Third Party Certification

[NozSpark]

I was only going off the proposed charge that the OP stated.... to test and certify a new circuit might take 2 visits with lets say 3 hours billable (over all) + notification fees....

Whereas a LABC might be anything from £300 +...... I guess

 

[Apache]

I'm not trying to be a prat about this, but I do think there ought to be a middle ground where this is possible and workable.

I wonder if the guys already doing the testing and cert of others work hold specific insurance over and above what they would usually have?

To an extent if the form had the owner certify things like cable runs, hidden joints etc then they would be outside the testing sparks liability.

 

[Rob_the_rich]

If you do the work yourself, then inspection, testing and certifying should not take any longer than normal. including pre-work survey.

If you are certifying someone else's work, it should take more time for the inspection part, surely.

Also, if you find something wrong, you should still be paid for your time i.e. for non-certification.

 

[Apache]

The simple solution is to have a certification fee and issue a certificate as either 'compliant' or 'non compliant'. That way the fee is clearly due either way.

I also agree that if you do the work it may take less time to test than if you come in to just test. What I don't agree is you can turn up - do the job (lets say install a new shower circuit 15m from the board) use parts and consumables and issue a cert - but the cost is the same to just test and issue a cert. That I don't agree.

 

[Rob_the_rich]

I can't argue with that Apache, but the £300+ BC fee is there for all to see. its a funny old world.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

What I don't agree is you can turn up - do the job (lets say install a new shower circuit 15m from the board) use parts and consumables and issue a cert - but the cost is the same to just test and issue a cert. That I don't agree.

Unfortunately this IS the way a lot of the world of commerce actually works....

i.e.

You are purchasing a job lot bulk of some goods or services.. cost £x pounds...

you purchase a small part segment of that same job lot of some goods or services and proportionally costs are much more than the bulk item to start with..

e.g.

Consider I want to purchase a particular triton shower @ £75.00

If or when I want to replace individual components of that shower...

add all of the items together and it can come to two or three times the original cost of the complete item!!!!!

WHY??????????

Go have a look at the Triton website check the price for a few individual items..

Shower head & rail.

Heating cylinder.

Micro switch.

Front cover including start/stop button..

etc..

etc ..

etc...

They soon exceed the cost of a complete brand new shower...

How is that any different from another tradesperson doing a full supply / install / test / certify of a job cost £x pounds..

And an Inspect / test / certify third party installed items costing close to £x pounds as well!?

It’s all just Business and how it runs!!

Or look at it another way..

I have hourly, daily & weekly labour charges,

dependent upon how long a job takes.

My labour charges for an 8hour day (i.e. 1xday) is less than my 8x hourly rate.

and

My labour charges for a 5 day week (i.e. 1xweek) is less than my 5x day rate!

Just the same as Screwfix may sell 10 boxes of screws at less than the cost of 10x single boxes!

SO why can’t any business offer more work at a proportionally discounted cost than what is apparently less work!?

I can’t see why anyone finds it so strange?????

:C

 

[pewter]

Tons of builders/ kitchen fitters/ electricians/ improvers/ do work which is not tested, not certificated, not notified.

No one really cares.

Sometimes when properties are being bought/sold , someone requests an electrical or  'Part-P' certificate.   I often explain i can only do an EICR and can not 'part-p', which after correspondence confuses everyone who then get the message back to me to say yes whatever electrical certificate. Im sure when they get my report they skim over it and tick a box to say they have got an 'electrical certificate'

I get the impression Building control have a lot of freedom to how they operate.

On here i think someone mentioned they have an agreement with there BC to notify work directly not through one of the clubs (NICEIC / Elecsa).

When i got my registration with NIC i did it correctly , (notified BC, did the work, then got NIC inspection), most people who get there registration for the first time do it illegally (do the work, get inspection , then mabey notify the work). I was told by NIC you cant notify a job you started and completed before you were registered.       No one cares not even the NIC inspectors .     When i contacted BC to notify my job it was an unusual thing and he needed to get back to me on a lot of things.

