Part P, 17th Edition and Inspection and Testing

[sbucks74]

Hi I am new to the forum and quite impressed. I've been in the game for 20 years and are still learning new things.

We have had this argument at work coinciding with Testing and the 17th Edition, with Part P.

I have been told by a Tutor in a Lancashire college who deals with City Electrical, that under current legislation anyone who passes the 17th update does not have to do the Part P course as this ties in with the European Union.

As our European bretherin can install over here without the Part P qualification.

Is there any truth in this.

As I understand anyone can fill in a Certificate and sign it off ( As long as they are competent in the knowledge of ). The problem lies in the fact if someone got hurt and it goes to court the 2391 answers all relevant questions of being Certified competent.

A fellow Tester claims he cannot test a Domestic dwelling for P.I.R, because of Part P. Yet Commercial and Industrial is not a problem. I thought if you had the 2391 Qualification, you are qualified to test any Electrical Installation apart from Compex testing.

Thanks for your help

 

[Andy™]

part p is a building reg, not a 'qualification', although there is a 'part p course'. even if you pass this course, you still need to register with scam provider, and pass assessment. if your already qualified, you should be able to pass assessment

anyone can complete any cert, only requirement is your competent.

part p does not cover PIR's, anyone competent can do them (in domestic, commercial or industrial). however, many scam providers will happily take your money and another assessment to let you use their PIR forms. simple way around: dont use their forms.

search and you will find more on this. and probably a lot more info

 

[ProDave]

A PIR is NOTHING to do with part P. With a PIR you are testing an electircal installation and making statements about it. You are NOT doing any installation of any sort (unles you de remedial repairs) so anyone competent can complete a domestic PIR without need for part P.

Part P is a completely separate building regulation in addition to wiring regulations, and covers certain wiring in certain situations in a domestic property. If you do work that falls within the scope of Part P, then you need to either notify it to LABC, or if signed up and veriefied as competent, notify it yourself.

So you just as much need part P building regulations as you would any other building regulation approval if you made structural alterations to your property.

Just because you originate from outside the UK does no mean you are exempt from Part P or any other building regulation.

The only "loophole" is in fact it is the property owner who is responsible for complying with building regulations, so an unscrupulous sparky could just do the job and let the owner take the flack at some point in the future (probably when they try and sell the house)

Of course Part P only applies to England and Wales, not to Scotland (I believe NI also has something different)

 

[sparkytim]

Hi

As others have said there seems to be some confusion about Part P.

A part P course is ONE way that a person may receive training in order to be able to be assessed as a "competent person" and hence be acceptable to a Part P scheme provider.

Other ways are possible. If one has Qualifications such as C&G 2330 or earlier equivalents and a CURRENT Regs qualification such as 2382 then this may well be sufficent to become acceptable along with ASSESSMENT by a Part P scheme operator.

 

[batty]

HiAs others have said there seems to be some confusion about Part P.

A part P course is ONE way that a person may receive training in order to be able to be assessed as a "competent person" and hence be acceptable to a Part P scheme provider.

Other ways are possible. If one has Qualifications such as C&G 2330 or earlier equivalents and a CURRENT Regs qualification such as 2382 then this may well be sufficent to become acceptable along with ASSESSMENT by a Part P scheme operator.

No confusion most people have never even heard of it.

headbang

 

[sbucks74]

Thanks for the response.

I'll be truthful I don't like the Part P, or the fact some courses say you can be a spark within 7 weeks and House Bash.

I have all the old/current Qualifications apart from 2391, which is next on the agenda. I was trying to find more info before I have to throw away some more money at ill-gotten courses and charge customers higher prices

thanks

 

[sparkytim]

Thanks for the response.I'll be truthful I don't like the Part P, or the fact some courses say you can be a spark within 7 weeks and House Bash.

