IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: which do you : scheme or building control for part p work
Topic Summary:
Created On: 30 December 2012 09:38 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 31 December 2012 08:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6330
Joined: 04 July 2007

Well I have over 45 years, 40 of them self employed, also have a 2391 and I have no qualms about being assessed once a year!
I'm starting to think that this business of people not wanting to be registered is a reluctance of having a tiny bit of their work inspected once a year?
 31 December 2012 10:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



thesaint

Posts: 43
Joined: 02 June 2008

whjohnson could you tell me what do you do for getting your work approved with B/C!!
daveparry1 its not being inspected of the work done its the cost outlay against amount of part p work and what do others do as to should I !!
 31 December 2012 10:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6330
Joined: 04 July 2007

As I said much earlier it depends on how much notifiable work you do. NICEIC yearly fee approx. £450, BC fees (going by what i've read on this forum) anything up to £180 or more so it doesn't take much working out does it. Add to that the convenience of self-certifying your work, not having to work around visits from a building inspector etc. I see no contest!

Dave.
 31 December 2012 10:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



whjohnson

Posts: 749
Joined: 24 January 2009

Daveparry,
It is one of my principles. I have been 'assessed' all of my life, by parents, teachers, college lecturers, foremen/supervisors/team leaders et al, and I have no objection whatsoever to personal work assessment so long as it doesn't cost me a penny. The fact that Part P would cost me if I registered as a 'competent person' is an anathema to me and shall be avoided.
We all have principles, and rightly or wrongly, that is one of mine.

thesaint, I don't notify any work - it's the client's responsibility and not mine.

It is entirely possible to stay within the law and not have to register nor notify on the client's behalf.

-------------------------
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 31 December 2012 10:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



thesaint

Posts: 43
Joined: 02 June 2008

dave i notify do certs and hand in at one 3rd the cost of 180 squids ,whjohnson i know it's the client's responsibility but how if you want the work do you tell the client for a part p cert it will cost an extra x amount and you need to go through your LABC!!
 01 January 2013 11:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zoro

Posts: 154
Joined: 31 July 2011

Well DCLG have included direct notification to BC in Part P Mk2, during the consultation with LABC, ESC as representative for the public, ECA as the representative for the Contractors, and the Schemes etc; they estimated that 3rd party inspection would cost £80. Which if compliant with BS7671 would include 1st fix.


So the Public still "carry the can" for the work carried out in their homes, without having a clue if it is compliant or safe. If they complain to a Scheme, LABC or Trading Standards, about the standard of installation of Members, Registrants or DIYers, the chances of getting anything done are slim to none.


The two largest Schemes form a Monopoly, to stop any form of competition in the Competence industry, with an announcement that they have agreed to fix a single fee, which will inevitably be UP.


The whole basis of DCLG's Part P Competent Person Schemes is a massive conflict of interest, the Schemes don't provide Competence on the Doorstep, they don't provide an effective Complaints procedure for the public. Accreditation by UKAS does not provide any form of control on the Schemes, they are free to do what they like, they have done and continue to do so.


The additions to the DCLG's Code of Authorisation for Part P Schemes, does not provide protection for the Public, Scheme members or Registrants.

The Schemes are still commercial Regulators without Responsibility.

.
 01 January 2013 12:13 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 7577
Joined: 23 April 2005

Could I just claim that the expressions of "competency on the door step" and variations originate from me.

That is the biggest failing of Part P and general membership of all the various regulating bodies is the customer believes by using a registered company they are guaranteed that a competent person will turn up on the door step. That applies to domestic, commercial and industrial customers and insurance companies who may insist on specifying membership of one of the bodies. The reality is companies will send out cheap non-competent persons who do not know their amp from their elbow. This was clearly and tragically demonstrated in the Emma Shaw case.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 01 January 2013 01:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



normcall

Posts: 8164
Joined: 15 January 2005

Which is why most 'decent' sparks (let's say one/two man bands) have a nice regular band of clients and they don't really care about 3rd party accreditation.
Like these poor souls, most of my work is by whinging customers recommending me to others, always believing I should go through all the various options for nuffink and think I charge far too much.