BC told me,

-they need to inspect install, 1st and 2nd fix + get a 3rd party electrician to come and test the work. cost £3-500

What i did,

-install consumer unit so no 1st fix needed

-notify 2 days befor work started,

     did the work,

     book NIC visit

     Complete the install day before visit ( i had 1 sticker left to apply)

     within 30 days of completion notify building control

     when notified i sent them : my certificate, my acceptance letter to NICEIC, all my electrical qualifications, a EICR completed by a 3rd party (my mate)

-BC still wanted to pop in to check it existed ('i know nothing about electrical installations' was his words) and took a cheque for £80 off me.

My point is,   i think Building control have a lot of freedom regarding Part-P notification, and no one cares if it does not get notified anyway.   

Has anyone ever got into trouble for not notifying a job??     ( it could always be claimed the job is not finished so is not notified yet)

 

[Apache]

SL - the implication from Noz is that the cost of the certificate is the same as doing the entire job:

But half the problem is that homeowners do things themselves to save themselves some money.... they're not exactly going to pay someone to certify that shower circuit that they've installed at an additional cost of £150........ Which incidentally might have been the cost to get someone in to do the job properly (& certified) anyway...

I appreciate buying the job in parts potentially costs more than getting someone to do the whole job. What is saved is labour for the installation - pulling up floor boards, knocking in the back box, whatever.

Labour + parts + cert should cost more than cert + parts bought themselves.

 

[NozSpark]

But market forces might show that £150 is in fact a really good deal... Maybe a 50% saving over other "organisations" who provide the same service....

But anyway,,,, I said before that I was only using the OPs stated cost of £150

 

[Steve3948]

But I think the biggest problem and the reason it will not work is because it's not about what you are told but more what you are NOT told.

So you get a call from a customer who wants you to do the 3rd Party Test & Inspection, you don't know them, they don't know you, so neither care about each other.

You tell them you will need to visit at various stages, but what happens between those stages is the problem, you have not done the work and they don't care about you they only want their certificate.

Everything looks fine and tests ok, then something goes wrong, lets say house fire, fire service say fire started behind kitchen units.

Customer brings out certificate stating installation meets requirements and has been fully tested and inspected, so insurance company look to the certifier for answers.

It goes to court you are called to give your account of the test and inspection and it drags on over a few months, you may find yourself being told you missed something so you are to blame, and all this for a few quid, is it worth it.

Your fee should be based on risk, companies that carry out EICR on petrol filling stations charge huge sums because of the insurance they need should things go wrong.

A third party certifier will be the same, he will need a higher level of insurance and this could well mean that the cost of certifying is almost the same as doing the job.

 

[Sharpend]

I wonder Apache, would you put your name to another alleged vets work for the indefinite future and be held liable if the creature were to die from their work?

I'm with Manator here, I think too many people sign certificates without a scooby of their now assumed responsiblity all for the sake of a few quid.

It could be argued that Napit should look to change their name as professional inspectors and testers are probably the minority now? But then in this country minority seems to rule?

 

[binky]

couple of points apache:-

1/ you have test gear and no doubt know how to use it having been on here for a very long time

2/ if i install a cct, then testing and inspecting is a doddle - 10 mins max. If I'm looking at someone elses work t takes far longer and i don't know what they have done that I can't see.

3/ as i said before, you are quite unusual for a DIYer in many ways :^O

You are right about 1 thing though, our reaction to most requests is based on the amount of ***** we have seen / found / sorted out over the years, by DIY, builders, and cowboy sparks,  and a desire to sleep at night.

 

[Apache]

I wonder Apache, would you put your name to another alleged vets work for the indefinite future and be held liable if the creature were to die from their work?

We do all the time. I'm certifying products for export I enquire with the producer how the product was prepared. Some certificates require them to sign a declaration that they have properly prepared the product or complied with rules for movement and medicine usage. I can only inspect what I see to the limits of what is provided in front of me.

No court in the land could convict the testing electrician if a hidden fault caused an injury or a fire. If the testing electrician didn't exercise due diligence and missed something they should have found that is a different story. 

