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??
If hindsight were foresight, we'd all be millionaires!
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141750 10/17/0406:04 PM10/17/0406:04 PM
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.
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141751 10/17/0406:20 PM10/17/0406:20 PM
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!.
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141752 10/17/0407:15 PM10/17/0407:15 PM
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.
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141754 10/18/0406:19 AM10/18/0406:19 AM
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 :
Just found this one on the Voltium web site.
Quote ------------------------------------- "I am a Building Control Surveyor with a District Council. I take great offence personally and professionally at your suggestion that electrical contractors should "Expect long delays!" if they have to get work approved by building control. Most Local Authority Building Control teams are highly professional and are very quick to respond to site inspection requests. Generally, requests made before 10am are guaranteed same day visits. Timed appointments can also normally be made. How many electricians (or suppliers) could manage that!
I don't understand why you are trying to scare electricians into membership of self-certification schemes. Promote them by all means, but for the right reasons, not by using fictional rubbish about a service you clearly have no experience of."
The official stance of the LABC is below:
The LABC has stated that "if someone is intending to carry out electrical work and wishes to use the local authority to certify the work as conforming to Part P of the Building Regulations, then they should submit a Building Notice to the relevant Local Authority Building Control Office and their request to inspect and check the work for compliance will be responded to within 48 hours. There will be a charge for this service which is dependent on the value of the electrical work carried out." ------------------------------------------- Appears to be no need to register with anyone if you care to let the local authority inspect.
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?
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141755 10/18/0402:28 PM10/18/0402:28 PM
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
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141756 10/19/0410:11 AM10/19/0410:11 AM
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.
Re: Plan p & costs to customer#141757 10/20/0407:09 PM10/20/0407:09 PM
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...
If hindsight were foresight, we'd all be millionaires!