Another sad reason Part P just doesnt work

[jjnr78]

An old customer asked me if I could sign off another contractors work that was carried out in their property, so that they could achieve Building Regs sign off. (They used a main contractor for the whole build hence why we weren't involved). I let her know how part P works with self certification etc and the proper routes i.e. ask the local authority to appoint a contractor etc etc, so that the instruction lies with the local authority. She did this to the tune of £250. In return she received 2 EICR certs for the 2 properties; both CUs were 10-way and she has results for 3 circuits on each, so roughly 30%. The original installation was never tested, so the inspector had no paperwork to cross reference results. Whatsmore, of the circuits that were inspected and tested, there are departures that need to be rectified- hence why i was called and how I can see the reports. The inspector was there for under 2hrs, never inspected the origin of the installation (as he didnt have a key to unlock it) and so falsified those results and also missed glaringly obvious issues e.g. twin + cpc sub main 16mm, buried in the fabric, no RCD protection, no calculation on size of earth, though he did point out the 'earthing conductor is undersized, requires 16sqmm item. Surely if you sample test, you increase if you start finding problems??

What gets me is that I would never only test 30% of new work that I or my team installs and sign it off, nor can you for that matter. More than that I would never sign off, using a 30% yard stick, another contractors work without a full schedule of results and perhaps seeing the 1st fix etc. So how can the local authority instruct this contractor to only inspect 30%? If thats the case, i might as well stop my fully approved contractor status and get them to do it as we obviouslty present a full schedule of results that takes 3 times as long!

I've explained my concerns to the client but she has vehemently told me not to flag my issues with the local authority as she feels my way will end up costing her more money and time on a situation that has cursed her already over the last 2 years. so, no come back for the contractor or the local authority and i look like the bad guy who is trying to squeeze the client for extra work, before I've even visited! I've never managed to get a customer to complain to a governing body of the council when faced with these issues, so it will just keep happening.

From a business viewpoint, perhaps thats why others are so much cheaper than me on EICR, as we just arent doing the same job.

I'm really looking forward to taking over this family business......

 

[jdd]

Feel your pain mate, it can be pretty soul destroying if you think about it too much. I just try and avoid thinking about it and hope some day the regulations will be taken as seriously as gas regs..

 

[oldtimer]

She does not want you to highlight issues ???????????????????????????? Well she aint got an option you are the one that signs off its ok so you cannot go along with previous reports also 30% my understanding is you test the whole installation with regards to IR and Zs for each circuit yet again I&T is going the same way as PAT testing anyone with a part of a brain can dictate policy.

When i get calls like this I always explain I am not looking for problems but I am obliged to record any issues thats when I get the rant about how the builders or the last guy ripped them off so jut give me a cost to sign it off and I always reply look this is like a car MOT the garage cannot sign off any issues that fails the car. Thats when I get another rant and I have to explain your issue is not with me but with the person who did the job.

 

[jjnr78]

Oldtimer, thats exactly what I said. however, she has now retracted her offer of inviting me to rectify the work and she's going to go back to the original contractor who previously went bust and look to them to help out. And they will obviously try to sweeten her and poss overlook any issues to help repair an already fragile relationship. i'm glad there are some of us on the same song sheet!

 

[jjnr78]

Just spoken with the Building Control in question and discovered that they require their contractor to inspect every circuit in question and for this that would mean 100% of the installation. In fact they are quite embarrased about the situation. I have to say the officer i spoke with understood exactly how the scheme should work and looks to enforce it correctly. herein lies a further problem, who polices the police?? This appointed contractor is the building control agent essentially. they are a private firm who look to maximise profits like we all do and it seems they have adopted a ruling of their own. To be fair to Building Control, they probably dont understand the certificates and dont get funding to assess what their contractor does, so these inspectors been cashing in on a lovely little number. i just hope their professional indemnity insurance is valid! For the scheme to work, part p needs to handled by the local authorities, which means employing competent inspectors which is expensive and i cant see this happening.