I have all the old/current Qualifications apart from 2391, which is next on the agenda. I was trying to find more info before I have to throw away some more money at ill-gotten courses and charge customers higher prices

thanks

Sounds as if you have ALL that is needed for Part P registration.

2391 is not required to join most schemes but recommended to obtain.

 

[sbucks74]

Question: What is the legitimacy of a PIR as I have recently tested a factory and 15 pages later of mainly Class/Code 1 faults. Nothing has yet been done.

this was also in the reports not inspected by myself over the last 6 years, we are talking of Manslaughter charges if someone gets hurt. Where does it stand, before I/Company notify HSE of said PIR Faults of tested factory installation

 

[green-hornet]

I would bring this up with the owner of the factory first. Any code 1 would make the results unsatifactory and he his duty bound to get them put right. There can not be any other outcome than unsatisfactory, so his insurance and all liabilities would be void should any claim be forthcomming.

 

[Andy™]

7671 is not law, so a PIR has no legal meaning, but like the rest of 7671, can be used as evidence in court. if the place is really bad, then HSE may send someone to check the place, and issure notices etc

 

[sparkytim]

I would bring this up with the owner of the factory first. Any code 1 would make the results unsatifactory and he his duty bound to get them put right. There can not be any other outcome than unsatisfactory, so his insurance and all liabilities would be void should any claim be forthcomming.

Code 1 is REAL AND IMMINENT DANGER. (exposed live parts etc)

Under the Electricity at work regulations YOU are duty bound to do something before you leave site to remove this danger.

i.e. Switch OFF, disconnect supply or rectify problem.

You are also required to inform in writing the responsible person of the situation. The NICEIC have produced DANGER WARNING NOTICE forms for this purpose.

Are you sure that all are Code 1 and not Code 2 which is POTENTIAL DANGER

There was a change in the codeing recommendations year or so ago

See

http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/electrical-industry/BPG4_08.pdf

 

[sbucks74]

So if the 7671 is not law and only recommended guideline, that then throws 2391 and all other qualifications out of the window, if it came to a prosecution.

As a test only applies to that date, like an MOT. Defaults can occur after-wards, so if someone was hurt or killed after said date on test, i.e. 2 years. The building in question would be tested again for tampering or corrosion.

We all know that you can do a test 3 or 4 times on a circuit and have different results every time due to other influences.

The building is bad: 35mm singles cut into a BS3631 30 Amp carrier fused at 63Amp is probably good enough. Or the 415V Socket IP10 mounted over a sink with 4mm single copper wire in BS3631 Carriers is another example. I have loads of pictures. 300A tails left live in 6x6 trunking.

My Megger Volt Stick became my best friend.

Or the classic, single G/Y earth cable used as a phase conductor in a trunking installation. A lighting Circuit backed up with a 160A MCCB fuse, the list is endless

 

[sbucks74]

I have locked off most of the factory, was removed from site and hey presto everything is back on by maintenance electricians. Nothing Changed apart from the locks, notices on D.B's and Failure Notices removed, hence why I asked about the legality of the PIR.

 

[a1spark]

sbucks......you say 15 pages of mainly code 1 observations. can you give some examples of the defects you are attributing as a code 1 .

Edit ; Sorry I was posting while you had already given some examples .

Wow ! and some of them are Scary !

 

[sparkytim]

I would suggest you obtain a signature from the responsible person to confirm they have received your report and notice of Danger along with list of action you had taken, then its down to them, sounds as if you have done all you could then.

It makes you wonder why they have had a PIR if they are going to ignore it.

 

[Andy™]

they were probably hoping for 'a PIR' to give to insurance co.

Any chance of some of those pics?

 

[sbucks74]

I have, they have documents signed over to their OWN HSE. I was at a loss if the PIR stood any ground obviously not, unless someone is hurt. The other note I thought I'd be getting work to fix/repair circuits but no....

I forgot to mention about the EM Lighting or lack of it

 

[sbucks74]

I had a mistype before the Carriers were BS3036 Semi enclosed