How does everyone feel about the pricing ramifications of part P when it comes into force in Jan 2005 ? I am at a loss to rethink pricing structure when the cost of compliance/self-cert work and mound of increased paperwork will have to be met by someone. What are your opinions please ?

[This message has been edited by aardvark (edited 10-25-2004).]

A couple of us were talking about this last week. Pricing is, of necessity, already pretty keen hereabouts - although it is conceivable that this will be less 'tight' when a few of the bandy-legged cowboys are (hopefully) less enthusiastic about undercutting bigger jobs...

We will most likely price as we do now, but include a separate ITC cost breakdown and additional sheet detailing the why's and wherefore's ( a standard sheet for any job - not a different one for them all ).

Although a clumsy way, it will show the required costs of the work and the additional costs of the red tape as two distinct items, as opposed to just whopping the price up overall to cover it all.

Out of interest, what are you guys doing about the warranty aspect of all this??

Aardvark, What extra paperwork is going to be required? As far as I can see IF you fill in Electrical installation certs and give them to your customer and keep a copy for your own records job done! The only other on cost is the yearly inspection fee as per NICEIC members.I have been an NICEIC member for some 20years and relish the fact that at last everyone should have to carry out testing and fill in the certification at the end of the job. But it should not be charged as an extra.

These are all points that we should have been doing anyway. If we have not been doing it then we have let the customer down in the past.

Most of the costs and red tape should be born by non registered contractors who will if the scheme does work have to pay to get a third party to certify their work. Tsc Tsc. Or am I not understanding the scheme.

I must say that I agree whole-heartedly with Alan's comments.
We've used self-certification here for just on 12 years and while things could be managed better, the system seems to work OK.
The key to having a system like self-certification actually work properly, is to make sure that everyone that should be using it is using it.
Realistically, there isn't that much more paper-work to be done and that that there is can be done in a matter of minutes.
BTW, aadvark, Welcome to ECN!.

Mike, Who administers your schemes?

Are ALL contractors in NZ registered or do they allow certification by a third party?

Alan,
Here in NZ, if you carry out electrical work for payment or reward, you're required to be registered and hold a current practicing licence.
This applies equally for all Electricians, Line Mechanic's, Electrical Service Technicians and Electrical Inspectors.
Apprentices must be under the direct supervision of a registered person, as the case may be.
The Electrical Workers Registration Board or EWRB administers the scheme here, the EWRB being a Government entity.
Third Party Certification is pretty rare here, mainly because of the legal aspects of liability should something go wrong with the installed work.
The majority of people that I know certify all of thier own work, but would never dare certify anybody elses for them.

I issue certificates on completion of a job anyway, so I don't see the need for anything extra on the paperwork in that respect.

As far as self-certification goes, I do not intend to go through all the hoops and expense of registering on one of these schemes. As most of you know, my wiring jobs are just one part of my work, and in recent months I've actually been cutting back on that side and concentrating more on other fields anyway, so there's no way I can justify the costs and trouble involved.

So that leaves inspection by the building control department of the local council.

Allow me to quote something Alan posted a couple of months ago in this thread :


Does anybody yet know how much the local councils are likely to charge for such an inspection? And I still haven't seen a deinitive answer as to who is responsible for requesting said inspection - Person carrying out the work, or homeowner?

Paul, as you already comply by filling in the installation certificate no other paperwork would be required other than an application for third party certification.
I have not seen any figures from councils either, that one will be interesting. It will also be interesting as Mike pointed out who accepts liability in the worst case senario of a job going t~~~ up is it shared between the installer and the certifier?
I like our NZ friends will only be certifying my own work. Anybody else got any thoughtsor comments.
Alan

Thanx for all your replies. Maybe it's just the organisation we're joining but each notifiable job has to be submitted on a web page at cost of £2.50 each, we have to print new contract order forms to include terms & conditions in duplicate for every job over £200. We need to put complaints procedure in place in the form of a register and separate forms to be kept for 12 months. Despite holding 16th edition & 2391 we're having to undergo a part p course. Worked out our additional costs to be £4000.00 and that's not including the extra time spent doing it ! Although in business for 11 years we always shied away from joining ECA/NICEIC due to the prohibitive costs compared to what people are prepared to pay for the work though of course always worked to regs.
I can see the point in principal of course and welcome the fact it'll be more difficult for Joe Bloggs and his magic volt stick to undercut us and electrocute the public but feel that, particularly with the delay in publishing Part P relative to date of implementation, it is one big expensive headache.

I have spoken to a local building control guy I have been involved with a few times. Interestingly he is still relatively in the dark as to what the new regime will entail, and wouldn't be drawn too much on anything

We can be certain that the cost of BC inspections will be fairly substantial. Local councils are now expected to capitalise on PFI work and fill their coffers - quite the opposite to what it was a few years ago of course, where councils were not allowed to profit... Many will already be doing BC inspections for different organisations and charging for their services; electrical inspection will be no different and "will not be cheap". Hmm...