 

[oldtimer]

I did a job for a London based lawer who had a flat up here she caused such a hassle I said well sorry I will retract from the job she said well I wont pay you I said fine because as they say when you are in a hole stop digging plus I just dont need the hassle so I lost 6 hours labour but thats the way it goes

 

[Paul.M]

jjnr78 I like the cut of your gib sir. More people like you is what the domestic industry needs, well done.

 

[stephanjs]

Hi jjnr78 and others,

Whilst I am sympathetic to your concern please note certain facts. If it is new work, the installer should arrange for an Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) to be issued "before the installation is put into use". This is the most important point. Clearly this was not done. This law is only enforceable if a competent person notices that the installation is obviously dangerous or if someone gets injured property get damaged or worse the loss of life due to the dangerous work. Then the criminal law is broken and the installer can be prosecuted under the Building Regulations 2000.

If someone else is called to do the "testing" after the installation has been put into use, they cannot issue an EIC. The best they can do is to conduct a periodic inspection on the installation and issue an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) regardless of the condition. The person ordering the report will set the scope and limitations of the inspection, say, only the new installation. From your comments this was not done either.

The other issue is the competence of the person conducting the test. This is not under "Part P". This is under the ECS (Electrotechnical Competence Scheme). I have argued for about 30 years that the way forward is that only registered electricians (approved electricians and above) should be able to do any electrical work without supervision. I know this to be the case in France and Germany years ago. Not sure if it is the same now.

Yes argue against it but we must get the facts of the argument right or else we will be shot down in flames. (This is possibly why anyone can do electrical work in the UK at the moment).

One Love

 

[Guest55]

The bottom line is this....
Local authorites all over the country dont have the time , money or resources to implement part p.
In addition they dont have the stomach or will to inforce part p either , it was dumped on them by the previous Labour goverment.
All the certificates and notifications that you all send in for every crappy little kitchen socket and bathroom light that gets fitted is just another pile of paperwork dumped in the corner of some office serving no use to anyone.

 

[Guitarist]

If you get messed about, send in an invoice for your time. If they refuse to pay, then so be it. At least you get the satisfaction of telling them that they are now on your blacklist

 

[jjnr78]

Hi jjnr78 and others,

Whilst I am sympathetic to your concern please note certain facts. If it is new work, the installer should arrange for an Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) to be issued "before the installation is put into use". This is the most important point. Clearly this was not done. This law is only enforceable if a competent person notices that the installation is obviously dangerous or if someone gets injured property get damaged or worse the loss of life due to the dangerous work. Then the criminal law is broken and the installer can be prosecuted under the Building Regulations 2000.

If someone else is called to do the "testing" after the installation has been put into use, they cannot issue an EIC. The best they can do is to conduct a periodic inspection on the installation and issue an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) regardless of the condition. The person ordering the report will set the scope and limitations of the inspection, say, only the new installation. From your comments this was not done either.

The other issue is the competence of the person conducting the test. This is not under "Part P". This is under the ECS (Electrotechnical Competence Scheme). I have argued for about 30 years that the way forward is that only registered electricians (approved electricians and above) should be able to do any electrical work without supervision. I know this to be the case in France and Germany years ago. Not sure if it is the same now.

Yes argue against it but we must get the facts of the argument right or else we will be shot down in flames. (This is possibly why anyone can do electrical work in the UK at the moment).

One Love

I can't remember stating anything different than what you wrote above. I'm very aware how the scheme works. My point is that the scheme is fundamentally wrong when you have a private organisation undertaking work on behalf of an authority when that authority doesnt have the technical know-how to query or instruct the ncessary tenets of the job that is being undertaken. As Biff55 points out (and in fact echoed by the Building Control Officer i spoke with) there are no resources for this to work effectively and local authorites dont make any money from it...perhaps an admin fee at best as they have to outsource it. then when there is an issue, we as contractors cant complain due to certain conflict of interest factors, so it rests with the client who is now so confused and tired of contractors being in their home, (plus the fact that they may face further remedial works) that they want out of the whole sorry situation.

