ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade Non-US Electrical Systems & Trades Part P Get-Out Clause

I'd go as far as to say that any marginal improvement in safety in some areas is quite likely to be offset in other areas as people find out about the new rules and work around them (i.e. ignore them).

Here's what I believe will happen:

* Employed electricians working full-time on major projects, almost certainly NICEIC registered already, and getting good money will be covered by one of the self-certification schemes. Most are already carrying out safe, compliant work, and will continue to do so. There will be no improvement in safety, but there will be an increase in costs to their customers to cover the additional expenses.

* Small outfits are in a tougher position. Do they come up with the high fees to join and maintain certification in one of the approved schemes, or do they go down the notification route? For self-certification, they will (eventually, if not immediately) have to increase their charges to cover the costs, so the customer loses out. For notification, the customer is going to be hit with the building inspection charges and loses again. That's if he even accepts them in the first place.

Non-registered outfits are going to start losing customers once they tell them they'll have to pay fees to the local council. It might well even increase the business going to the one-hammer-and-a-neon-screwdriver "lektrishun" who says "Oh I'll do that for you, half of that price and no council involvement."

The smaller the outfit, the more of a problem this is going to be and the less attractive the option of joining one of the schemes. For a one-man-band such as yours truly who is not working on wiring every day it's not even an option, as the costs would be prohibitive for the amount of work involved. So we can either tell the customer they'll have to pay the council for an inspection (exempt work excluded, of course), or we just carry on and ignore the new rules.

* Mr. Average Homeowner might change a light switch or even add a socket himself, but gets an electrician in for anything bigger. He will still be allowed to carry out his minor works under Part P, so no change there. When he needs larger work doing, what happens? Chances are that he won't even know about the new law at first.

When he does learn of it, he might go with somebody who has become approved under one of the schemes. Will the work be any safer than it would have been if done by the same person before part P? Most probably not, but he'll be paying extra to cover the costs. What about if he goes with somebody who isn't in a scheme? Get the council involved, pay fees, have an inspector visit. Is he going to want all of that?

The relationship between the Mr. Averages and their sparkies will therefore go one of two ways: Either the small outfits will be forced out of business because they will simply be losing work, or the whole thing will move underground, as jobs become cash-in-hand, no questions asked, no invoice, and we forget we ever met.

Mr. Average might just decide to side-step all this nonsense and have a go himself. Maybe he'll get a few books from the library to learn some more, and good luck to him. But isn't there the chance here of the new rules prompting some people to get into projects that are out of their depth? That's not going to improve safety, and as the work will still be unauthorized and uninspected, might makes things worse.

* Finally, we have Mr. Do-Yourself-In who bodges every job he attempts around the house. Half of these probably don't even know about the new law yet either and certainly will not care. Those that do will ignore it and continue to make the most appalling bodge-ups on wiring, just as they do now.

As John said, there might be some improvement where a major renovation or a new build is concerned and building control is already involved. For example, somebody doing a DIY build and installing his own wiring will have it subject to inspection. But any minor improvements in such cases I believe will be offset by the sort of cases I've quoted above.


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 12-30-2004).]

likes of "Bodge-&-Quack" are selling everything neede for a complete rewire to anyone who shows them the money.

Lets not forget
This also applies to our faithfull wholsalers. How many times have you stood at the counter whilst members of the public are waving pound notes at the counter staff and receiving copiouse amounts of advice on what they need to purchase to complete a diy job?

Paul,
You obviously feel quite strongly about the Part P Scheme and I have to acknowledge your misgivings. I know that many one-man bands are seething about the fees rather than the regulatory imposition as such. I do not work in the domestic side of the industry but I do recognise that it is an extremely important area and it is imperative that the operatives engaged there are fully competent. If the householder was simply left to exercise due diligence in the choice of a competent enterprise to carry out his electrical installation work I am sure that cost as always would be the most important factor. The onus is to be on the householder as well as the electrician to notify Building Control. For those wishing to circumvent the Regulations the door is as wide open as ever and may indeed result in shoddy unregulated practice.
BUT, it may be reasonable to acknowledge that the vast majority of householders and indeed electrical firms will attempt to stay within the law.Thus, because there has been, to some degree, an evaluation of competence (if not least confirmation of current Public Liability Insurance) an improvement should be the consequence. It may be that Building control Officers will also have a keener, more critical eye for electrical work undertaken as part of a standard, composite application and subsequent inspection regime.
Any way, Part P is with us (you) and I wish you all the best with it. I do hope that it strengthens the reputation of the industry rather than weakens it but most of all I hope it makes you money, loads of it!!