-------------------------
Norman
 01 January 2013 01:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8891
Joined: 03 October 2005

All that the Emma Shaw incident that happened in 2007 did was highlight the inadequacies with the schemes, IET, every man and his dog in getting their message across without latching on to the fact it was a 'young woman with a child' for purely propaganda purposes, had this been a person who was perhaps socially challenged, an elderly person or even someone of a different race or creed I doubt any of the organisations would have given them the courtesy of one line in their publications.


regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 01 January 2013 08:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zoro

Posts: 154
Joined: 31 July 2011

You have never been so wrong RnR, what message are you talking about now? If anyone uses propaganda for political point scoring it is you.


What is LABC's problem? are they worried that the DCLG Select Committee will ask the question, "What value is a LABC signature" when referencing meeting the building regulations. When they dump the problems straight back onto the householder when there is a problem, just like the Schemes.


Emma Shaw (23) was unlawfully killed by an NICEIC/ESC contractor in 2007 as you said, what action did the ESC/NICEIC take in the four years between 2007 and the Coroner and his juries verdict in December 2011?


All the Part P Schemes are very quiet on this subject, mainly because of the commercial threat it presents to them. UKAS accreditation delivers very little control over the Schemes, a financial penalty for certifying people as Competent that are not would be far more effective in producing Real Competent Persons on the Doorstep (Copyright, John Peckham).


This is all about which organisation owns the Brand Name personally I don't think that it should be owned by any of the Schemes. The register of ALL Part P organisations has been around for years, http://www.competentperson.co.uk nothing had to be done other than a name makeover.


The Minister Don Foster should take one of the two Brand names and register it with an independent legal entity, so any of the Schemes can be fired without having to re market it to the public.


Who wants to donate their new Brand name?

Edited: 01 January 2013 at 11:29 PM by Zoro
 02 January 2013 10:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for tomgunn.
tomgunn

Posts: 3248
Joined: 25 May 2005

Well, as with Norm, I have some 46 years as a sparks and because of the part P regulations I have, to my shame, not yet fitted a dual or 17th edition CCU. I want to but as I am a worrier I prefer to go down the route of less resistance - i.e., ( KISS ), Keep It Simple Stupid - so I have other works to do and give the CCU changes the body swerve as I feel, and until now I wondered how Norm / others managed to get out of part P and charges - haha - now I know!

It would seem , reading between the lines here, that changes are a foot and its seems that we are going backwards to allowing part P peeps inspect and pass your works, unless I have missed something here? The only thing is - thats already happening on a vast scale - especially with the euro rabble. One 'sparks' is registered and that allows all his country fellows to do works and he'll pass it - most likely for a fee of course. Bring on the referendum for if the UK wants to stay within the EU. Then we could see a mass exit of all foreign workers but they'll return and do it on the cheap under the broken radar of the government - haha!


Its not a case of allowing to be checked over once a year - its just the case that everything about part P is flawed - I have been plastering in my neighbours sisters house and I was asked to set two tiles in the bathroom. And when I looked I was shocked, not literally, as at about nipple height, remember the good olde days Norm - when we used to use our nipples as a guidance of how high the light switch would be - hahaha - anyways, when standing in the actual bath - theres a 240v extractor fan churning away and the 'plumber' who lives next door fitted it there and I told this sister about it and said disconnect the bloody thing - so you see part P has failed yet again - always will - like these septic isles - its all a waste of time.

Like everything in this DUMP of a land, mind you I must be careful here now as I am classed, officially, as the minority in London - so I must not cause any waves a???, its soooo simple - it really is so simple! All that needs to be done is to scrap all part P scams - , ( it's the olde chestnut - Problem - Reaction - SOLUTION! Create a PROBLEM i.e., prat P - REACTION - MUST pay a fee - SOLUTION? Fine the barstuards if they don't sign up! ), all electrical persons apply for a 'sparking' card that once obtained should be up-dated say every five years? The card would have a piccy on it - you would have shown what qualifications you have and so you turn up - show you card - do the works - fill out a cert applicable to whats been done and send it off to a central body with a small payment of say £20?

regards...