 

[jjnr78]

If you get messed about, send in an invoice for your time. If they refuse to pay, then so be it. At least you get the satisfaction of telling them that they are now on your blacklist

its not that i'm being messed about, its the annoyance that there are firms out there that i am competing with on a daily basis, that are less than honest, less competent and there's nothing that can and will be done about it. people still dont know about part p, let alone the difference between an EI and a EICR; a downlight and a fire-rated downlight; an approved contractor and a domestic installer and a time-served, qualified electrician and qualified electrician from an 8 week course at the local inductrial estate.

 

[Vito04]

As mentioned previously the policing of Part P cannot be managed without customer co-operation. If the customer doesn't know about Part P then they are unaware that it needs registering with LABC unless building control are already involved with building work and also that a EIC should be issued. To be honest probably 90% of customers aren't even bothered.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

when it comes to an INITIAL VERIFICATION..i thought it was clear.....so where did this tool get 30% from?....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

and even if it was a periodic...still wouldn`t have been right as when sampling you start with 10%....any crap you up it to 50% and so on....

 

[Guest111]

reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a chap from building control who told me that when there was only limited things they inspected everyone knew what was right and what wasn,t ,now he said "with part l ,m p, etc we all know little bits of everything and nobody knows it all" and they call that progress?

 

[sedgy34]

if you cant beat them join them lol (joke)

 

[Guest111]

As mentioned previously the policing of Part P cannot be managed without customer co-operation. If the customer doesn't know about Part P then they are unaware that it needs registering with LABC unless building control are already involved with building work and also that a EIC should be issued. To be honest probably 90% of customers aren't even bothered.

exactly,had a right do with a builder who wired an extention made a b of it told client part p didnt apply then went huffy when I told him it wanted ripping out in front of customer and yes it did need a part p,maybe building control need to be clearer in telling public what is needed when they apply for planning.

 

[Vito04]

Recently an NICEIC inspector told me that although GN3 states 100% testing and 10% sampling, the percentage is what ever the customer is prepared to pay for and agree to as long as you state it on the report.

 

[jjnr78]

and even if it was a periodic...still wouldn`t have been right as when sampling you start with 10%....any crap you up it to 50% and so on....

apparently sampling is dependant upon enginnering judgement...so just another grey area. but one thing that it does state is that if issues are found then you increase the sample until you stop seeing problems. lack of education within the camp, let alone outside!!!

 

[jjnr78]

Recently an NICEIC inspector told me that although GN3 states 100% testing and 10% sampling, the percentage is what ever the customer is prepared to pay for and agree to as long as you state it on the report.

i relly hope that that was a joke (though i fear the worst). its about engineering judgement, and i'm not sure GN3 states those terms in the latest vversion but i havent got it to hand. The point to this case was that BC believed that their appointed contractor was inspecting and testing 100% of newly installed circuits etc for Part P, but it would seem for this job at least, this contractor thought 30% was good enough. £250 was an easy 1.5 hrs work!! whats worse is they still didnt get it right!

 

[Vito04]

Personally, I would never do less than 100% testing on any EICR but unfortunately what i said about the inspector is true. Afterall NIC developed the worthless Visual inspection report

 

[Spudnik]

Forgive me, but i havent read the whole thread..

However....

If there is building control involved, it is THEIR responsibility to ensure compliance however they see fit.

Have a read of sec 1.24 Part P.

