Part P

[Guest77]

This really is going off track now, I might have to ask Marvo to edit it and then close it lol

 

[GMES]

Are they mange tout on the floor to the right of the trap.

 

[GMES]

This really is going off track now, I might have to ask Marvo to edit it and then close it lol

Sorry Mike, so I'm guessing #22 doesn't help

 

[amckay]

I'm not a scam member as I don't hold t+I quals at the mo. But aside from drastically reduced notifications, what do they offer?
-seriously reasonable answers chaps!

your really struggling here arn`t you...

not with the fact you dont hold any inspection & testing quals....but the fact that you seem to seriously believe that you actually NEED such a qualification...to join one of these rackets...

last time i looked i thought it was all about competency...

this is a concern to me:
the idea (put about by the rackets) that you need to have this ticket & that ticket to operate safely....when in reality its all about whether your competent...or not

mind you the rackets have their own little agenda`s ...dont they....such as NAPIT with its "NAPIT 2391"....a worthless bit of arse paper if ever there was one....

I'm not struggling mate I agree with all of the above with 1 exception... I do not seriously believe I have to have a t+I qual to join a scam. I need to do the course so I am knowledgeable (albeit more) to be able to do it as I currently have a lack of experience in that area. I don't want it to use to join a scam, I want it to show an employer when I go for a job...
That as was ment to be and...sorry

 

[chcnorris29]

Would i be right to say that some form of licensing for competent sparks so that only licensed people can carry out electrical work (inc DIY) where there is no yearly fee or notification fees or crap and that electricians must be proved to be competent, licensed without the need for the scams?
Thanks

 

[amckay]

Would i be right to say that some form of licensing for competent sparks so that only licensed people can carry out electrical work (inc DIY) where there is no yearly fee or notification fees or crap and that electricians must be proved to be competent, licensed without the need for the scams?
Thanks

I think that is what a lot of forum members want too. I'm not sure of what kind of system required to implement it tho..
Maybe just stick with jib cards or have a card alongside it with a brand known to the gen public for easy recognition? Either way it needs to be as well advertised as as known as gas safe

 

[Manutd4life]

Would i be right to say that some form of licensing for competent sparks so that only licensed people can carry out electrical work (inc DIY) where there is no yearly fee or notification fees or crap and that electricians must be proved to be competent, licensed without the need for the scams?
Thanks

Scrap Part P and only have qualified sparks doing the work. Or the at the very least, you MUST have 17th edition or the latest one that is out. And then you can do other electrical courses.

 

[telectrix]

wrong way round. nobody should be allowed to take the 17th until after they have got a core qualification.

 

[amckay]

wrong way round. nobody should be allowed to take the 17th until after they have got a core qualification.

I agree with you tel.
I'm sure there was an "Indian" fella on here a while ago calling himself an electrician after passing 17th but asking how to do very basic things!
As stated in other threads 17th as we know is open book so anyone who can read can pass it but it doest teach the technical skills

 

[Gavin A]

I can add to the Part P fiasco, as most of you know I am industrial/commercial but have been asked by a friend to wire his new extension, so I agreed but explained I was not part p( he had no idea what this is ) I told him that because building control was involved we would have to go through them for signing it off, and there reply was that if I was 17th edition and I could supply a 17th certificate they would be ok with that. so my question is why are you all paying your subs to the parasites??

If building control were already involved with the job, then they could be notified of your work at no extra cost.

If you were just doing a straight new circuit in an existing house that requires notification, then how would you have notified building control about this work? Go direct and it'd be a lot more expensive per job than via a CPS.

By my reading of the legislation it's the person carrying out the work that is responsible for the notification, not the person paying to have the work done - ie it's the electrician who is responsible for ensuring the work is notified, with either building control or trading standards able to take action against you if you failed to comply with this.

 

[trev]

If building control were already involved with the job, then they could be notified of your work at no extra cost.

If you were just doing a straight new circuit in an existing house that requires notification, then how would you have notified building control about this work? Go direct and it'd be a lot more expensive per job than via a CPS.

By my reading of the legislation it's the person carrying out the work that is responsible for the notification, not the person paying to have the work done - ie it's the electrician who is responsible for ensuring the work is notified, with either building control or trading standards able to take action against you if you failed to comply with this.

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified. They can do this by either using LABC or a CPS registered person to notify on their behalf.

Where LABC/trading standards get involved (or rather as they don't) it is to take action against poor quality/non compliant work and the person or organisation who carried it out but how many times have you heard of that happening?

The whole point is that a properly qualified and competent person should not have to join a club to be told he or she is competent.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Scrap Part P and only have qualified sparks doing the work. Or the at the very least, you MUST have 17th edition or the latest one that is out. And then you can do other electrical courses.

which effectively amounts to what we have now.

just holding the 17th edition does not maketh an electrician...

 

[Geordie Spark]

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified. They can do this by either using LABC or a CPS registered person to notify on their behalf.

Where LABC/trading standards get involved (or rather as they don't) it is to take action against poor quality/non compliant work and the person or organisation who carried it out but how many times have you heard of that happening?