As for liability, as I understand it, the installer is liable in law. It can successfully be argued that an inspection will not show up every fault potential in any one job; obvious ones yes - less obvious ones unlikely without destructive/intrusive examination. It goes without saying that meters, however sophisticated, will not show up everything that may not be as it should, and BC officers are unlikely to demand the lifting of floors to look into JBs - even though they should be accessible IF known about... Unless negligence on the part of the tester can be proved as directly causing a disaster then it will inevitably fall upon the installer...

If you certify the work of others you open a pandora's box of vulnerability - and there will be no riders or caveats allowed. As a council-employed tester you benefit from certain protections; if a house falls down you are unlikely to be directly responsible by declaring it safe, provided you can prove that you fulfilled every required test/inspection/degree of knowledge. That's all well and good if you have the backing of the council and can attend dozens of 'refresher courses' and 'ammendments seminars'! For the independent person no such safety-net exists and you have to hope your Zurich paperwork and devoted reading of articles comes good!!

It's a damnable minefield, and typical of this wretched Administration's ill-thought out and rushed attitude to everything. A quick-fix with immense and possibly insurmountable problems looming...

Further to the above post, I am informed by local BC that; "(They) have no idea what the fees structure or practical arrangements will be; (they) await further instrucion from the ODPM et al. There is general dismay in the department that we have reached this date with a Jan 1st implementation and as little information or direction as seems to be the case. It may well be that the matter is delayed because of the general disorganisation or realisation of the practicalities".

Ho-hum... There we have it!

That sounds about typical!

I think I might e-mail the building dept. of my local council and see what they say......

I did actually send an inquiry to the council asking what arrangements they will be implementing for electrical inspections and how much the fees will be.

I've not received any reply yet, but with the speed our local council works we might have something back from them about February.....

I've actually received a reply to my inquiry in less than a month!

There you have it -- Not very helpful, is it?

I wonder what he means by no changes to existing procedures? At present there are no fees, no applications, no inspections, in fact no anything to do with domestic electrical.

I'll write back and see if I can get some clarification on this.


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 11-27-2004).]

Hell's bells

" Further to your enquiry regarding the proposed changes to the Building Regulations to take into account the requirement to test and inspect non self-certified installations in domestic premises, I can offer the following update:

From 1st January 2005 we will be required to undertake inspections and testing on non self-certified installations in domestic premises, where the work has been undertaken by a person other than a registered competent person.

I hope that this satisfies your enquiry, please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information."

This was in response to an enquiry asking for prices...

I then received this:

" Further to your enquiry regarding the proposed changes to the Building Regulations to take into account the requirement to test and inspect non self-certified installations in domestic premises, I can offer the following update:

From 1st January we are required....etc/// blah blah blah. However we have not yet established a fee structure which will be based upon those currently charged.

I hope...etc."

SO...I then sent this:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed Part P charging scheme. However, as there is no 'current' scheme, I am wondering what you are proposing to base your fees for electrical certification upon? Please could you forward details by email to....

Herewith the response:

" Further to your enquiry regarding the proposed changes to the Building Regulations to take into account the requirement to test and inspect non self-certified installations in domestic premises, I can offer the following update:

In answer to your question, we have no idea what the costs will be, or what they will be based upon, if anything. It is unlikely that we will be in a position to charge other than the standard hourly rate for an inspectors time.

I hope...etc.

What a bluddy waste of effort! Nothing like a standard letter/email to really get my dander up.

I'll put my Ol' Man onto it; he's a local councillor.

It sounds as though this problem is repeated right around the country.

I've received a reply to my second query fairly quickly. (Tail end of messaage included so you can see that they disclaim anything stated in their e-mails! )


Well, if the council doesn't have anything in place with barely more than month to go, maybe they won't complain too much if we don't bother to play along with Deputy Prime Minister's stupid game.



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 11-29-2004).]

Indeed... Like the way they make their disclaimer; "Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Council unless confirmed by a communication signed by a properly authorised officer of the Council".

Ask them to confirm the PP in an email - then ignore it!

This begs the question as to why he wanted to know why YOU wanted to know....

Yeah, if they disclaim anything they tell you in an e-mail, it makes you wonder why they bother to have e-mail facilities at all, doesn't it?

I've been pondering over that as well. It could be a genuine mission to ascertain the views of anyone likely to be involved with the new regs in an attempt to find the best workable procedures. Then again, it could be a ploy to build up a list of anybody considered worthy of scrutiny in the future.

I'm not paranoid you understand, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me....

