Part P investigation.

[BlueToBits]

I thought I would share this with anyone interested.

About 3 months ago I recieved a phone call from our local trading standards.
They had been contacted by a householder who was having a central heating system installed. The plumber informed her that her water supply was not correctly earthed. She told him that she had been fully rewired only a few months earlier and, after showing the certificate to the plumber he advised her to take it to Trading Standards as he incorrectly assumed that because it was written on a photocopied form it was not a legitimate certificate.

Trading standards asked me to do a PIR on the installation. There was a few defects and although the test results I recorded were very different from those on the certification they were all OK. I noticed that the water main had recently been changed. The old stop-cock was still there with a new bonding cable correctly attached to a cut pipe. It had not been moved with the pipework to the new main, hardly the fault of the electrician who did the rewire, but a code 1 defect nevertheless. I submitted the PIR as requested and heard nothing again until yesterday.

Trading standards have requested that we carry out remedial repairs on behalf of the client and it now transpires that the electrician had not notified building control of the work he carried out under Part P.

Had the water main not been upgraded the plumber would not mentioned anything to the householder and this would likely have never come to light. Apart from a few other minor defects (unmarked switch wires etc.), the quality of the installation workmanship wasn't that bad.

Because the client has a legitimate complaint and the law has been broken, building control and trading standards are obliged to investigate. The customer is now faced with a £350 bill for building control on top of my bill for carrying out remedial works. I'm pretty sure the client will be seeking re-imbursement from the electrician who is now also facing possible prosecution.
All because someone else failed to re-connect the water earth bond.

 

[pushrod]

Interesting read. Am i right in thinking that he did an ok job and somebody/water company then connected a new water supply and didn't change the bonding over and didn't flag up that it needed changing? Surely they are culpable and yet they seem to be not in the frame at all! They left the installation in the unsafe condition.
Am i also right in thinking that if you are not using a registered part p spark that the onus falls on the home owner to inform the LABC. I wonder if the original spark informed them he was not part P , tbh it should have been fairly obvious from the fact that it sounds like he has just used BS7671 form. It depends on what was said between the spark and the homeowner. It could well be that it is the home owner is the one who is cutting corners.

Also i tend to think that if i were the plumber i would have just moved the protective bond over when it was so obvious what had happened, rather than trying to get someone else in trouble.

Or am i just being biased towards the spark ??

edit : or was the spark using photocopied forms from a part p organisation of which he was not a member then of course my views are totally different.

 

[BlueToBits]

Yes, The job was basically ok other than a few minor defects and the fact that it was not compliant with part P
Yes, Who ever changed the water supply, didn't move the bond over. This is a seperate issue and the electrician is not being blamed for this.
Yes, (AFAIK) It is the installer who is required to comply with Part P. As I understand it, the housholder has chosen to take on this herself as she does not want an illegal installation and want's peace of mind. I'm pretty sure Trading standards will help her to claim this back from the installer if she has not already done so.
The plumber would also be in breach of Part P if he altered the earth system without raising certification and notification.
The client trusted the electrician to comply with all regulations. She was led to believe she would get a full professional job.
I don't feel sorry for the spark, after all, he has committed an offence. I would be livid if the client was my mother.
Edit: The certificates were proper and legitimate in that they were not photocopies of an NIC, ECA or Napit form

 

[grantr37]

so a plumber is a jobsworth and wants to have a go at a sparky(usual grudge which I cant understand) the building control would shaft anybody who didnt pay up to their demands or comply with their sometimes flawed way of doing things, or even if they just felt like it, I wonder if the building controls people are well trained, probably most of them dont have a clue and just transferred from the council estates office..
Basically either you join up to the different registered schemes and pay them silly money every year and bow to them, then you pay the building control more money and bow to them as well or you will end up walking funny...

I wonder if the sparky had registered everything up part P and paid out to the building control, would the trading standards (also Council, as usual) have done the same......I think they would have done the same...they would have probably demanded that another Electricians company do a new PIR, then carry out "repairs" and the sparky would have still got the bill, as well as complaints to the scheme provider from the council trading standards that would undoubtably led to him being classed as negligent and struck off, the council would still have pursued a prosecution for gross negligence for "leaving the primary water supply to the premises in an unsafe condition and putting the residents and others at risk to their safety" and when the prosecution examined about the water supply bond (nothing to do with the Electrician in this case) he would have just shrugged and then been hit with a large fine as well as losing his right to trade...



so if the plumber puts in a gas pipe for the boiler, and joe blogs comes along and hits it with a hammer when putting in some shelves next to it, then the Tiler doing the floor notices a dent in it and says "I would go to trading standards" most customers would do so thinking of either a free repair or compensation.....even if they done the damage themselves...they wont admit it was them as they would be worried about looking daft...and the plumber would get done for fitting a bent pipe on a Gas supply, get struck off of the Gas Safe register and hit with fines and legal expenses...


