Part P sign off problem

[yorkshireskippy]

Hi there...I'm pleased to find, hopefully, somewhere to answer a situation I find myself in. I'll try and compress the long saga...

In July 2020 I had a full rewire done on my house. Qualified electrician, tick. Registered with NECIEC (I now find out he wasn't). Competent, now I find out not part of the scheme. That's the problem.

He gave it big licks how the competency scheme was well worth it when he was showing the job, however it has transpired he either wasn't on the competent scheme nor in fact registered with NICEIC (I found this today) as he was about to move from self employed to employed.

We chased him for full sign off for over 12 months before he turned around and said its our fault for not opening an account with Building Control and getting them to sign it off when he'd finished. Obviously we argue we didn't do that because he never told us he wasn't competent scheme registered. He says he assumed we knew what we were doing and he assumed we'd gone to BC before he started, thus never mentioned the Part P sign off.

Who's at fault, us for being naive and assuming he was competent because he told us he could sign it all off, or him for not making it clear at the start we needed BC and he couldn't sign off because he wasn't on the competent register?

Thank you in advance.

 

[telectrix]

tricky one. ultimately it's your responsibility to notify BC so they can issue a completion cert. under part p. however, this cost several hundred £££s. as BC then get the work independently inspected and tested. this is where the cps 's come in. a member notifies his cps on line for a couple of quid, and they then notify BC. as it stands, he's not a cps member or you could complain to that cps.BC may accept an EICR ( condition report). you'd need to ask. cost of a report though is a couple of hundred anyway. your main problem would be if you came to sell the house. buyers' solicitors want to see either an installation cert. or a condition report. did he give you a cert. (EIC)?

 

[yorkshireskippy]

Thank you for the response.
Turns out he wasn't registered with NICEIC for over 12 months when he started with us so all the talk about sign off was a red herring or a deliberate ploy to throw us off the scent that he wasn't registered.
BC told me to simply get another electrician to sign it off (I have a quote for £150). They said all they will do is instruct an electrician to come around, simply do it yourself.
We have a full EIC signed off by his after his work, yes.

 

[telectrix]

Thank you for the response.
Turns out he wasn't registered with NICEIC for over 12 months when he started with us so all the talk about sign off was a red herring or a deliberate ploy to throw us off the scent that he wasn't registered.
BC told me to simply get another electrician to sign it off (I have a quote for £150). They said all they will do is instruct an electrician to come around, simply do it yourself.
We have a full EIC signed off by his after his work, yes.

that's your way forward. but make sure the electrician to is a cps member. there is a register you can consult to check.

Home

 

[loz2754]

If you have it in writing, either email, text, or part of the quote for the works, that he claimed to be a member of a Competent Persons Scheme, and that BC notification would be included, then you could consider sueing for damages.

Apologies for all the commas!

 

[yorkshireskippy]

That leaves me out of pocket by £150? Do I have a case to pursue the original sparky for misleading us? He never put anything in writing or quoted NICEIC. He simply led us to believe he could sign it all off hence I chased him for 12 months before he dropped the bombshell he wasn't registered.

 

[telectrix]

That leaves me out of pocket by £150? Do I have a case to pursue the original sparky for misleading us?

technically, yes. but for that amount is it worth the hassle of paying county cout and seeking a judgement. just out of interest, what was the rough cost of the rewire? just note the extra £150 as part of the cost.

 

[yorkshireskippy]

technically, yes. but for that amount is it worth the hassle of paying county cout and seeking a judgement. just out of interest, what was the rough cost of the rewire? just note the extra £150 as part of the cost.

The full rewire for the bungalow was 2.5k, he started at 3.5k. I just feel miffed I suppose.

 

[telectrix]

2.5K is well cheap. you've knocked him down a grand, so just suck up the £150. and write it down to experience.