 

[DurhamSparky]

you read the part p booklet!! ...... must have been bored.. lol

 

[GLENNSPARK]

you should test 100% of the install on a PIR....you save time over an initial verification by doing an R1 R2 and a Zs at the furthest point on a radial as for ring finals....well it dont take long to whip round them....its on sampling where you start at 10%...but i tend to decide within a few minutes of being in that property just where on the percentage scale i`m gonna start....like some places just dont `feelright`...and you know what....they usually arn`t....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

one i look for is socket fronts....like you may have 3 MKs in a room..then there will be a tenby or something....summat thats been changed....i go straight for that one....

 

[Vito04]

Just checked the NIC book on periodic inspections and their three star inspection service states '30% inspection, testing and additional items' additional items include earth continuity of all accessable exposed-extraneous conductive parts, PAT testing, fixed equipment, load measurement, terminal temperatures and produce a circuit chart. Without the additionals only 20% is required. However, as you are aware if you find non compliances these percentages need to be increased.

In my opinion stick to 100% that way the only comebacks are reworks

 

[oldtimer]

I was called to a house that just had a PIR done and found 4 faulty single sockets the tenant reported this to the "inspector" and when I contacted the letting agent I was told only 10% of the sockets were tested. So I said well 2 in the livingroom were u/s and the one in the childs bedroom had a neutral missing and the last one was right next to the DB ????? Mind its not that bad I got the job to change them plus I sent the Zs test results for all of the flats sockets and when they said that must have taken time I said no actually 15 minutes tops

 

[Vito04]

you should test 100% of the install on a PIR....you save time over an initial verification by doing an R1 R2 and a Zs at the furthest point on a radial as for ring finals....well it dont take long to whip round them....its on sampling where you start at 10%...but i tend to decide within a few minutes of being in that property just where on the percentage scale i`m gonna start....like some places just dont `feelright`...and you know what....they usually arn`t....

Totally agree, after a short conversation with the customer and removal of a few faceplates you get a feeling for the quality

 

[robsparky1975]

And When people are offering to do a full EICR for £100 and are gone after 1 hour you know something funny is going on,whats your name luv,tick box,tick tick,ok there you go thats £100 please kerching.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Just checked the NIC book on periodic inspections and their three star inspection service states '30% inspection, testing and additional items' additional items include earth continuity of all accessable exposed-extraneous conductive parts, PAT testing, fixed equipment, load measurement, terminal temperatures and produce a circuit chart. Without the additionals only 20% is required. However, as you are aware if you find non compliances these percentages need to be increased.

In my opinion stick to 100% that way the only comebacks are reworks

whats PAT testing got to do with the fixed wiring/install?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

I was called to a house that just had a PIR done and found 4 faulty single sockets the tenant reported this to the "inspector" and when I contacted the letting agent I was told only 10% of the sockets were tested. So I said well 2 in the livingroom were u/s and the one in the childs bedroom had a neutral missing and the last one was right next to the DB ????? Mind its not that bad I got the job to change them plus I sent the Zs test results for all of the flats sockets and when they said that must have taken time I said no actually 15 minutes tops

well its your dead tests that drink up the time old...lol...

 

[DurhamSparky]

pat test your MFT!!

 

[Vito04]

whats PAT testing got to do with the fixed wiring/install?

Nothing really but i suppose customers may expect them to be included although the NIC state 'these will be listed seperately'

 

[Vito04]

pat test your MFT!!

best test the socket first. Saying that until my megger MFT 1730 gets returned from Megger I'll have to keep on depending on my neon tester. LOL

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Nothing really but i suppose customers may expect them to be included although the NIC state 'these will be listed seperately'

customers will only expect em to be included if your foolish enough to tell em it is.....so you dont...if they have owt that needs pat testing...it should be on top....when you go into a property on a PIR you dont need to be distracted by old Mrs Biddle`s ropey iron..or kettle or whatever...PIRs are for FIXED WIRING/INSTALLATION and thats it....