The Electrician should have been offered the chance to put it right (provide satisfactory remedy) even though it was not his fault if he was going to have to take the blame in the end due to impatient "legal professionals" then do another test himself or get in another company of his choice to do a test and pay the test fee himself, then contact the water board with the assistance of the building control/trading standards to claim back at least a proportion of reasonable costs incurred.... but what happened instead was that the trading and the control both turned on the little guy, now his reputation is going to be ruined, he is basically going to lose his job and be hit with any amount of possible fines and penalties... as usual the big guys beat on the little guys...

If you or I were to do some work, and somebody else comes in afterwards and alters/modifies or damages that installation, then it seems that it is on US and we will take the blame.

I for one will be taking digital photos of jobs done for my records from now on to keep with the paperwork, in case somebody else breaks something and the finger of blame gets pointed...



This could happen to any one of us and we wouldnt be able to defend ourselves from taking the hit for somebody elses mess...

 

[telectrix]

just put into words, very eloquently, what i was thinking. maybe this is where professionalm indemnity insurance should come in. get the insurers big gun lawyers on your side.

 

[BluSparx]

I always take photographs of my finished work - and have in my T&C's that any modification to ANY work completed by blu sparx voids the 12mnth warranty I provide as standard on parts & labour.

Customers sometimes ask "why i am taking pics" and my answer is I am required to for assesment purposes. normally keeps them quiet

 

[grantr37]

and at the end of the day if any of us do a job and it could quite legitimately be referred to as "Perfect" by many others, there are always tradesman who will be willing to give an opinion otherwise, if it will bring extra work for them to "put it right" just my 2 cents but you just have to be honest and think, especially with the economy the way it is now ...... how many other tradesmen out there would shaft me at the drop of a hat to get themselves some extra work?.... be honest with yourself probably at least 20% of them would....you really have to look over your shoulder on a regular basis these days...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I'm not sure that the panic button is entirely justified on this...despite grantr37's excellent post my thinking is that if the rewire had been properly tested and certified AND registered with LABC the installer is covered.This has only gone ---- up because the original installer cut corners with the paperwork. Do it right and you wont get caught out even if some bod cock's it up after you've finished. A proper certificate registerd through the proper channels is all the proof required to show that the bonding was in place at the time of the install.

 

[BlueToBits]

Grant.
I agree with everything you say and here's the but...
The issue is the fact that the electrician is not part P and he led his customer to believe that all his work would be 100% compliant. The earth bond is undisputably not his error, but it was the catalyst that revealed the installation was illegal. We may not like part P, and FWIW I don't either, but it is the law.
The plumber actions were fair enough. If you noticed that the gas connection to a boiler was loose, would you fix it?

 

[brizospark]

It's the amount of paperwork, health and safety legislations that are crippling this country's trade and industry. We are becoming far too Americanised

 

[brizospark]

The way I see it, the guy has went in done a decent job and bonding was fine when he left the job. What the hell has it got to do with him?

 

[ukpablo]

This comment may upset some people on here, but i pay to be registered, so u do the crime, u do the time in my eyes.....................some people can drive cars, but if they have no liscence then they are breaking the law. The homeowner prob does not know all the ins and outs so could plead ignorance, they look to us to be straight up and professional and promote the trade we are in!
so if the spark (who may have done a tidy job) gets the book thrown at him then so be it................and hope that it be a lesson learnt! Otherwise why do we all bother being legite and trying to earn an honest living!
Its unfortunately people like him or her in that case that makes a mochary out of the registration process!