Guys, stop beating yourselves to death, just do the installation, do the tests and fill in the test cert.Copy for you Copy for the client. Job done. What could be easier.
Its the same as the colour change we moaned and groaned at it. It appeared its been no great sweat has it. We are all now using the new colours as if they were always brown, black,grey and blue neutral. Why do we let these bloody beurocrats wind us up.

I suspect that scenario to be the most likely culprit...

Aland, it's not a problem - except for those not certified and fully competent to do the work (PUK I believe you stated you fall into this category?). This immediately puts them at a disadvantge when tendering for work.
Because they cost us a bluddy fortune, make my working day longer than it need be, and increase my personal costs - or eat at the profit. Such attitude is 'why' we end up getting shafted by bureaucracy!!

(ps - not mad at you - mad at the system )

Correct John. I am not carrying out wiring work 5 or 6 days a week; it is just a part of my work. In fact in recent months I've been cutting back on it as I've been busy with other aspects of work (electronics, software, etc.). To be honest, I'm not sorry -- It's nice to have reduced the amount of attic crawling I have to do!

Looking at the costs that have been quoted for joining one of the approved schemes, it is simply not an option for me, nor I suspect for many other people in a similar position. There is no way I could justify the expense for the expected returns.

It's for similar reasons that I have never joined the NICEIC. 99% of the people I do wiring work for have never even heard of them anyway, so why bother? If I was doing electrical work as my primary occupation and wanted to branch out from mostly residential to commercial or wiring new housing estates, it would be another matter.

So to be "legal" the notification/inspection system is the only viable alternative. What is so typical of this government is the way that with only a month left to go, nobody has the slightest idea how the system will be implemented in many areas or what the costs will be.

There was actually a news item on the radio a couple of days ago announcing the changes and pointing out that much DIY electrical work would be subject to building controls from January. A couple of people have asked me about this, as they'd also just seen similar reports in the newspaper and wanted to know the details. This is the first that most members of the general public have heard about the changes.

The genereal attitude around here is "To h*** with them." Nobody I've spoken to who already does DIY work on their own house has any intention whatsoever of notifying the council about it from next month.

Indeed, and a surprising number of people have told me they will engage who they wish to do their work - "competent"* or not.

* In the qualifying sense of course!

Guys,

Have a look through this topic regarding Part P on the IEE's forum. It's a long thread, but well worth the read:
http://www.iee.org/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=3642&STARTPAGE=1

I notice that the phrases "ill-conceived" and "money-making scam" appear fairly regularly.

*** Update ***

I sent another e-mail over the holidays asking if anything had yet been decided. Here's the reply, received today:


So they've decided upon the fees. At least they've given a flat fee for all electrical work likely to be carried out on domestic premises and are not going to try to profiteer by bumping it up on larger works.

I'm still concerned at the level of the fee though. £60 plus VAT comes to over £70 in total. Nobody around here is going to pay that for minor wiring work.

Paul, please correct me if I am wrong but if you are registered and able to self certify, then you do not have to pay the £60 so is that not giving you a competative edge as well as being within the Law? The fee for registering the contract on the data base is not going to be £60 surely.
The N.I.C.E.I.C are handling this part of the system via an e-mail link dont know what they are charging, will see if I can find out!

Well, I spoke to a 59 year old electrician yesterday. He has come up through the trade since 14 - and has trained more than enough apprentices. He works like a trojan, and his knowledge of electrical subjects is encyclopaedic. I have seen his work - the ort most of us aspire to!

He was in the trade-counter when I called in. I jovially asked him what he was in buying this time, to be met with a steady gaze over his coffee "Nowt - just a crack and a brew"

He completed his last job on the 31st, and has hung up his toolbag for good. His reasons? Not prepared to fork out £X00 to some money-making shark to tell him he's good enough to do the work when he's done it for 45 years with not one single problem, and to have to continue forking out until he retires.

Don't blame him. It's a screaming shame - but a ******* insult as well.

Uk, I can have some sympathy with the guy, I am 62 and have seen many changes in this trade not all for the good either, but I refuse to hang my tools up. We have to move with the times like it or not. Todays world is the world of traceability and being able to prove and verify what you say you did you did if you know what I mean. We have to fill in lots of pieces of paper and pay fees so be it. Jo public wants the job doing right I am afraid he has to pay. We do have to learn you can NOT have the cake and eat it!

Good point Alan. Frankly, it strikes me that the aim (ill-conceived and unenforcable as it will be) is to deter anyone but those registered under one of the approved schemes from carrying out wiring.

I think this will happen quite a lot. O.K., I admit that it's human nature to feel peeved when somebody suddenly tries to restrict something you've been doing for years, but in this case I agree with him.

I'm also concerned at who will be carrying out inspections in some areas. Those with years of electrical knowledge and experience are not going to take kindly to some building inspector who knows little about wiring criticizing their work (no offense meant to inspectors who are no doubt fine in their own areas of expertise).