 

[snowhead]

One problem is that a Contractor could be a member of a scheme at the start of the job but not renew during the job, especially if they know they are going to cease trading / go into employment.
So even if a customer checks at the start of the work there's no guarantee they'll still be registered at the end or in some cases that have happened even still be alive.

Even if they misrepresented being member of a Scheme, it's most likely they'd initially just get a warning / threatening letter to stop, from that scheme.
So taking action could be expensive and yield no positive result.

 

[Dustydazzler]

£150 is quite cheap to get the entire job retrospectively signed off i, , I know someone who paid twice that amount to get their rewire signed off after the builder failed to issue any paperwork for the install

 

[yorkshireskippy]

Thank you all for your help and advice, much appreciated.

 

[7029 dave]

Just my thoughts, yes the job should have been notified to BC, however the Electrician has supplied an EIC by his own hand.
Does that make the cert void just because the job has not been notified to BC. my point is does that make a MWC worthless because of no cps.

 

[DPG]

Just my thoughts, yes the job should have been notified to BC, however the Electrician has supplied an EIC by his own hand.
Does that make the cert void just because the job has not been notified to BC. my point is does that make a MWC worthless because of no cps.

Depends if the work is notifiable though, which in this case it is.

 

[7029 dave]

Depends if the work is notifiable though, which in this case it is.

electricity is still electricity IMO notification is another matter, we could argue then you can only test circuits and issue certs if only registered with a CPS which is not the case just stating the facts.

 

[DPG]

electricity is still electricity IMO notification is another matter, we could argue then you can only test circuits and issue certs if only registered with a CPS which is not the case just stating the facts.

No, you always test the work you have done, and always issue a cert. But you only need to notify it if is notifiable.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean?

 

[7029 dave]

No, you always test the work you have done, and always issue a cert. But you only need to notify it if is notifiable.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean?

What I am trying to say is this guy has been provided an EIC from the sparky that done the rewire, notification aside, he has been given a cert with test results etc signed by him, equally he could have done some minor works and issued a MWC, are we saying you can only provide an EIC if in a CPS scheme.

 

[DPG]

What I am trying to say is this guy has been provided an EIC from the sparky that done the rewire, notification aside, he has been given a cert with test results etc signed by him, equally he could have done some minor works and issued a MWC, are we saying you can only provide an EIC if in a CPS scheme.

No. Anyone competent can issue an EIC.

 

[Lister1987]

Given the recent 'landmark' case where Trading Standards took an electrician to court under consumer protection regulation, I would start by speaking with them and seeing if you have any grounds in a claim.

The contract was awarded to the contractor on the belief that he was CPS registered and at no point did that contractor seek to correct that client, going off what we have above.

Step 1; get off here and get legal advise.

 

[7029 dave]

No. Anyone competent can issue an EIC.

Yep I agree with that, so in my eyes the only mr meaner that has been committed is the rewire not being notified to BC

 

[buzzlightyear]

It beggers to believe that peaple having work done on the property and check before the horse has bolted.

 

[DPG]

Yep I agree with that, so in my eyes the only mr meaner that has been committed is the rewire not being notified to BC

Yes, that seems to be the OPs problem

 

[pirate]

Step 1; get off here and get legal advise.

Here's some, (Free and without liabilty)...don't bother, pay the £150 and save yourself some grief

 

[pc1966]

While the legal approach might well be "right", you won't get a solicitor to write a letter for much under £150 so in this case just let it go.

 

[yorkshireskippy]

Hello all.
So, I took the matter to small claims court, £35 well spent. Before we got there he agreed to mediation. He coughed up the court fee and £150 towards paying another sparky to sign off the job properly for BC. I thought you all might want to know rhe outcome.

 

[buzzlightyear]

He coughed up the court fee and £150 towards paying another sparky to sign off the job properly for BC

now the dispute is settled and the other electrician has sighed off the work ,so this how it stands the NICEIC will not let any spark with them sign off other peoples work ,NAPIT will only do third party testing .so for insurances goes if and if your house catches fire then you will need to argue with the body the spark is with. just add their
insurance will not cover you neither.