 

[grantr37]

no Bluetobits ,thats not the issue, dont try to say that I said the plumber should fix the earth because I never said that... what I would do if I seen what was obviously a fault or damage in answer to your question is I would have asked for the plumbers number, went outside and phoned him on the mobile to "ask him about something about plumbing" and told him about it so that he could come in right away, before that I would have asked the lady where the gas shut off tap was and asked her if it was ok if I turned it off while I work beside it just incase of an accidental spark or something to be on the safer side of safe, and then the plumber could turn up and make a free repair to it citing "needed to change that bit of pipe out anyway, product recall so thats it ok now, and I'll just do one final check to make sure everythings A-OK" then everybody is happy.....I wouldnt just turn round and throw him to trading standards, and although it may have cost him an hour or two and a piece of pipe to replace the bent/dented one, he would probably be grateful for the grief that he had been saved from...
Of course if the Plumber didn't want to play ball and tried to blame me for it, I would just keep my photograph taken before I had brought my tools in and done any work in my support, if I didn't then there is a good chance that the householder would turn around and say "well that was OK before the Electrician came along" instead of "My Friend hit it with a hammer last week"

 

[tonys]

Whats the worse out come, the Electrician gets a very small fine, but only if Building Control choose to pursue the issue and they will only pursue on the advice given by their legal team and they will more than likely weigh it up as a waste of public money.

Lets put this into perspective, Electricians/companies certified their work before Part P reared its ugly head.

Fair play to any qualified Electrician who sticks their fingers up to this Part P money grabbing scheme.

Join the NICEIC Fullscope Approved Contractor Scheme and you get automatic entry to Part P lol

 

[ian.settle1]

Whats the worse out come, the Electrician gets a very small fine, but only if Building Control choose to pursue the issue and they will only pursue on the advice given by their legal team and they will more than likely weigh it up as a waste of public money.

Lets put this into perspective, Electricians/companies certified their work before Part P reared its ugly head.

Fair play to any qualified Electrician who sticks their fingers up to this Part P money grabbing scheme.

Join the NICEIC Fullscope Approved Contractor Scheme and you get automatic entry to Part P lol

And the way councils have got to find savings any prosecutions like take a back burner I think.

 

[tonys]

And the way councils have got to find savings any prosecutions like take a back burner I think.

Exactly mate, the only people concerned with others working outside the remit of Part P is its members lol and I only laugh because its so true and the truth can be a bugger at times.

 

[BlueToBits]

Exactly mate, the only people concerned with others working outside the remit of Part P is its members lol and I only laugh because its so true and the truth can be a bugger at times.

It appears that the customer, Trading Standards and Building Control are also somewhat concerned, not to mention the electrician in question. TV consumer programs love this type of content because it makes for good viewing figures, so someone out there must be interested.

The truth is, like it or not, Part P is the law in England and Wales, and failure to comply with it is a criminal offence.

The general public don't understand electrical regulations. They rely on, and pay for electricians to do this for them.

 

[pushrod]

Yet to see a definitive answer from someone on this thread as to who is ultimately responsible for notifying the LABC when a non part P contractor is employed. I thought it was the homeowner, Bluetobits thought it was the contractor. In this case it could be that the electrician has told the owner that they will leave the installation in a safe, compliant state ie the test results , but that it was down to the owner to notify the LABC.. The spark has not used part p certs, just bs7671 ones.

I think there are responsibilities on all of us to understand the law, including the owner in this case. Did they not expect some correspondence from the LABC, or was it not a surprise that they didn't receive any? We do not know for sure exactly what has happened in this case, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the spark was under the impression that the owner was going to inform LABC. Maybe the owner has not bothered to do what they should have done and are now trying to get out of it by blaming the spark. If the electrician was a complete cowboy would they have bothered with any certs?

 

[SMB]

If you noticed that the gas connection to a boiler was loose, would you fix it?

No, but im fairly confident that I would give him / her a phone call.

 

[BlueToBits]

Yet to see a definitive answer from someone on this thread as to who is ultimately responsible for notifying the LABC when a non part P contractor is employed....

It is the installer's responsibility to notify LABC, be it the householder as a DIY job, or a contractor.
If the installer is registered under an approved scheme (NIC, NAPIT etc) the notification must be made within 30 days of completing the job.
If the installer is NOT registered under a scheme, an application must be made to LABC BEFORE work commences. Work may proceed when the application is approved. The LABC will inspect the job on completion and issue certification. They may also want to inspect at an interim point, say after first fix before approving the 2nd fix. Their charges are high due to the cost of appointing an inspecting engineer for possibly 2 inspections.
The procedure may vary slightly between different local authorities.
If a contractor untertakes the installation without notifing LABC it will be deemed to be a DIY job unless the householder can demonstate otherwise.

 

[tonys]

The truth is, like it or not, Part P is the law in England and Wales, and failure to comply with it is a criminal offence

There are lots of laws created by Parliament to which people prefer just to ignore. When you see your TAXES paying for ex MP's Husbands to watch **** and others to pay cleaners and buy biscuits etc, do you really blame people for not subscribing to these schemes ? I don't give a monkeys, I'm just going about minding my own business and looking after my own affairs.

