Part P fees April 2010 new year

[Mark2spark]

New financial year, new part p schedule of fees.

Whilst 70 or 80 quid notification fee for a rewire probably isn't too bad in the grand scheme, when Reading Council introduce a

 

[Evans Electric]

I think Birmingham is approx.

 

[Lee321]

i disagree deke. what if a diyer or perfectly good unregistered electrician for that matter has installed an impeccable job and just needs certing ?

yes it takes work away from us sparks which is the other reason that keeps stirring this debate but is not mentioned so much

after all an eic has the "i installed it" then "i ins & tested it" section

 

[ianmacd]

You are getting confused between 7671 certs and building control certs. Anyone can sign a 7671 cert but only a person registered with a Part P self cert scheme can have those accepted to LABC without any further I&T being done.

LABC argue the cost is to I&T the work in order to supply a Building Control Cert.

 

[Lee321]

You are getting confused between 7671 certs and building control certs. Anyone can sign a 7671 cert but only a person registered with a Part P self cert scheme can have those accepted to LABC without any further I&T being done.LABC argue the cost is to I&T the work in order to supply a Building Control Cert.

yeah thats how i understand it :confused smilie:

is this a better way for me to put it?

BC notified

a diyer installs or spark.

BC get a registered to complete EIC

installer/designer signs

scheme registered signs eic I&T

BC cert entered

?

 

[ianmacd]

yeah thats how i understand it :confused smilie:is this a better way for me to put it?

BC notified

a diyer installs or spark. and supplies EIC

BC get a registered to complete EIC Only signs I&T secion or lists it as I&T only if single sign cert.

BC cert entered

?

In RED

 

[Lee321]

pretty daft the installer to provide the EIC ? as hardly any info will be on it.

you sure thats right ian?

as you'd want your certs and serial numbers from your company surely?

 

[ianmacd]

Why wouldn't installer provide EIC? They should have I&T'd it. Should be fully completed as they claim to be a competent person so should have all equipment to complete I&T. This then should be supplied to the person doing the I&T for the LABC to assist his/her working.

The cert supplied by the spart assigned by LABC should be presented to LABC for issuing of Building Control Cert and doesn't nessessarily get presented to home owner/whomever.

 

[Lee321]

no ian thats the point the diyer / spark need not be competent

only that the installation has been installed to bs7671 and a competent person will check its conformity i.e I&t

then bc is satisfied issue the acceptance

this is just how i see it i'm not arguing with you just want to air it?

 

[ianmacd]

no ian thats the point the diyer / spark need not be competentonly that the installation has been installed to bs7671 and a competent person will check its conformity i.e I&t

then bc is satisfied issue the acceptance

this is just how i see it i'm not arguing with you just want to air it?

Since all work done under Part P (i.e. ALL work in a domestic dwelling) is required to be done to 7671 and 7671 requires certs for all work then anyone doing electrical work in a domestic dwelling should be filling out either an EIC or MWC.

According to ADP 1.25 the level of i&t the installer will have to do will depend on the job, e.g. for a full rewire full set of i&t may need to be carried out.

1.27 reminds people that LABC will not issue 7671 cert.

Also 1.32 says 7671 certs should be issued even for non notifiable work.

As for the competent part, EWR require all electrical work is undertaken by competent person(s) so any one doing the work for reward would need to prove competancy.

 

[Lee321]

i still think its debatable but lets not go to far.

i don't see that is saying the installer must test his own work or he must be competent.

i.e as long as the work is correct and is inspected and tested by said competent it has to be right

this is how the big companies work now. its even being made policy

the new super QE hospital was installed with all mates no electricians

this is haden young

so goverment funded projects are installed by diyers then passed off with testers

i would take the part of competency to install but they do not have the competency to inspec & test

 

[Zeespark]

Hospitals dont come under the scope of Part P so no issues with mates doing a majority of the work in places like hospitals so long as the work is fully I + T'd lost.

AndyGuinness

 

[Lee321]

true on the part p zee

just was getting at installer not need test

 

[Zeespark]

True but the whole crux of the issue isnt 7671 but actually Part P.

AndyGuinness

 

[Lee321]

yes and hence diy installs but is not competent to test

not only that bc will not accept in most cases their certs (however have been know too)

so only option is bc ins and test with use of registered

then all is legal

?

 

[ianmacd]

yes and hence diy installs but is not competent to testnot only that bc will not accept in most cases their certs (however have been know too)

so only option is bc ins and test with use of registered

then all is legal

?

The I&T done for LABC can be done by any sparks whether with a little club or not as they are not notifying. Only need is to proove competancy under 7671 to fill out an EIC or MWC.

 

[PBC_1966]

Since all work done under Part P (i.e. ALL work in a domestic dwelling) is required to be done to 7671

No it isn't. BS7671 is not mandatory.

 

[Lee321]

No it isn't. BS7671 is not mandatory.

we know but its accepted as being and a court would prosecute with non compliance even tho it is not Law

 

[PBC_1966]

we know but its accepted as being and a court would prosecute with non compliance even tho it is not Law

It is not accepted as being law. The Building Regulations do not state that compliance with BS7671 is mandatory; the only reference to the standard is for the definition of a special location.

The guidelines in the Approved Document for Part P point out that following BS7671 would be one way of complying with the Building Regulations, but also cite multiple other standards which would be considered acceptable, and confirm that there is no obligation to follow any of the standards quoted.

 

[ianmacd]

It is not accepted as being law. The Building Regulations do not state that compliance with BS7671 is mandatory; the only reference to the standard is for the definition of a special location. The guidelines in the Approved Document for Part P point out that following BS7671 would be one way of complying with the Building Regulations, but also cite multiple other standards which would be considered acceptable, and confirm that there is no obligation to follow any of the standards quoted.

Well you go follow your own method then and we will all laugh when it holds no weight in court.