proves he can read a book and find things in it.
And you see nothing wrong with that?
It is a well documented fact (unless you're Emma Clancy) that the r£gulatory bodies will allow anyone with a chequebook to join their organisation and wear the "badge of competency" with some degree of pride.
If there was no need to join the discredited club, how many real sparks do you think would do it?

 

[trev]

so what you were originally saying was wrong then.

You're actually recommending people do this because they're unlikely to get caught, not because there isn't a law that says they should notify building control themselves if they're doing work.

If that's your position then it's a valid opinion, but let's not mislead people into thinking they don't actually have a legal responsibility to do something when they clearly do.

No, I'm not wrong. I'm replying to a post and pointing out that there have been few if any prosecutions for non notification of electrical work.
One thing I am an advocate of is a programme of (for want of a much more appropriate phrase) civil disobedience to bring the CPSs down. My views on the subject are well known on here

 

[Geoffsd]

Who is responsible for notifying other building works? Planning permission for example.

The home owner or the builder?

 

[Gavin A]

No, I'm not wrong. I'm replying to a post and pointing out that there have been few if any prosecutions for non notification of electrical work.
One thing I am an advocate of is a programme of (for want of a much more appropriate phrase) civil disobedience to bring the CPSs down. My views on the subject are well known on here

this statement right here is wrong.

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified.

You were claiming that the electrician doing the work has no legal responsibility to ensure building control are notified / building control permission is obtained, which is clearly not the case.

If you want to make a separate argument about the likelihood of being prosecuted, then go right ahead, but let's nail this point about whether or not there is a legal responsibility for the tradesperson to notify building control first, as it's a pretty important distinction.

Here are a few legal precedents for you, which pretty clearly demonstrate that the electrician is responsible for the notifications.

At an earlier hearing, the electrician had pleaded guilty to two other offences of not making a Building Regulations Application to the Council prior to commencement of the work, and not giving the Council the required 48 hours’ notice prior to its commencement.

He was fined £1,000 for the Part P offence and £250 each for the remaining two offences. The other two offences were that Mr Drinkwater failed to give a Building Notice to the Council prior to commencement of the work and he failed to give notice of commencement and completion of certain stages of the work.

Waugh admitted to 23 offences including falsely claiming to be registered with the NICEIC, failing to notify work to Building Control, installing cables under the landing floor in a poor manner, using old wires which are no longer covered by current regulations and not using Residual Circuit Breakers for sockets.

Electrician Fined for Part P breach | Options Skills Ltd
IET Forums - Part P Prosecutions

 

[snowhead]

Who is responsible for notifying other building works? Planning permission for example.

The home owner or the builder?

The responsibility for all Building regs notifications is with the Home owner.
Enforcement action is taken against the home (building) owner.

From the Planning Portal;

Responsibility for compliance

It is important to remember that if you are the
person (e.g. designer, builder, installer) carrying
out building work to which any requirement
of Building Regulations applies you have a
responsibility to ensure that the work complies
with any such requirement. The building
owner may also have a responsibility for
ensuring compliance with Building Regulation
requirements and could be served with an

enforcement notice in cases of non-compliance.

 

[Gavin A]

The responsibility for all Building regs notifications is with the Home owner.
Enforcement action is taken against the home (building) owner.

From the Planning Portal;

if you are the
person (e.g. designer, builder, installer) carrying
out building work to which any requirement
of Building Regulations applies you have a
responsibility to ensure that the work complies
with any such requirement.

have you even read that quote, it clearly says that the person carrying out the work is responsible in the first sentence.

 

[SparkyJoe]

Paragraphs are a bloody brilliant invention, you should give them a try.

It is a Building regulation, thats right a Building regulation, not a Electrical qualification. If you read it (you can download it on-line) then you will see that some works, and only some as it is getting less now needs to be notified to the local building control. Now there is nothing to suggest an Electrician need notify the local building control authority, nothing at all anywhere, this is a myth, and a myth we are all getting fed up with. The customer is duty bound to do this just like if they decided to have a loft conversion or indeed a extension on their home. To be competitive some electricians join a scheme so they can notify for the customer on their behalf and the fees are usually a couple of quid instead of the 2-300 the local authority would charge the customer if an Electrician didn't do it for them, this way the customer gets to save some money and the Electrician wins work. The schemes have a policy which they suggest if they get people to join them they will guarentee to the local authority the people they approve are competant, for this privilage they take 400-500 off these people, usually Electricians, but some Plumbers and Kitchen Fitters join as well, The local authority building control then accepts the fact the people on these schemes are competant and do not go out to site to inspect the works, this is why the cost is just an administrative one at a few quid and not hundreds. If you are a competant Electrician for example with a Gold card and plenty of experience why do you need to pay a scheme hundreds of pounds a year to have them tell the Local authority you are competant? If you are Competant then get stuck in and start work. If the work you do does need to be notified then you can ask the customer to do it or include an extra couple of hundred on top of your quote for you to do it. There is no judge in the whole of the UK who will find you guilty of anything wrong doing if you carry out work to BS7671 correctly without being a member of a scheme, we don't need them do we? so why are we paying them 500 a year? I can confirm I no longer pay them, I have left the NICEIC, I am competant, I have over 30 years experience, I will not give them 500 quid to tell someone else I am competant.


Please do not keep going on about being part p qualified, it is all Rollocks, rant over.

 

[Andy78]

Are they mange tout on the floor to the right of the trap.

They look like the leaves from an olive tree

 

[trev]

Directly lifted from Approved Document P
"Most building works and material changes of use must be notified to a building control body unless one of the following applies-
A ) It is work that will be self certified by a registered competent person or certified by a registered third party"
I've just read through the rest of it and there is nothing in there that suggests to me that the installer has any other obligation than to test and certify the installation and to hand copies of that paperwork to anyone other than the person who ordered the work to be carried out

 

[snowhead]

have you even read that quote, it clearly says that the person carrying out the work is responsible in the first sentence.

It states, Has a Responsibility to comply, doesn't state has a liability or obligation to notify