I'm a QS, so have no problems writing out and issuing certificates with a NICEIC Approved logo, so have no need to worry about anything. But for others to get involved helping trading standards/building control or who-ever to try and help nail an Electrician who took their chances to earn a living and done a proper job, well in my book are wronguns and would not be welcome on a job with or near me.

Live and let live is my moto especially when the banks/elite and the scheme FREELOADERS are ripping the **** out of us.

 

[SMB]

Anger.

 

[ukpablo]

tony, i hate the rules and regs the same as everybody else, however thay are put in place to produce a standard across the board, we are not talking about taxes, nailing a specific sparkie etc etc, we are talking about somebody breaking the law!
This is fact and if it was not then anybody who can pick up a screwdriver would be doing our job.
Yes its a rip off all this part P!
Yes its aload of bull too!
but thats the law and the rules, so break them at ur own peril because if somebody gets killed by something u have done and u cannot justify it etc, then u will be doing bird and being not registered will be the ammunition they will be looking for from the off!

 

[tonys]

so break them at ur own peril because if somebody gets killed by something u have done and u cannot justify it etc, then u will be doing bird and being not registered will be the ammunition they will be looking for from the off!

Is the above aimed at me, or you just generalizing ? I think the latter.

Breaking the law by not registering electrical work with building control as nothing to with the standard of work carried out. Two totally different issues whether or not your registered with a scheme provider. Carrying out bad unsafe work would come under a different charge in the courts.

Building Control are fully aware that a 17th Edition 2391 Electrician does not have to be registered with a Part P scheme provider to be competent to carry out electrical work and certify it. That is the reason they will/prepared to accept Certificates from people like me with out belonging to any Part P scheme provider. (even though I'm a QS and can do a cert anyway)

The only law being broken is failing to notify building control and even Part P members can fail to do this.

 

[ukpablo]

tonys, im not aiming it at u mate, just generalising. what u say is true to some extent. i dont get into slanging matches on here, i just make comment on a thread with an opinion.
whether it be my opinion or fact, so i hope the spark does not get in any trouble, however im sure it will put the frighteners on him for future jobs regarding notification.

Happy sparking to all!

 

[tonys]

Pablo

Thought you was generalizing mate and I hope the spark don't get into bother either.

 

[BlueToBits]

There are lots of laws created by Parliament to which people prefer just to ignore. When you see your TAXES paying for ex MP's Husbands to watch **** and others to pay cleaners and buy biscuits etc, do you really blame people for not subscribing to these schemes ? I don't give a monkeys, I'm just going about minding my own business and looking after my own affairs.

I'm a QS, so have no problems writing out and issuing certificates with a NICEIC Approved logo, so have no need to worry about anything. But for others to get involved helping trading standards/building control or who-ever to try and help nail an Electrician who took their chances to earn a living and done a proper job, well in my book are wronguns and would not be welcome on a job with or near me.

Live and let live is my moto especially when the banks/elite and the scheme FREELOADERS are ripping the **** out of us.

Are you saying that you pay £££s for NICEIC approval, to be 100% legit, and you are happy that other 'free-loading' electricians should be left alone and allowed to break the law because they are 'only trying to make a living' and if it's OK for MPs to cheat their expenses, it's open season for electricians to break the law because you think it's a bit crappy?

A taxi driver may appear be the best driver in the country and is credentials look fine to you. Is it OK with you if he does not actually hold a driving licence? Would you give him £2000 up front in taxi fares to drive you and your family around for the next 40 years knowing that if there was an accident, you may not have any recourse? After all, he's only trying to make a living...

Do you think that the customer should have taken the same attitude and 'put up and shut up'?

 

[tonys]

NICEIC Approved Contractors get automatic part p status, so its costs them nothing. I have access to certs because I'm a QS of a friends company, so I can issue certs for nothing, but that's neither here nor there.

Its a fact that Qualified Electricians, do not need to register with a part p scheme to carry out work in domestic dwellings.

An unregistered part p but competent Electrician is allowed to carry out Electrical Work in a Domestic Dwelling! Not Against the Law.

The Taxi driver who does not hold a driving not be driving a motor vehicle full stop. Against the Law.

So your comparison is way off, therefore the two are not comparable imo.

