ODPM admits Part P consulation flawed

[N. Thornton]

In message [e-mail], Owain ( [e-mail]) wrote: "N. Thornton" wrote

| Would I be correct in saying that domestic electricians do not >| need to certify their work. > >What do you mean by 'certify'? The point of Part P is that work must be >carried out either by a registered contractor or under the auspices of >Building Control > >| Whose responsibility is it now, the householders >| or the sparky's to apply to the local BCO or whatever it is? > >It is the householder's legal duty to ensure that all Building

Control

applications and other statutory obligations are fulfilled. There may be a >contractual agreement that the contractor will make the application and >include the fees in his bill, but it remains the householder's legal duty to >ensure this is done. > >| Are there in fact any qualifications needed in a domestic sparky? I >| know a while ago none were needed, but dont know if this has

changed.

>Of course not. This isn't about qualifications or competence. > >Owain

If what you say is entirely correct, part P should not affect domestic sparkies in any way at all, since its not their responsibility to do the BCO bit.

NT

[Owain]

"N. Thornton" wrote | If what you say is entirely correct, part P should not affect domestic | sparkies in any way at all, since its not their responsibility to do | the BCO bit.

But the trade organisations are starting to advertise heavily that *only* their members are allowed to do electrical work (without BCO involvement). This places non-members of a scheme at a commercial disadvantage, especially when it comes to the jobbing works carried out by many smaller contractors. There is also the probability that a householder will raise a stink of the "you worked on my wiring when you're not allowed to" and complain to Watchdog about unregistered electricians.

Owain

[Andy Hall]

Perhaps they could be taken to the Advertising Standards Authority.

[N. Thornton]

Fwom:Owain ( [e-mail]) "N. Thornton" wrote

domestic

involvement).

contractors.

This isnt making sense in my small brain. If I'm correct, you said

1. domestic electricians are not responsible for getting works cetrified under part P, the house holder is.
2. they dont need any qualifications to operate

but now you say that for some reason theyre not allowed to work on house wiring. Where am I cornfused?

NT

[Don Spumey]

Similarly, there are certain 'adverts' on TV offering "free" K-glass when buying D/G......strange.....I thought (due to recent legislation) it's bog standard nowadays!

Don.

[Andy Hall]

It is.

That's pretty borderline too, but is only slightly misleading rather than a downright lie.

[Tony Bryer]

If you get a dodgy electrician to rewire your house and it comes to the notice of the LA and they decide to take legal action it will be against you - either for failure to give notice or serving a notice on *you* requiring the work to be brought into compliance. And if you fail to do the necessary you (in theory) will end up in court. You would of course have a separate right to sue to sue the contractor.

[Owain]

"N. Thornton" wrote | >There is also the probability that a householder will raise a | >stink of the you worked on my wiring when you're not allowed | > to" and complain to Watchdog about unregistered electricians. | This isnt making sense in my small brain. If I'm correct, you said | 1. domestic electricians are not responsible for getting works | cetrified under part P, the house holder is. | 2. they dont need any qualifications to operate | but now you say that for some reason theyre not allowed to work | on house wiring. Where am I cornfused?

I mean the customers would raise a stink if they find out (especially after the event) that the 'professional' they employed to do the work was not legally able to do so without involving Building Control, they will complain, and something like Watchdog will then jump on the bandwagon of rogue tradesmen misleading customers and doing work which is illegal.

If contractors tell customers that as well as the invoice £ they are going to have to pay £ to Building Control, that places that contractor at a commercial disadvantage compared to a registered one.

Owain

[N. Thornton]

Fwom:Owain ( [e-mail]) "N. Thornton" wrote

I thought you said it was the customers responsiobility to go get paperwork, not the tricians, in which case there would be nothing illegal about an electrician doing a job and leaving it upto the customer to do the paperwork. Am I wrong?

To a fair extent one can get past that with legal phrasing on the quote paperwork, something along the lines of in some cases you might need to register it or have it inspected by the LA. But I agree there will always be some that say, 'ang about mate.

NT

[Owain]

"N. Thornton" wrote | I thought you said it was the customers responsiobility to go get | paperwork, not the tricians, in which case there would be nothing | illegal about an electrician doing a job and leaving it upto the | customer to do the paperwork. Am I wrong?

Not wrong; obtaining building control approval comes down to the householder. BUT if that is approval is not pre-arranged then the illegality would be committed by the electrician at the time of doing the work. (This also means that only registered contractors could offer an 'emergency' service.) Illegal work can be regularised afterwards, of course, but that might involve opening up finished works.

| To a fair extent one can get past that with legal phrasing on the | quote paperwork, something along the lines of in some cases | you might need to register it or have it inspected by the LA.

"Quote paperwork"...? For the jobbing electrician whose paperwork is a duplicate book written on the job, making out a 'quote' for changing a socket in a kitchen will add 5 minutes to the job. Eight jobs a day, that's an extra 40 minutes' work for no remuneration.

Owain