[This message has been edited by lyledunn (edited 12-31-2004).]

The issue of cost and effectiveness (or lack of) is a big one.

If I seem rather "down" on the idea of the local council becoming involved, it's in no small part due to the fact that my local district council are, to put it mildy, not held in high regard around here. In fact, it's pretty near impossible to find anyone who has a good word to say about them. I could quote many examples, but this would soon turn into an off-topic rant.

Well, I always used to believe it was the owner who was responsible, but I think you may have a point. I've seen various references to electricians having to notify building control themselves, but it's hard to get reliable information from many sources. Just look at how many sources (often promoting the approved schemes) are putting out the false information that compliance with BS7671 will become mandatory.

The current Building Regulations (2000) can be seen here:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002531.htm

Part 12 includes the following:
So what is a "person who intends to carry out building work" exactly? The person actually, physically doing the work or the person who commissions that work?

By the way, the S.I. which actually adds Part P to the Building Regs. can be seen here:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043210.htm

Electrical firms maybe. Householders? Not with the attitudes toward the local council around here.

There's quite a lot of renovation work going on around my little settlement at the moment. If it involves major rebuilds, extensions needing planning consent, then yes, people will go through the official channels. If it's all basically internal work, they just keep quiet and get on with it.

In practical terms, part P in these cases will be just another section of the building regs. to be ignored along with all the others.

Paul,
Householder and electrician would both be both regarded as persons who intend to carry out work. Precedent was set in Gwent Borough Council v Khan (1993). The High Court found that an owner of a building who orders work to be carried out comes under the definition "person carrying out or intending to carry out building works".
I agree with your other points and generally accept that notification for pure electrical work may not occur as regularly as the authorities might hope and indeed some negative consequence may exist. However, for the first time a refurbishment for example, which is notified as building works will see scrutiny of the electrical installation within an authoratative frame. Certificates will be required, and yes I do know that these can be fabricated, but at least it will emphasise the need to inspect and test new work.
I am convinced that Part P will have a positive impact in due course. We are required to notify BC on say a new wet heating system in domestic premises. Few do when that is all the work that occurs, but I can tell you that when an application is received as part of a composite package, BC are scrupulous in ensuring that the obligatory controls are properly installed. That can only be a good thing!

There has been some very good discussion laid down here because of Part P.
And also comments from people that care about the future of thier Industry.
However, I have always maintained the idea that a system that is Independent, from any Government (be it Central or otherwise) control, is the best.
[soapbox]
This is what we are trying to get over here in New Zealand, to have the Electrical Workers Registration Board actually run by those in the Trade and out of Government hands.
Until that happens, we are just waiting for a big stick to hit us, should we do anything wrong.
The biggest problem is, our idea of wrong differs from thier idea.
Unfortunately, the EWRB is run by a bunch of people that have never worked with Electricity in thier lives!.
Eg: Bureaucracy.
I'd like my peers to decide, if I am out of line or not, not some over-paid EWRB commitee.
As none of them have a clue about HV work for a start!.
[/soapbox]

{Sorry about the thread-jack Paul!}

{Message edited to add last line}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 01-02-2005).]

Lyle, I hereby nominate that as the first contender for understatement-of-the-year!

Well yet again it seems we are to be monitored by Beauracrats with little or no knowledge of the industry they are overseeing, correction getting are rake off from. The sole aim of notification to the BCO seems to be to produce yet another piece of paper which has no liability for them, gives no added protection to the person ordering the work and ultimately leaves responsibilty squarely with the person testing and certifying the work, be they the installer or third party inspector.
So tell me what has really changed, except additional costs, more inconvenience and a government feeling good about itself

Hi Dave, and welcome to ECN.

I'd say that about sums it up. But then that's about the sum total of everything this lot has done, isn't it?

Hi Paul,
I certainly wouldn't disagree with that.