 

[Vito04]

Just noticed that eventhough its says overall 30% testing it does highlight that all accessable socket outlets must be tested for polarity and Zs

 

[Vito04]

customers will only expect em to be included if your foolish enough to tell em it is.....so you dont...if they have owt that needs pat testing...it should be on top....when you go into a property on a PIR you dont need to be distracted by old Mrs Biddle`s ropey iron..or kettle or whatever...PIRs are for FIXED WIRING/INSTALLATION and thats it....

Just add an exception to the extent of the report. The usual, the report doesn't cover fire detection, intruder alarms etc...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Just add an exception to the extent of the report. The usual, the report doesn't cover fire detection, intruder alarms etc...

so on a PIR...would you not be testing the circuit feedins smoke/heat alarms?...look i`l tell you something vito.....we often find the CPC being used as the link wire on mains fed linked smokes/heats....so would you code that?...and if so what code would you give it....come on, this is PIRs....

 

[Vito04]

so on a PIR...would you not be testing the circuit feedins smoke/heat alarms?...look i`l tell you something vito.....we often find the CPC being used as the link wire on mains fed linked smokes/heats....so would you code that?...and if so what code would you give it....come on, this is PIRs....

Sorry, it goes without saying all of the electrical circuits where accessable. i was referring to functionality and fire alarms.

 

[DurhamSparky]

Vito you rambling on about crap mate!

nobody has mentions Fire Detection or Security! and as usual the believers and non believers will be in disagreement with the NIC and its ramblings as well..!!

Part P operators need not poke there golden noses in the land of Inspections...!!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Sorry, it goes without saying all of the electrical circuits where accessable. i was referring to functionality and fire alarms.

even so....my question still stands vito...code or not....if code then what number?...

 

[DurhamSparky]

i know what i would code it!! and it would be followed by the big screw driver and GY Sleeving and loss of interconnection of units!

 

[Vito04]

Vito you rambling on about crap mate!

nobody has mentions Fire Detection or Security! and as usual the believers and non believers will be in disagreement with the NIC and its ramblings as well..!!

How Rude,

I was merely stating word for word what they say. We all have our own way of doing things as i mentioned previously before we went off an a tangent. Mine is test 100% and on average sample 2-3 items per circuit (domestic) unless there are findings. Other than that i was just trying to make conversation on their reasoning. Seems like its time for bed

 

[DurhamSparky]

Agreed!!! me too...!!!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

still waiting vito...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

you`v been given a clue by durham vito....

 

[Vito04]

Hi GlennSpark,

Sorry i didn't reply sooner, by the the time i had typed out my last reply you had posted a couple more but unfortunately I needed sleep.


Thats a good question,

Would I disconnect the 9v interlink (cpc) wire and lose the link and risk the customer not being alerted in the event of a fire, definitely not, especially given rechargeable lithium batteries could run on standby for a couple of years without mains power.

Is it potentially dangerous?

uninsulated conductor could become live if it touches the live conductor with no earth protection. induced voltage with no connection to earth. Could someone tap into the cable to feed something else mistaking the 9v link for a cpc.

Code C2

I am sure this will differ from sparky to sparky

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Hi GlennSpark,

Sorry i didn't reply sooner, by the the time i had typed out my last reply you had posted a couple more but unfortunately I needed sleep.


Thats a good question,

Would I disconnect the 9v interlink (cpc) wire and lose the link and risk the customer not being alerted in the event of a fire, definitely not, especially given rechargeable lithium batteries could run on standby for a couple of years without mains power.

Is it potentially dangerous?

uninsulated conductor could become live if it touches the live conductor with no earth protection. induced voltage with no connection to earth. Could someone tap into the cable to feed something else mistaking the 9v link for a cpc.

Code C2

I am sure this will differ from sparky to sparky

agreed....c2

 

[jjnr78]

Some interesting points have been made but the most worrying is that a BC appointed contractor feels that it is sufficient to provide 30% test results on an installation that if it were own we would of course have to provide a complete test schedule. I'm writing to the Authority in question at their request and I hope this contractor losses the agreement.