The whole point is that a properly qualified and competent person should not have to join a club to be told he or she is competent.

The same argument applies to CORGI / Gas Safe too.

 

[Gavin A]

Sorry but you're wrong, it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure notifiable works are notified. They can do this by either using LABC or a CPS registered person to notify on their behalf.

I'm aware that's how you interpret the act, personally I can't see it and am pretty sure you've got that wrong. If you know of a legal precedent that supports your opinion though then I'll concede the point, if not then it's simply your interpretation of what the phrase 'the person who intends to carry out buildings work' means, and I think you're on very dodgy ground.

12.—(1) This regulation applies to a person who intends to—
(a) carry out building work;

This later point in the explanatory notes for the act makes it pretty clear that this phrase means the actual person doing the actual work, and not the building owner.

EXPLANATORY NOTE
<snip>

Part 5 contains provision about self-certification schemes. Membership of self-certification schemes exempts persons carrying out relevant work from the normal requirements under the
Building Regulations to notify the local authority of an intention to carry out the work.

I don't see how that can be read in any other way than to mean that it's the person who is actually doing the work that's responsible for the building control notifications, as otherwise there would be nothing for this clause to exempt the tradespeople from in the first place.

It's clearly identifying that the members of the competent persons schemes would be the people carrying out the work, and uses the exact same phrase as is used in 12-(1) to describe who the responsibility to notify building control applies to.

The building owner may well also be liable for this, but the act fairly clearly identifies the person carrying out the work as being responsible for the notifications / building control applications.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/pdfs/uksi_20102214_en.pdf

 

[Manutd4life]

which effectively amounts to what we have now.

just holding the 17th edition does not maketh an electrician...

Well maybe I was going on how I got my 16th edition, 4 years college, log books and an AM2. I don't know how easy it is for someone to just do 17th edition with no experience but it should be changed then.

Maybe all have to do an apprenticeship or make it so everyone does the AM2 that doesn't have any experience or is just coming in to the trade. All these short courses should be stopped

 

[dazza1981]

OK lets just clear this ****e up so people understand...... to be " QUALIFIED " you do 3 YEARS {not days} at college and gain your core qualifications preferably whilst working alongside a sparks gaining practical experience !!!!!!!!!!!
NEXT........ do your NVQ3 followed by your AM2 which demonstrates you have carried out a variety of work outlined by city and guilds!!!!!!!!
THEN you apply for your jib card and get graded as an ELECTRICIAN !!!
Now regardless at to whether some of you think the NVQ is a farce and pointless and jib cards are crap this is how it is to be qualified and that is that im afraid like it or not !!!!!
Obviously there are many more qualifications to gain after your NVQ3 is complete but these 4-5 years doing a time served apprenticeship gaining valuable knowledge and experience is the ONLY way to be recognised as a REAL sparky.
Just having a 17th cert = NOT QUALIFIED
PART P BOLOX = NOT QUALIFIED
Just because you did a 5 week course and joined a scheme = NOT QUALIFIED
SIMPLES !!!!!!

 

[trev]

I'm aware that's how you interpret the act, personally I can't see it and am pretty sure you've got that wrong. If you know of a legal precedent that supports your opinion though then I'll concede the point,

There are no legal precedents Gavin, any idea why?
Because no one in a position to do anything about it has the resources or the inclination to do anything about it.

 

[Gavin A]

The whole point is that a properly qualified and competent person should not have to join a club to be told he or she is competent.

you aren't.

you're joining the club to enable you to self certify and notify the work to building control at in the region of 10% of the cost of making an individual building control application for your work.

The act does give local councils dispensation to relax the regulations at their discretion, so some may choose not to apply the regulations / turn a blind eye as long as the work is of a good standard, but that's entirely at their discretion and doesn't set a precedent from one council to another.

I appreciate where you're coming from with this, but your advice could get other electricians in other council areas in trouble, if not from building control or trading standards directly, then through liability for costs incurred if for example, building control insisted on being able to inspect the work on cables buried in the walls / floor / ceiling on an installation that they found hadn't been notified to them. Ok so this is unlikely to happen with quality work, but it is a possibility. If people want to risk it then fair enough, but they should at least know what the risk is, rather than thinking they had no liability for it.

 

[Gavin A]

There are no legal precedents Gavin, any idea why?
Because no one in a position to do anything about it has the resources or the inclination to do anything about it.

so what you were originally saying was wrong then.

You're actually recommending people do this because they're unlikely to get caught, not because there isn't a law that says they should notify building control themselves if they're doing work.

If that's your position then it's a valid opinion, but let's not mislead people into thinking they don't actually have a legal responsibility to do something when they clearly do.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

so what you were originally saying was wrong then.

You're actually recommending people do this because they're unlikely to get caught, not because there isn't a law that says they should notify building control themselves if they're doing work.

If that's your position then it's a valid opinion, but let's not mislead people into thinking they don't actually have a legal responsibility to do something when they clearly do.

and lets not mislead people into thinking that its the duty of the person employed to carry out the work to notify LABC shall we...

OK guys:

definately 2 camps in here....

some seem to cling to part P like its a grail or something....