 

[EricMark]

If the electrician has any paperwork or logo's to show he is a scheme member then he is the guilty party, this has been a bit of a bone of contention where scheme providers sell EICR forms with their logo on them to people who are not members, but I made a big mistake telling the LABC when the builder we had walked off the job.

I had assumed the builder had told the LABC so I told them I was taking over the job. And you can't untell them.

With most items the owner is responsible to ensure LABC is informed, except when the tradesman is a scheme member, be it windows or electrics there are schemes which do it for you. So be it website, van, paperwork, an electrician must not show he is a scheme member when he is not.

As to who takes who to court not sure, it may be the scheme provider takes the electrician to court if he says he is a member and is not.

I would say if the electrician has issued the EIC then he could claim he thought you had informed the LABC, he would know you needed that EIC so he would clearly have issued one. If he has not issued an EIC then he is clearly trying it on.

In Wales it costs £100 plus vat for first £2000 worth of work, plus any charges for third party inspectors. The latter bit was the problem for me, they wanted me to pay for the third party inspector, my son (also an electrician) was doing most of the talking, and was trying to persuade the inspector to accept our EIC pointing out we both had C&G 2391 which is the inspecting and testing exam.

Finally my son was about to give in, and said OK but clearly the person who inspects must be same or higher qualified to ourselves, and my dad has a degree, only then did the LABC inspector say he would accept my signature on the certificate.

However my son had done work in England and had his signature accepted many times before.

But the LABC inspector did want to see the test equipment, and our qualifications. So although it is down to the owner in law, unless the electrician has anything to show scheme membership, in real terms the electrician doing the work needs to convince the inspector he has the skill required, so he needs to do the registering not the owner as the LABC inspector may ask for proof he has the skill.

You have two problems, one is minor which is getting a completion certificate, the major one is if he has not issued an EIC why not, why does he not want to admit he did the wiring, what is wrong? If he has issued an EIC then I would just say nothing to the LABC not worth the hassle, but if no EIC why?

I did use LABC and did submit the EIC and get the completion certificate, but the inspector completely missed the lintel over the door of wet room was only supported on one side, lucky we did find it, and did fit new lintel, but not impressed with LABC and when mother house was to be sold, could not find the paperwork so applied for replacements, told would take 4 months, and I would need to pay the time it took the council worker to find them, i.e. open cheque.

Also when we did find the paperwork, we realised there was nothing to really show who did what, we had two compliance certificates and a completion certificate but there was no reference between the completion certificate and the EIC so bit useless anyway.

 

[Des 56]

I may be wrong, I'm a common spark not some legal eagle

Building regs only requires (of the householder) a set standard is met

The householder can pass on the responsibility by engaging someone who can self certify

If the tradesman is not registered it remains the responsibility of the householder ( householder should check any registration for who he engages)

It would appear the only contention would be breaking the terms of a written contract between the householder and the tradesman

The BC matter to remain the householders problem

 

[yorkshireskippy]

I may be wrong, I'm a common spark not some legal eagle

Building regs only requires (of the householder) a set standard is met

The householder can pass on the responsibility by engaging someone who can self certify

If the tradesman is not registered it remains the responsibility of the householder ( householder should check any registration for who he engages)

It would appear the only contention would be breaking the terms of a written contract between the householder and the tradesman

The BC matter to remain the householders problem

Agreed. Hence I took the sparky to court for the breach of our contract in which he led us to believe he was competent and registered and could sign off the work.

 

[Des 56]

Agreed. Hence I took the sparky to court for the breach of our contract in which he led us to believe he was competent and registered and could sign off the work.

Sorry for your confusion
I have read your update
I gave a reply to the original question



Who's at fault, us for being naive and assuming he was competent because he told us he could sign it all off