Scheme withdrawal

[extension15]

I've decided not to renew my Part P registration..

I've got my 2391 (and 16th (soon to be 17th)), that's all I need..

; \

 

[a1]

 

[extension15]

Well I wouldn't say it's that sad admin..

 

[Theorysparky]

Ext

so will you go to labc and notify ????? or avoid those jobs

or take the jobs where the customer has already paid

i would be interested only because i might be going the opposite way

 

[extension15]

Extso will you go to labc and notify ????? or avoid those jobs

or take the jobs where the customer has already paid

i would be interested only because i might be going the opposite way

I'll do what's required, to keep within the law..

But so many sparky's are still not bothering with the do's and dont's.. :|

The main consideration in withdrawing from the scheme, is I might be calling time on being self employed

 

[a1]

You can't! Give it time buddy.

 

[Theorysparky]

I'll do what's required, to keep within the law..But so many sparky's are still not bothering with the do's and dont's.. :|

The main consideration in withdrawing from the scheme, is I might be calling time on being self employed

I have heard that from a few mates i know

as for calling time ......guys are doing that aswell

 

[M107]

I thought about binning the P registration, but have decided to stick with it as I think the loop holes will eventually be closed & eventualy it'll be harder to do the work unless you are part Peed .

Even more so if things go the route that I was told about by BCO on an extension job last week. The powers that be are proposing that any fines levied on house holders or installers (note not electricians so covers anybody who does sparks work) for unregistered / poor / uncerted electrical work, will go directly into local councils coffers, if they think they'll earn out of it well may be they'll police it

Like we've all said before, part P....................good concept but poorly thought out & implimented & has just turned into another tax............... for now anyway.

Just wish I got more for my yearly fee X(

 

[steptoe]

well now, heres a point,

you have to notify if your not part P reg, and therefore not competent,

BUT,

does having 2391 not in itself make you wholy more competent than the guy who only has part P.?

fight your corner, and notify LABC without being part P reg,

Ive done it on every job i needed to and told them that if they wanted to take it to court they would lose,

(on legal advice due to my circumstances, yours may differ)

NO comebacks yet.

part P is to my mind and if you read it carefully, a subsitute for 2391.

IMHO.

 

[kme]

I thought about binning the P registration, but have decided to stick with it as I think the loop holes will eventually be closed & eventualy it'll be harder to do the work unless you are part Peed .Even more so if things go the route that I was told about by BCO on an extension job last week. The powers that be are proposing that any fines levied on house holders or installers (note not electricians so covers anybody who does sparks work) for unregistered / poor / uncerted electrical work, will go directly into local councils coffers, if they think they'll earn out of it well may be they'll police it

Like we've all said before, part P....................good concept but poorly thought out & implimented & has just turned into another tax............... for now anyway.

Just wish I got more for my yearly fee X(

This concept of BCO policing & collecting fines was floated during a NAPIT seminar on the 17th ed. last December.

The suggestion was that there would be a

 

[Theorysparky]

if they are going to play that game and hit the non part p registered guys then play them at their own game

next rewire i have i will pay the

 

[extension15]

well now, heres a point,you have to notify if your not part P reg, and therefore not competent,

BUT,

does having 2391 not in itself make you wholy more competent than the guy who only has part P.?

fight your corner, and notify LABC without being part P reg,

Ive done it on every job i needed to and told them that if they wanted to take it to court they would lose,

(on legal advice due to my circumstances, yours may differ)

NO comebacks yet.

part P is to my mind and if you read it carefully, a subsitute for 2391.

IMHO.

Having the Inspection & Testing qualification, is significant, it's mentioned in the Part P document, if your not part of the scheme..

 

[NozSpark]

Personally I think that being a SCAM member instills confidence in your customers and is a good thing and if used as an advertising tool can help you win more work, especially if you do a lot of domestic

 

[extension15]

Personally I think that being a SCAM member instills confidence in your customers and is a good thing and if used as an advertising tool can help you win more work, especially if you do a lot of domestic

Correct, but just a shame so many don't understand it..