I don't understand how you are happy coming to my house and testing the electrics (EICR) and giving me a certificate to say all is safe, but not happy testing a new circuit I've run out to my shed. If you did the EICR you would test that circuit anyway. If the day after you issued the satisfactory EICR a visiting child was electrocuted and you missed a dangerous fault do you think your liability is any different? In both cases you have tested the same circuit and based on the information you have been given declared it safe or not. The outcome is a dead kid. I can't see the difference.

If we had a different certificate for this with the 'installer' making certain declarations and the spark certifying only the testing and an inspection of a proportion of accessories - how would you feel about that? More like an EICR but allowed for new works?

 

[brman]

We do all the time. I'm certifying products for export I enquire with the producer how the product was prepared. Some certificates require them to sign a declaration that they have properly prepared the product or complied with rules for movement and medicine usage. I can only inspect what I see to the limits of what is provided in front of me.

No court in the land could convict the testing electrician if a hidden fault caused an injury or a fire. If the testing electrician didn't exercise due diligence and missed something they should have found that is a different story. 

I don't understand how you are happy coming to my house and testing the electrics (EICR) and giving me a certificate to say all is safe, but not happy testing a new circuit I've run out to my shed. If you did the EICR you would test that circuit anyway. If the day after you issued the satisfactory EICR a visiting child was electrocuted and you missed a dangerous fault do you think your liability is any different? In both cases you have tested the same circuit and based on the information you have been given declared it safe or not. The outcome is a dead kid. I can't see the difference.

If we had a different certificate for this with the 'installer' making certain declarations and the spark certifying only the testing and an inspection of a proportion of accessories - how would you feel about that? More like an EICR but allowed for new works?

ref the bit in bold. An EICR does not say the installation is safe! That is a bit like thinking your MOT man is giving you a cert to say your car is safe. He is not, he is saying he has tested and not found any faults. Completely different in terms of liability. 

Which is the crux of the 3rd party testing thing. If they were asking us to do an EICR (which btw is what building control have accepted in lieu of a EIC in the past) then no problem. We just have to do the inspection/test correctly and sign the bit of paper to say we have done so. But no, they are asking for an EIC which gives another level of assurance that EVERYTHING in the job has been done right.

1) EIC = whole job has been done by someone competent

2) EICR = god knows how most of the work was done but at least someone has inspected and tested what he can to check there aren't any obvious problems.

However they dress it up 3rd party inspection is doing the work like 2) but expecting the guarantees like 1)

 

[Doc Hudson]

We do all the time. I'm certifying products for export I enquire with the producer how the product was prepared. Some certificates require them to sign a declaration that they have properly prepared the product or complied with rules for movement and medicine usage. I can only inspect what I see to the limits of what is provided in front of me.

No court in the land could convict the testing electrician if a hidden fault caused an injury or a fire. If the testing electrician didn't exercise due diligence and missed something they should have found that is a different story. 

I don't understand how you are happy coming to my house and testing the electrics (EICR) and giving me a certificate to say all is safe, but not happy testing a new circuit I've run out to my shed. If you did the EICR you would test that circuit anyway. If the day after you issued the satisfactory EICR a visiting child was electrocuted and you missed a dangerous fault do you think your liability is any different? In both cases you have tested the same circuit and based on the information you have been given declared it safe or not. The outcome is a dead kid. I can't see the difference.

If we had a different certificate for this with the 'installer' making certain declarations and the spark certifying only the testing and an inspection of a proportion of accessories - how would you feel about that? More like an EICR but allowed for new works?

[SIZE=10.5pt]EICR's and EIC's are two very different beasts, which is also confirmed by the wording of the declarations that are signed on each. Remember one is a report on the condition of a sample of an installation with agreed limitations to the extent of the circuits inspected and some tests can be omitted due to inconvenience or dangers to others at the installation or equipment vulnerable to testing. A final evaluation of Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory is given with relation to any immediate or potential hazards identified. The other is a certificate to verify that some new work has been designed, installed, inspected and tested and that it fully complies with current wiring regulations. Therefore should be electrically safe and in accordance with building regulations.[/SIZE]

Doc H.