 

[BlueToBits]

NICEIC Approved Contractors get automatic part p status, so its costs them nothing. I have access to certs because I'm a QS of a friends company, so I can issue certs for nothing, but that's neither here nor there.
.

Not quite. It still costs to notify as required by part P

Its a fact that Qualified Electricians, do not need to register with a part p scheme to carry out work in domestic dwellings.

Agreed. Anyone can do electrical work in a domestic dwelling.

An unregistered part p but competent Electrician is allowed to carry out Electrical Work in a Domestic Dwelling! Not Against the Law.

Agreed as above. Anyone can work in a domestic dwelling, but it's against the law for the installer to fail to notify LABC under part P. The approved contractor does it on completeion through their scheme, the non-approved contractor does it in advance direct to their building control department.

The Taxi driver who does not hold a driving not be driving a motor vehicle full stop. Against the Law.

The same as an electrician who does not notify LABC under part P full stop. Against the law.

So your comparison is way off, therefore the two are not comparable imo.

I disagree. Both are breaking the law because neither carries the correct documentation. The taxi driver has no licence from DVLC to drive, the contractor has no licence from LABC to carry out electrical work.
Don't take my word for it. Phone your LABC tomorrow morning, or check out this:
http://niceic.com/Uploads/File1247.pdf
where is says quite clearly:

....To comply with the law you must notify your local building control office before you begin any work and pay the appropriate fee for them to inspect the work.

 

[pushrod]

check out this:
http://niceic.com/Uploads/File1247.pdf
where is says quite clearly:

Hmmm if you look at your link you will see that the flow chart on page 3 which is quite clearly aimed at the customer says
"Make sure you inform your local building control office before you start any work "

My point right at the start of this thread !!!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is the person ordering the work who is responsible for notification of any work that requires notification under Building Regulations.
With Part P, as we all should know by now, this can be done by pre-notification, or by employing an electrician who is a member of a self certification scheme.
Building control would only be interested in ensuring that the work complies with the requirements for Part P, not with chasing or investigating the original electrician.
It is obvious that Trading Standards have been involved, although in what capacity is not indicated by the OP.
It could be that the customer has complained that the original electrician stated that they were Part P, or it might be that they are concerned about the quality of work.
In any event, Trading Standards have asked the OP to inspect the installation.
The OP has indicated that the work was not particuarly bad, apparently the readings the OP took differed from those on the EIC. However we do not know what those readings were, and whether the values on the EIC were measured, calculated, adjusted for temperature or perhaps obtained through enquiry.
Trading Standards have then asked the OP to rectify the defects noted in the PIR, again we don't know whether the defects were in the work covered by the EIC, or perhaps defects in the original installation.
It appears that Building Control have accepted a retrospective notification, whether they have accepted the EIC, or the PIR, or perhaps a combination of both we don't know.
I am suprised that Trading Standards asked the OP to rectify the faults, perhaps the original electrician refused for whatever reason, or perhaps they were deemed not be their responsibillity.
Unless Trading Standards can produce evidence that the original electrician was passing themselves off as Part P registered, when they were not. Or that they are Part P registered and failed to notify. There doesn't appear much for them to do.

 

[pushrod]

Good post Spin - a sensible summary. I must admit it has always been my understanding that the customer, not the contractor (if non part p), who was resposible for notification to the labc.

 

[tonys]

Not quite. It still costs to notify as required by part P The joining fee is FREE for approved contractor, don't twist it.


Agreed. Anyone can do electrical work in a domestic dwelling.

Agreed as above. Anyone can work in a domestic dwelling, but it's against the law for the installer to fail to notify LABC under part P. Wrong The approved contractor does it on completeion through their scheme, the non-approved contractor does it in advance direct to their building control department.

The same as an electrician who does not notify LABC under part P full stop. Wrong Against the law.

I disagree. Both are breaking the law because neither carries the correct documentation. The taxi driver has no licence from DVLC to drive, the contractor has no licence from LABC Wrong to carry out electrical work.
Don't take my word for it. Phone your LABC tomorrow morning, or check out this:
http://niceic.com/Uploads/File1247.pdf
where is says quite clearly:

....To comply with the law you must notify your local building control office before you begin any work and pay the appropriate fee for them to inspect the work.

Just going round in a circle.

 

[Apollo]

There are so many if's and But's in this that we just don't know.

As spinlondon has said the person ordering the work is responsible for notifying LABC, what we don't know is if the rewire was part of a bigger job. Normally one LABC notification covers everything happening during a refurb. If it was there would be no need for the Part P to be notified again - COuld have been crossed wires between the sparks and the client - Just a maybe????