; \

 

[Mick]

Surely ones qualifications and proveable experience are of more importance than being a member of any SCAM (and that is IMO the correct term for it) and it would be very difficult for any court of law to deem you unsuitable for any work you may carry out whilst persuing the nature of your business .

If you have the necessary qualifications and experience why should you then be subject to being a member of such an idiotic idea as these notification shemes have managed to become .

For everones information , Part P is one of many of the recently formed Building Regulations that must be conformed to in order to obtain a certificate that states that the property conforms to a certain criteria of safety and eco friendly conditions thought up by people who have nothing else to do .

It is rumoured that many of the Scam members are 5 day wonders (as we know them) and I would certainly prefer an experienced , qualified , person , to one of these any day .

In a nutshell , do we need Part P , well maybe . Do we need the Schemes (Scams) , definately not .

 

[kme]

Surely ones qualifications and proveable experience are of more importance than being a member of any SCAM (and that is IMO the correct term for it) and it would be very difficult for any court of law to deem you unsuitable for any work you may carry out whilst persuing the nature of your business .If you have the necessary qualifications and experience why should you then be subject to being a member of such an idiotic idea as these notification shemes have managed to become .

For everones information , Part P is one of many of the recently formed Building Regulations that must be conformed to in order to obtain a certificate that states that the property conforms to a certain criteria of safety and eco friendly conditions thought up by people who have nothing else to do .

It is rumoured that many of the Scam members are 5 day wonders (as we know them) and I would certainly prefer an experienced , qualified , person , to one of these any day .

In a nutshell , do we need Part P , well maybe . Do we need the Schemes (Scams) , definately not .

FYI. One of the "building regulation" think-tanks ( I can`t make those words gel in the same sentence;but never mind) ; on the subject of plumbing, approved a list of "rules for copper pipes".........

Rule no. 1. (This is NOT a joke!)

The external diameter of the pipe must be larger than the internal diameter!

And they get PAID for coming up with that.

I could think up stuff like that! Anyone know how to apply for a job on a "think-tank"??????

Or is it related to the amount of brown-nosing you do??? That`s me stuffed then! :^O

 

[NozSpark]

Mick,

All that I was trying to say is that, rightly or wrongly, some of the general public will have greater confidence in a contractor who is a member of a trade body (scheme provider). They generally perceive that those contractor who are in a scheme meet a minimum requirement (skills, insurance, honesty, etc) and that they will have some recourse if something goes wrong.

 

[Mick]

FYI. One of the "building regulation" think-tanks ( I can`t make those words gel in the same sentence;but never mind) ; on the subject of plumbing, approved a list of "rules for copper pipes".........Rule no. 1. (This is NOT a joke!)

The external diameter of the pipe must be larger than the internal diameter!

And they get PAID for coming up with that.

I could think up stuff like that! Anyone know how to apply for a job on a "think-tank"??????

Or is it related to the amount of brown-nosing you do??? That`s me stuffed then! :^O

I'm afraid they do get paid for coming up with stuff like that and very handsomely too .

To be honest , they're on a winner with that one about the pipe are'nt they , I'd like to see anyone refute that statement of fact .

 

[kme]

Mick,All that I was trying to say is that, rightly or wrongly, some of the general public will have greater confidence in a contractor who is a member of a trade body (scheme provider). They generally perceive that those contractor who are in a scheme meet a minimum requirement (skills, insurance, honesty, etc) and that they will have some recourse if something goes wrong.

Would agree 100% with your post mate. Financially secure customers(the ones you want!!) will ALWAYS want some sort of "official recommendation" that you know what you`re doing!

 

[kme]

I'm afraid they do get paid for coming up with stuff like that and very handsomely too .To be honest , they're on a winner with that one about the pipe are'nt they , I'd like to see anyone refute that statement of fact .

`Appen. I`d like to see a pipe which "fails" this rule! Maybe there`s one on the "tardis??":^O

Electrician`s cables:

Rule #1.

The cable must not be constructed from a material with insulating properties."