Aland, I hear what you say. This chap has moved with the times and seen all the same changes as you, I figure this is "the straw and the camel's back" for him.

He has never made a fortune, just sufficient to live life and put his kids thru college. He never had flashy cars or vans that I saw. He was just an honest-to-goodness tradesman - not a "cake and eat it" type at all.

I hear what you say UK and I didnot mean my comment directly at your friend, I am much the same myself. But you must have been in the wholsalers and stood at the counter and listened to some of the chancers being served and the comments made. PUKE.PUKE. I am the first to admit their are some great young craftsmen out their, for my sins I had a spell at assessing at the local college so I do know what is gouing on. But we do have to have change. Good luck to your friend I hope he continues to have some involvement in the trade we do need him.

I've now received a copy of the leaflet the council is sending out in response to requests. Mine lists five of the Norfolk authorities on the front, but has a note on the back "Reproduced by kind permission of the Local Authorities of Wessex." It seems that people in other areas have received a similar leaflet, so presumably this has been passed around the country.

Most of the notes just explain what we already know, but there is one aspect which stands out:
OK, let's stop there a moment. They're saying the certificate will be accepted, but they might come and inspect themselves anyway? Now hold everything. Where does part P or any other section of the Building Regs. state that? As I read it, the owner has an obligation to notify building control. It's then up to the local authority to inspect if they want to.

What they're trying to say here is that somebody must notify building control, carry out the work, then pay to have a registered electrician inspect and test, then pay the council fee on top of that as well!

Of course, this is also completely at odds with the information I've already been given by my local council. Yet more utter confusion and contradictions!

Anyhow, I'll now turn to part of the last e-mail I received:
Well, first of all, maybe I'm becoming too ready to attack anything to do with this whole mess that is part P, but what's with the "work that requires consent" line?

Part P introduces an obligation to notify the local authority of certain electrical work. We do not have to ask permission to carry out such work. Am I just being too sensitive, or are councils assuming they have more powers than they do?

The last part of the above quote and the forms to which it refers seem to show quite clearly that the obligation to notify building control rests with the owner, not the person physically doing thw work. The latter may act as an agent for the former, but that's about it.

I'd already decided the route I'm going to take, and that last item just confirms it.

I shall inform people of the new rules under part P, for it would be remiss of me to do otherwise. I'll make it quite clear that in my opinion the whole scheme is unworkable, largely unenforcable, and a waste of time, but that of course I stand by the quality of my work and have no qualms about it being inspected by anybody.

I shall make it very clear that I am not about to start acting as an informant to local government, and will not be notifying building control of wiring work (unless the person expressly requests me to do so as his agent of course). I shall leave everybody in no doubt that if they don't want to inform building control, that's fine with me.

As somebody over on the IEE forum suggested, we have a new scheme involving no extra cost to the customer, to be known by the acronym C.O.R. -- Carry On Regardless!



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 01-10-2005).]

Paul, I think I get the message, the whole thing is crap, to many people think they can make a good living off the back of the scheme as usual. Stil maintain that if you fill in the certification required by BS 7671 that should be enough.
We are signing to say that as far as we are aware we have complied fully with BS7671 in the design, insatallation and testing of the installation. What else do they need us to do?

Way to go Paul. Excellent post.

What a ghastly mess as usual... It really annoys me that the LA's are so hopeless at interpreting legislation...

Why oh why is there still no publicity out there in the public domain ? Having begged some barely adequate leaflets from the ODPM we now at least have something to show our astonished customers but despite 2 e-mails they have not responded to me.
Where are the TVads & posters in the vein of the pin-striped suited Inland Revenue ads ?
We've had our 1st casualty last week in that our customer simply didn't believe these rules had come into force and knocked us for £250 of her bill !! This was because she didn't believe my husband could not re-energise her pond pump without tracing & correcting other faults on the system !
The installation was a complete nightmare with decades of bodged additions everywhere. daily discoveries of "secret garden" type outbuildings/cupboards full of additional distribution boards threw up endless problems which had to be sorted out. Many sparking catastrophies were made safe but all the customer could see was that jobs A B or C were taking longer than she expected and she wasn't prepared to pay ! Explanations were met with "That's pathetic !" and other such emotive expletives.
Recently read an article in local press which suggests the whole lack of publicity is a deliberate attempt to keep the public in the dark about the Cenelec involvement and thus avoid "federal Europe" tags. That's a lot of consolation. Won't have time to do much more work at this rate as we'll be spending all our time at the small claims court !!

Well, I'm pretty quick to criticize some of the stuff that comes out of the CENELEC pool, and always ready to jump on the EU for its idiotic regulations, but in this case isn't the whole part P fiasco entirely a home-grown one? Or have I missed something in the origin of the scheme?

I'm sure it won't come as a surprise when I tell you that of all the people I've done work for so far this year, not a single one has any intention of notifying the council about the work.