Competent Persons Scheme

[Deleted member 106280]

I'm doing some research into the current processes involved in the Competent Persons Scheme and building regulations in general. I wondered if anyone on here had any significant issues or areas of improvement that they wanted to highlight to hopefully be changed in the future. This could range from the registration process, membership fees/benefits, notification to the Local Authorities, access to data, or anything else.

Thanks

 

[Leesparkykent]

What's the motivation behind the research?

 

[Deleted member 106280]

It's for a course I'm taking in public administration. Just trying to understand current issues and see if there are any simple changes that could be made and put forward to help members, regulators and local authorities.

 

[Leesparkykent]

It's for a course I'm taking in public administration. Just trying to understand current issues and see if there are any simple changes that could be made and put forward to help members, regulators and local authorities.

There are many...many people have also tried putting these forward to no avail. Parliamentlive.tv - http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ab005416-315f-4b57-942f-0b53eebeab1c

 

[Deleted member 106280]

Thanks @Leesparkykent . So most of the issues in that meeting are yet to be addressed?

 

[Midwest]

I believe the Select Committee submitted their report to the Government in May 2014. And the Government are considering their recommendations;

Electricians carrying out riskiest work should be qualified, says Committee - News from Parliament - http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news/report-published-building-regulations/

What has your research revealed?

 

[Leesparkykent]

Thanks @Leesparkykent . So most of the issues in that meeting are yet to be addressed?

Yes nearly 4 years on and nothing has changed.

 

[Deleted member 106280]

@Midwest it’s only in the very early stages at the moment, which is why I would be interested in understanding some of the current issues from electricians or the companies they work for. Currently it seems there are large disconnects between organisations involved, very inefficient administrative methods and ambiguity over liability and audit throughout the system, but I think some views from those ‘on the ground’ would give it a lot more clarity.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

With all the forums that I am or have been a member of, one of the recurring problem that arises, is what to do if a registered person fails to complete work and make notification via their scheme.

The law (Part P) requires notifiable electrical work to be notified in advance, or for a registered person to be engaged who can then notify via their scheme, after the work is completed.
As far as I am aware, the law does not allow for retrospective notification in any other circumstances?
Apparently many Local Authorities will allow retrospective notification or ‘Regularisation’ by means of an EICR.

There are no set fees for notification, individual Local Authorities set the fee according to circumstances.
From what I understand Local Authorities do not employ electrically competent Building Inspectors, so will engage the services of a sub contractor to make inspections. Fees will include this cost.
Some Local Authorities will allow a reduction in the fees, if they accept that the person conducting the work is electrically competent though not a member of a scheme.
Notification after the fact is usually more expensive than notification in advance.

 

[Octopus]

The main problem with most of the Planning Regulations is that they include this statement "may be prosecuted".

As far as I'm aware there have been only 1 or 2 prosecutions for non compliance of Part P

There is nobody "policing" the regs we follow and countless cowboys ignoring them and even more wannabe sparks not abiding with BS7671 - let alone Part P

The schemes do ABSOLUTELY nothing to do anything UNLESS you use their logos without being a member.

Happy New Year.

 

[Midwest]

@Midwest it’s only in the very early stages at the moment, which is why I would be interested in understanding some of the current issues from electricians or the companies they work for. Currently it seems there are large disconnects between organisations involved, very inefficient administrative methods and ambiguity over liability and audit throughout the system, but I think some views from those ‘on the ground’ would give it a lot more clarity.

IMO, a person carrying out any electrical work (in kind or financial benefit) should be qualified, competent and have some form of license or registration to verify this.

There should be public awareness of this requirement, and they should be able to verify this person is so registered.

Any person carrying out a certain level of such electrical work without being so registered or below the required standard, should be disciplined or prosecuted.

​

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The main problem with most of the Planning Regulations is that they include this statement "may be prosecuted".

As far as I'm aware there have been only 1 or 2 prosecutions for non compliance of Part P

There is nobody "policing" the regs we follow and countless cowboys ignoring them and even more wannabe sparks not abiding with BS7671 - let alone Part P

The schemes do ABSOLUTELY nothing to do anything UNLESS you use their logos without being a member.

Happy New Year.

As a rule, Local Authorities do not prosecute for non-compliance with Building Regulations.
They just issue compliance notices and wait for the House holder to comply.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

IMO, a person carrying out any electrical work (in kind or financial benefit) should be qualified, competent and have some form of license or registration to verify this.

There should be public awareness of this requirement, and they should be able to verify this person is so registered.

Any person carrying out a certain level of such electrical work without being so registered or below the required standard, should be disciplined or prosecuted.

​

What has this to do with Part P?

 

[Midwest]

What has this to do with Part P?

What has it not?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Part P is a part of the Building Regulations.
Building Regulations do not care whether a person is qualified, registered or even competent, only that the work complies.

 

[Midwest]

Part P is a part of the Building Regulations.
Building Regulations do not care whether a person is qualified, registered or even competent, only that the work complies.

OP's thread is not about Part P building regulations, it's about Competent Persons Schemes. I was replying to his original question?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

OP's thread is not about Part P building regulations, it's about Competent Persons Schemes. I was replying to his original question?