Tom

-------------------------
Tom .... ( The TERMINATOR ).

handyTRADESMAN ... haha

Castle Builders

Why did Nick Clegg cross the road? Because he said he wouldn't!

I can resist anything..... except temptation! ( Karl Gunn ).
 02 January 2013 11:24 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



normcall

Posts: 8164
Joined: 15 January 2005

I don't expect I'm right, but providing the fan is protected by a RCD and is IP** (fill in as I've only fitted one - 54 I think, I know it was a wall Vent-Axia and very expensive!) it is allowed.
My customers bathroom was actually below ground level, there was already a fan set into hand made wall tiles, so I didn't have a lot of choice.
This, of course, is second only to a well known double glazing firm who built a conservatory in a conservation area, over the only window in the bathroom without planning or building regulation approval (why do we bother??) Customer was surprised when I explained why her bathroom was pouring water from the walls onto the floor. I did offer to stay and mob up whilst the room was in use, but she declined my free offer. I sorted a low voltage one for that problem as again, the only access to outside was over the bath.

-------------------------
Norman
 02 January 2013 12:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Erictrician

Posts: 157
Joined: 04 March 2007

With reference to Mr Peckham's claim that he is responsible for pointing out that being a member of a "scheme" is no guarantee that a competent person will respond I beg to disagree.
At a time when he was still extolling the virtues of the NICEIC and their ill fated London bus advertising campaign I responded on 24/11/07 as follows:
"NAPIT have not made any claims to my knowledge that a competent electrician will respond to your call.
The recent NICEIC London bus advertising campaign indicated that a call to NICEIC registered company ensures that competent electricians will respond. This might be true for a sole trader but the in the majority of NICEIC companies only the QS is assessed to be a competent person. The chances of the "Engineer" responding is remote - you are much more likely to get an "oily rag"

Happy New Year Eric
 02 January 2013 12:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8891
Joined: 03 October 2005

Originally posted by: tomgunn

Well, as with Norm, I have some 46 years as a sparks and because of the part P regulations I have, to my shame, not yet fitted a dual or 17th edition CCU. I want to but as I am a worrier I prefer to go down the route of less resistance - i.e., ( KISS ), Keep It Simple Stupid - so I have other works to do and give the CCU changes the body swerve as I feel, and until now I wondered how Norm / others managed to get out of part P and charges - haha - now I know!

It would seem , reading between the lines here, that changes are a foot and its seems that we are going backwards to allowing part P peeps inspect and pass your works, unless I have missed something here? The only thing is - thats already happening on a vast scale - especially with the euro rabble. One 'sparks' is registered and that allows all his country fellows to do works and he'll pass it - most likely for a fee of course. Bring on the referendum for if the UK wants to stay within the EU. Then we could see a mass exit of all foreign workers but they'll return and do it on the cheap under the broken radar of the government - haha!

Its not a case of allowing to be checked over once a year - its just the case that everything about part P is flawed - I have been plastering in my neighbours sisters house and I was asked to set two tiles in the bathroom. And when I looked I was shocked, not literally, as at about nipple height, remember the good olde days Norm - when we used to use our nipples as a guidance of how high the light switch would be - hahaha - anyways, when standing in the actual bath - theres a 240v extractor fan churning away and the 'plumber' who lives next door fitted it there and I told this sister about it and said disconnect the bloody thing - so you see part P has failed yet again - always will - like these septic isles - its all a waste of time.

