Part P (again)

[Tony Bryer]

Apologies if this has been previously mentioned but I just picked up from the ODPM website a circular letter re Part P

"There have been reports that some local authorities are asking householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work. Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that local authorities do not have the power to require householders to retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice should discontinue it immediately."

"It has been drawn to our intention that some local authorities in letting contracts for electrical installation work in dwellings specify that only installers registered with the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC) or which are members of the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA) should be acceptable for carrying out the work. Local authorities are reminded that there are ten authorised competent person schemes for Part P. Installers registered with any of the full competence schemes have been assessed as competent to carry out any electrical installation work in dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the Building Regulations;"

"Local authorities should ensure that charges for checking full plans applications or building notices and carrying out inspections of building work, including that relating to Part P, are pre-fixed in their charges scheme as required by the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998. Authorities do not have powers to reassess a fixed charge, which they have levied for a particular application or notice, during the course of the work."

It does suggest that some LA's have been too keen by half

[Lobster]

Gosh, I didn't realise that Two Jags actually writes this stuff himself...

David

[Andy Hall]

That would be impossible....

[jim_in_sussex]

Behind 2 jags' fine words, what does the circular really mean?

Clearly it says the LA can't require you to either supply an 'official certificate' nor pay the expense of a a 3rd party inpecting the work.

But can it have different tariiffs for applications which are entirely non-part Pee as opposed to those which include some or are exclusively part Pee, which SFAIUI is the other aspect of the grouse?

And there is another issue: SFAIUI a B Regs application is confidential between the applicant & the LA. Some work could involve novel solutions (theoretical or practical - including calculation and computer programming [& not to mention help ex such as uk.d-i-y ]). Can it send in a non-LA inspector & thus force me to disclose those solutions FOC?