So are you saying, only licenced or registered electricians should be able to register with a CPS?

 

[Midwest]

So are you saying, only licenced or registered electricians should be able to register with a CPS?

Nope. I was suggesting what Part P was set up to do, isn't working. My opinion of how it might proceed. But if it has failed to achieve its aims in twelve years, with various committees, organisations & governmental agendas, perhaps it's too simplistic.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It does seem a mockery that Part P was supposedly introduced after someone died due to faulty wiring in a kitchen and now doesn’t require electrical work within a kitchen to be notified.
Perhaps the real reason Part P was introduced, was to generate revenue?

 

[Deleted member 106280]

Thanks for all your comments. I'm sure they will be very useful. Do you think a centralised register of all registered electricians, jobs completed and an automated notification system would make the process much better?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Thanks for all your comments. I'm sure they will be very useful. Do you think a centralised register of all registered electricians, jobs completed and an automated notification system would make the process much better?

Not particularly.
At present there is a centralised Planning application process.
You complete the form online, pay the fee, then individual Local Authorities may refuse your application and require information that is not requested by the online form.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Perhaps the real reason Part P was introduced, was to generate revenue?

yeah ,for the scammers .two many fingers in the pot !

 

[Deleted member 106280]

Not particularly.
At present there is a centralised Planning application process.
You complete the form online, pay the fee, then individual Local Authorities may refuse your application and require information that is not requested by the online form.

But what about for the Competent Persons Scheme? How do you see the process you mentioned being improved?

 

[buzzlightyear]

But what about for the Competent Persons Scheme? How do you see the process you mentioned being improved

more like scrap it .
every tom dick & harry going to the big orange house and other places
getting their own gear .and putting in them self's this part p is a joke from the time it was conceived. not one government put it the paper or national TV .

 

[Deleted member 26818]

But what about for the Competent Persons Scheme? How do you see the process you mentioned being improved?

Not sure that the process needs improvement in regards to Competent Person Schemes.
A House holder employs a registered person to do the work, that registered person makes the notification via their scheme, job done.
What needs improving, is what happens when that registered person (for whatever reason) does not make notification.

 

[Midwest]

It does seem a mockery that Part P was supposedly introduced after someone died due to faulty wiring in a kitchen and now doesn’t require electrical work within a kitchen to be notified.
Perhaps the real reason Part P was introduced, was to generate revenue?

Think that's one of those urban myths, Part P introduced because of an MP's daughter was tragically electrocuted.

But, can't argue about the money generation. I don't think it fair that a sole trader has to pay the same fee, as does a company with several electricians. But my thinking is biased.

 

[Midwest]

Thanks for all your comments. I'm sure they will be very useful. Do you think a centralised register of all registered electricians, jobs completed and an automated notification system would make the process much better?

If you've watched that committee vid that Lee posted, you'll see 5 witnesses giving evidence in the first piece. One of those was/is a member here. You'll hear they couldn't agree amongst themselves completely. The Competent Persons web site, you mentioned, in concept seems a could idea. However, getting registered doesn't seem to be that constrictive, there are dozens of other non government similar sites, and it seems, very few members of the public know of its existence.

Which is why I posted my opinion in #11. What is trying to be achieved is 'bringing electrical work in dwellings under building regulations control will reduce the number of deaths, injuries and fires caused by faults in electrical installations. It is expected that nationally Part P will lead to an improvement in the competence of electrical contractors and to an improvement in the overall quality of electrical work'
(citation IET What will be the benefits of Part P?). Not sure its achieved, what it set out to do.

 

[PEG]

...We have been down this road,before

...How about,if you have a scheme sticker on your van,and cannot understand or explain,why your MFT shows a voltage on an "isolated" cable... 3 volunteer members of the public,can pelt you with fruit?

Other than that,this thread will invariably descend in to moon-howling

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

lets face it, you can have all the regulations and schemes in the world, cowboys do not care about the quality or safety of their work, and only care about quick profit. they will as they always have done break the rules and carry on regardless. the only thing that will change this is robust enforcement. and then actual punishment as unless they kill somebody and face a manslaughter wrap. they will be fined and at worse get community service.
people moan about part p and the schemes but that is not the point, the point is as i have mentioned people flouting rules as they know there is no likelihood of being caught or punished, these people will always break the rules. so in some ways the part p and schemes have to some extent weeded out the real bad cowboys as your scam and rogues will not be likely to fork out the money for kit, books and then be assessed to join a scheme. sure a very small minority of people have got in the schemes and shouldnt have been allowed given their skills or work standards. but overall the process has had some benefit. We often discuss the number of fires in cu's etc that was behind the change in AMD 3 it would be interesting to now how many of these were caused by Domestic Installers and actual fully nvq'd and apprentice served electricians, as i have seen far more poor 'qualified' sparks than i have DI's... you cant blame the schemes and their existence coming from the part p changes for a lot of the poor and dangerous work out there. that is down to a lack of enforcement...

 

[Dave OCD]

I think that good competent people who have been properly assessed in their workmanship and knowledge should be able to notify as necessary without scheme membership or a punitive fee. Or at the very least reduce the frequency of 'surveillance visits' to 3 or even 5 yearly with a more thorough assessment and real world cost.