Like everything in this DUMP of a land, mind you I must be careful here now as I am classed, officially, as the minority in London - so I must not cause any waves a???, its soooo simple - it really is so simple! All that needs to be done is to scrap all part P scams - , ( it's the olde chestnut - Problem - Reaction - SOLUTION! Create a PROBLEM i.e., prat P - REACTION - MUST pay a fee - SOLUTION? Fine the barstuards if they don't sign up! ), all electrical persons apply for a 'sparking' card that once obtained should be up-dated say every five years? The card would have a piccy on it - you would have shown what qualifications you have and so you turn up - show you card - do the works - fill out a cert applicable to whats been done and send it off to a central body with a small payment of say £20?

From a contractors point of view I think for something as simple as domestic electrics they were grossly over regulated, this edition which still has a library definition of 'working draft'** in my opinion goes a long way to being much more contractor friendly, if you use it right it should have financial benefits for all of you registered or not, with regard to the inspection procedure its not about capturing the thousands of you contractors out there who do a good job every day but capturing the contractors who do the odd bit of electrics in the pursuance of their occupations and the DIYer that outnumber you by around 3 to 1, (basically those that do not have access to or own test equipment and do not have the appropriate knowledge) we live in a culture of house purchase and improvement so on average 3 in 4 do their own building work so this is the area where we need to be vigilant.
As I pointed out this draft is not dissimilar to the pre 2000 edition until every man and your dog got involved with promises of safety, regulation, taking hundreds of people off the street and from schools and training them as domestic installers thereby cutting the unemployment figures and whatever snippets they felt the government would like to hear, luckily this tie has been somewhat severed hence the futile attempt by your organisations in a power struggle to regain control.

**It still has an internal classification of Zone_6_1011898_BR_ADP_Working_Draft and has not yet advanced to recommendation status, this means it may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time, this is not unsual even though it has been published, during the period of its implementation April 2013 and the next publication date of October 2013 this document will continue to be reviewed and updated as required.

With regard to the EU and employment I have to disagree with your sentiments, we live in a global community and the reliance on our partners for trade and employment is an important factor, we cannot go back in time and go it alone because we are not and never have been self sufficient, like other countries outside the global zone our cost of living would double overnight thereby causing much more severe problems than we have at the moment.


regards...

Tom


-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 02 January 2013 12:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11699
Joined: 13 August 2003

built a conservatory in a conservation area, over the only window in the bathroom without planning or building regulation approval

The lack of approval could be legitimate - I'm in a conservation area, but (perhaps unusually) still have permitted development rights, so in certain circumstances a conservatory (e.g. at the rear of a property and within a certain size) might not need explicit planning permission. Building regs (part from part P) used to be waved for conservatories provided the glazing was safety glass. OK so they've broken the real building regs (by trashing the existing ventilation), but not the 'phoney' ones (i.e. the notification paperwork bit which were meant to ensure compliance...)

- Andy.
 02 January 2013 01:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8891
Joined: 03 October 2005

Originally posted by: Zoro

You have never been so wrong RnR, what message are you talking about now? If anyone uses propaganda for political point scoring it is you.

What is LABC's problem? are they worried that the DCLG Select Committee will ask the question, "What value is a LABC signature" when referencing meeting the building regulations. When they dump the problems straight back onto the householder when there is a problem, just like the Schemes.

Emma Shaw (23) was unlawfully killed by an NICEIC/ESC contractor in 2007 as you said, what action did the ESC/NICEIC take in the four years between 2007 and the Coroner and his juries verdict in December 2011?

All the Part P Schemes are very quiet on this subject, mainly because of the commercial threat it presents to them. UKAS accreditation delivers very little control over the Schemes, a financial penalty for certifying people as Competent that are not would be far more effective in producing Real Competent Persons on the Doorstep (Copyright, John Peckham).

This is all about which organisation owns the Brand Name personally I don't think that it should be owned by any of the Schemes. The register of ALL Part P organisations has been around for years, http://www.competentperson.co.uk nothing had to be done other than a name makeover.

The Minister Don Foster should take one of the two Brand names and register it with an independent legal entity, so any of the Schemes can be fired without having to re market it to the public.

Who wants to donate their new Brand name?


