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.

 

[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

 

[Gavin A]

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

if you want to launch a campaign of civil disobedience against something you disagree with, then go right ahead.

Just don't do it by tricking people into joining that civil disobedience campaign by telling them that what you want them to do isn't illegal when it clearly is - that would be a ****s trick, and I'd hoped that you were all better than that.

ps speaking as someone who ran police liason for dozens of raves, and proper direct action protests including one that the state put 12,000 coppers up against (including several long term undercovers), I've no objection to actually taking direct action against a law that's wrong, just against tricking people into doing something that has the potential to see them end up prosecuted if the establishment decided to crack down on those who were causing them grief (which is usually what happens eventually IME).

 

[Gavin A]

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

I linked to the part in the actual building regulations legislation earlier, as well as quoting it directly.

 

[Gavin A]

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

the notification is a requirement of the building regulations that it's stating that the person carrying out the work has a responsibility to comply with.

And what do you think that the phrase 'responsibility to comply' means in terms of a web page offering advice on interpreting legislation?

it means that you're legally responsible for ensuring that all applicable building regulations are complied with, and as with most laws, if you fail to comply then you can face prosecution for that failure.

This is getting a bit tedious now. No matter how this point is argued, the facts wont change, you as the tradesperson are responsible for the notification of building control, as clearly stated in the act, and confirmed by the case law I've already given where people who weren't the building owner have been prosecuted for this.

 

[Geoffsd]

Does this help?

Read the first bit and then scroll down a little way to Local Authority Building Control/

Planning Portal - Electrics

 

[trev]

Lots of uses of the words "You should" and "Your home" etc. Seems pretty clear cut to me, I'd suggest the case notes presented above were more relevant to the installer falsely claiming to be a CPS member and not fulfilling the duties that would be reasonably expected of one.

 

[Gavin A]

Does this help?

Read the first bit and then scroll down a little way to Local Authority Building Control/

Planning Portal - Electrics

If you are carrying out electrical work in your home or garden in England and Wales, you will have to follow new rules in the Building Regulations.

[h=2]Disclaimer[/h]This is an introductory guide and is not a definitive source of legal information.

Not really, it's an introductory guide aimed at the home owner, not at the tradesman involved, therefore it's focussed on the home owner's responsibilities.

 

[Silly Sausage]

It mildly amuses me, that if you pay LABC to certify any work, they can only issue an EICR, not an EIC. see page 10.
Not much difference to 3rd Party Notification then!

 

[Manutd4life]

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

Complies too, not notifys

 

[GLENNSPARK]

if you want to launch a campaign of civil disobedience against something you disagree with, then go right ahead.

Just don't do it by tricking people into joining that civil disobedience campaign by telling them that what you want them to do isn't illegal when it clearly is - that would be a ****s trick, and I'd hoped that you were all better than that.

ps speaking as someone who ran police liason for dozens of raves, and proper direct action protests including one that the state put 12,000 coppers up against (including several long term undercovers), I've no objection to actually taking direct action against a law that's wrong, just against tricking people into doing something that has the potential to see them end up prosecuted if the establishment decided to crack down on those who were causing them grief (which is usually what happens eventually IME).

eh?....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

if you want to launch a campaign of civil disobedience against something you disagree with, then go right ahead.

Just don't do it by tricking people into joining that civil disobedience campaign by telling them that what you want them to do isn't illegal when it clearly is - that would be a ****s trick, and I'd hoped that you were all better than that.

ps speaking as someone who ran police liason for dozens of raves, and proper direct action protests including one that the state put 12,000 coppers up against (including several long term undercovers), I've no objection to actually taking direct action against a law that's wrong, just against tricking people into doing something that has the potential to see them end up prosecuted if the establishment decided to crack down on those who were causing them grief (which is usually what happens eventually IME).

hark at this one....lol....lol..

he chunters on about "civil disobedience".....lol...heard it all now....lol.....