Also this is another what if that we don't know - How about the spaky did notify it through his part P scheme, but they failed to notify it????? You just don't know????

 

[LukeD]

Yet more proof of the mess this trade is in. I think if everyone in this country spent a few hours reading this forum they would be shocked at hearing "our" side of the story.

 

[tonys]

Yet more proof of the mess this trade is in. I think if everyone in this country spent a few hours reading this forum they would be shocked at hearing "our" side of the story.

Its in mess mate because of the last Government and won't be undone for at least another 10 years once this recession as cleared out a lot of the unwanted people in our trade, and it will clear them out.

But unfortunately a lot of good people will get caught up in the clear out as well, though being pushed out because the semi skilled will work for less and others will leave because of struggling to find work.

 

[not clever]

I can add to this with my little tale...
I undertook a rewire last year (March/April time), the property had no gas but there was an old unused gas supply pipe in the garage near the DB so I connected 10mm bond as was required.
Tested certed & notified via NICEY all tickety boo & above board.

Fast forward to 2 weeks ago.

Get a call from home owner " Hi there I have a little concern with the electrics, I'm sure its fine but just need to check. We have just had a plumber in to install the new boiler & he said you have not done the rewire as per part P & the regulations"

Oh right & why does he think that.

"You havent fitted an earth to the gas meter & he has had to make a note of it on his paperwork"

So I took a trip there to find a nice shiney meter outside the property some 12 meters away from the old supply pipe & DB, with a new trenched supply from the road.
I showed the customer where I had put the original bond & also showed him on the cert where I'd put a note stating "no gas in property but pipe bonded in garage".
The customer then comes out with "He said I could complain to the NICEIC for you not completing the works correctly"
My next question to him was; Why had the plumber connected the boiler & undertaken the control/stat wiring when he knew (thought he knew) the bond wasnt in place? & why had he issued a MWC stating all ok?

Two week later & they still have not yet paid for the new bond I put in while there.

 

[grantr37]

The Gas Board came in and fitted a new meter for a brand new Gas supply some weeks after you had left a finished job, then the plumber came along, thought he knew about "electrics" and tried to shaft you, thats how reputations get damaged or lost, through easily confused householders being led down the garden path(quite willingly as it suits many of them) by trouble seeking others...The Gas Board should have looked after their own safety bonding but they wont do that.......whats next? you get a phonecall saying "you done a bad job I want it fixed" because a Garage company comes along and builds a nice new concrete Garage, fits a motorised Garage door and bggers off leaving the wires trailing on the floor for the motor and lights....then you get the blame........."well the postman thinks I should complain to the NICEIC,HSE,Council,Trading standards and Building control"......poor old sparky thinks "maybe I'll just do it to get him/her off my back"........theres also thousands of people out there who will get a tradesman to build them a new house off the back of a gentlemans handshake, then refuse to pay, I seen it twice already, once for a new build house and once when a woman had an extension done, when it was finished she turned round and said that she wanted all the outside doors on the house to open OUTWARDS instead of inwards, that was a no-no as it would not pass the council/building standards checks, so she refused to pay him and left him out of pocket by about 40K, it was just her way of not paying and she was not skint by any means, although thats how people hold on to their money...

 

[grantr37]

Remember to take photos of your completed jobs from now on (for household jobs) especially if you are fitting a DB or doing any work in outbuildings...if they ask why just tell them its for inspections of your paperwork that you get now and then...

 

[ukpablo]

gents, this has been one interesting post......................opened my eyes a little and i have definately learned something me thinks!

 

[millwall ken]

Do you know what fellas? I feel for the bloke that done the install... Well, in a way! He was probably doing it on the side, or the worse case is; he is a half decent mate/apprentice/labourer. Personally, if that was me, I would of asked a QUALIFIED (and I use that word, in the sense of paper- qualified) mate to do the testing and paperwork for me. Because surely he would have found it cheaper to pay someone £150-200 to sign his work off, rather than pay LABC? But thats even if he knew someone with the relevent qualifications in the first place of course...
This is why I stick to commercial.

Secondly, this is why this forum is such a great place, so that we can talk about things like this, in the first place.

 

[rocker]

Its in mess mate because of the last Government

Christ!

What did I say?

WHAT DID I SAY?!

I told you we'd agree on something one day.

I think we can apply your sentiment to the whole damn country, while we're at it.

 

[tonys]

lol and we can agree on what I should be charging