You alone have fallen into this propaganda trap by stating that the person was 'unlawfully killed' thereby implying the contractor had 'murderous intent' by not IRing a nail, coroners are themselves political animals and make outrageous statements, criticise us and others for their own agenda, keeping their name in the frame for jobs like, local councilor, MP's or even district or chief coroners by playing to public sympathies via the media, but luckily we have well passed the stage of hanging by public opinion.

The CPS after consulting with our various experts and the HSE (who were only there for advisory purposes as it was a domestic incident) deemed that no criminal act had been breached and there was no criminal intent (i.e. the contractor did not wake up in the morning and say "Right, I am not going to my job properly today and maim or kill someone". It was considered this was a professional negligence issue and referred to Civil determination.

The civil tribunal that looked into the claims of professional negligence examined the evidence and as one professional pointed out how far do you go in these cases, do you apportion blame to the competence of the person who trained the individual and then the competence of the person who trained them or look for the person who first hammered in the nail and question their competence, were they trained in using an aid such as a cable or pipe finder before hammering in the nail, as with many tragic accidents the apportion of blame is a legal nightmare, it is what it is a tragic accident.

At the end of the day the important issue in cases like this is would someone of a similar experience and training have done anything different and in the majority of cases the answer is no, none of you could guarantee you would have found this problem.

You have to remember that the definition of competence that your schemes and various registration bodies use is totally different to the legal term which we use and that is 'an average person with average intelligence that can complete an average task'.

With regards the comments about the NICEIC and QS's and competence this is a matter between them and the contractor/individuals involved, whether they de-register the parties and recommend further training or closely monitor them is up to the organisation involved and not something the government or courts would be involved in.

At the end of the day the poor individual who purportedly caused the tragedy has probably suffered more pain psychologically and maybe even physiologically than any fine or incarceration could have achieved and may do for the rest of their life, so perhaps time to put this to bed


regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 02 January 2013 02:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Paradigm.
Paradigm

Posts: 703
Joined: 10 September 2010

Originally posted by: rocknroll


You alone have fallen into this propaganda trap by stating that the person was 'unlawfully killed' thereby implying the contractor had 'murderous intent'


A verdict of unlawful killing doesn't imply that anyone had "murderous intent", it just means that the killing was done without lawful excuse and in breach of criminal law. Whether this applies to the case mentioned above, I neither know nor care but murderous intent is neither here nor there. (That rhymed, how cool am I)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_killing

Nick

-------------------------
"be careful of what you write"
 02 January 2013 03:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8891
Joined: 03 October 2005

It was not meant to be a reference to the legal term but an opinionated comment, but dont worry the many of us on here who post on controversial issues are very mindful of the the 'expert' googlers waiting in the background ready to pounce on some irrelavent point.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------
 02 January 2013 03:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Paradigm.
Paradigm

Posts: 703
Joined: 10 September 2010

Rocky

Chillax my hard living friend, I was only pointing it out for the benefit of everyone, this is a public forum after all, and as your old hoppo OMS likes to state, its good that the correct information is put out there and whether its irrelevant is just your opinion.

Try not to take things to heart, life is far too short.


Anyway, back into lurk mode, this is far too "controversial" for me and I just can't keep up with the way you guys live on the edge.



Nick

-------------------------
"be careful of what you write"
 02 January 2013 04:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for tomgunn.
tomgunn

Posts: 3248
Joined: 25 May 2005

Originally posted by: Paradigm

Rocky

Try not to take things to heart, life is far too short

Anyway, back into lurk mode, this is far too "controversial" for me and I just can't keep up with the way you guys live on the edge.

Nick



Tom anddddd - relaxxxxxxxx... ahhhh - much better now!

-------------------------
Tom .... ( The TERMINATOR ).

handyTRADESMAN ... haha

Castle Builders

Why did Nick Clegg cross the road? Because he said he wouldn't!

I can resist anything..... except temptation! ( Karl Gunn ).
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.