 

[Evans Electric]

Again , diversification of electrical contracting takes place .

I believe this is the present situation:-

Nappitt  & Stroma   will be doing 3rd party notifications

NICEIC & ELECSA  will not . 

I read somewhere that an inspection at 1st fix  MUST take place .

Who signs the certs for design etc  is anybody's guess.

 

[Manator]

Tons of builders/ kitchen fitters/ electricians/ improvers/ do work which is not tested, not certificated, not notified.

No one really cares.

Sometimes when properties are being bought/sold , someone requests an electrical or  'Part-P' certificate.   I often explain i can only do an EICR and can not 'part-p', which after correspondence confuses everyone who then get the message back to me to say yes whatever electrical certificate. Im sure when they get my report they skim over it and tick a box to say they have got an 'electrical certificate'

I get the impression Building control have a lot of freedom to how they operate.

On here i think someone mentioned they have an agreement with there BC to notify work directly not through one of the clubs (NICEIC / Elecsa).

When i got my registration with NIC i did it correctly , (notified BC, did the work, then got NIC inspection), most people who get there registration for the first time do it illegally (do the work, get inspection , then mabey notify the work). I was told by NIC you cant notify a job you started and completed before you were registered.       No one cares not even the NIC inspectors .     When i contacted BC to notify my job it was an unusual thing and he needed to get back to me on a lot of things.

BC told me,

-they need to inspect install, 1st and 2nd fix + get a 3rd party electrician to come and test the work. cost £3-500

What i did,

-install consumer unit so no 1st fix needed

-notify 2 days befor work started,

     did the work,

     book NIC visit

     Complete the install day before visit ( i had 1 sticker left to apply)

     within 30 days of completion notify building control

     when notified i sent them : my certificate, my acceptance letter to NICEIC, all my electrical qualifications, a EICR completed by a 3rd party (my mate)

-BC still wanted to pop in to check it existed ('i know nothing about electrical installations' was his words) and took a cheque for £80 off me.

My point is,   i think Building control have a lot of freedom regarding Part-P notification, and no one cares if it does not get notified anyway.   

Has anyone ever got into trouble for not notifying a job??     ( it could always be claimed the job is not finished so is not notified yet) would have bee

That would have been myself.

 

[binky]

it's not true that peolple don't care, it's more a case of not knowing, if they know they generally care in my experience.

 

[DuaneMHunt1976]

So is 3rd Party basically doing the job of building control.

I figured its for "DIY" and Guys who used to do Electricals whom dont have qualifications (last time i said that, i got screamed at) 
Guy pointed out that you have to really watch each bit of the install

Look at the Plans

Check the wiring before sealing

Then Testing when all done.

A Big Company wouldnt have a guy hanging around waiting for test, they would just let them install the wiring and then send the guy around for a quick test.

Also told by a NAPIT Asse, that there is NO PAPER WORK FOR IT, i did figure than the Multi Sign Form would suit it, the DIYer as the Designer and the Installer and you as the Tester!.

The 3rd Party has been around since 2011 i think (its in Part P) but still not much has been done., and its goverment pushing for this.

 

[Murdoch]

So is 3rd Party basically doing the job of building control.

I figured its for "DIY" and Guys who used to do Electricals whom dont have qualifications (last time i said that, i got screamed at) 

Guy pointed out that you have to really watch each bit of the install

Look at the Plans

Check the wiring before sealing

Then Testing when all done.

A Big Company wouldnt have a guy hanging around waiting for test, they would just let them install the wiring and then send the guy around for a quick test.

Also told by a NAPIT Asse, that there is NO PAPER WORK FOR IT, i did figure than the Multi Sign Form would suit it, the DIYer as the Designer and the Installer and you as the Tester!.

The 3rd Party has been around since 2011 i think (its in Part P) but still not much has been done., and its goverment pushing for this.

Er no..... the way I understand it is that 3rd Party Inspection is not a way of getting around notification of Part P

I'm now with Stroma, having left Elecsa, and Stroma include 3rd Party sign off as part of the "package". That said I have NO intention of doing any 3rd party sign offs!