This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

The ability to self-declare “competence” should not be possible.

Having looked for the Electrical Safety Round Table website this morning, I left the page open and went back to it again; and have been looking at the campaigns.

Anomaly-with-Approved-Document-P-discussion-paper.pdf (

Any thoughts?

  • I don't think that there is anything odd here. A member of a CPS scheme notifies the work and that is that. However competent somebody else may be, there is a (substantial) fee to be paid to the LA before work commences, and if they do not accept the electrician's qualifications, another fee afterwards.

  • I see no anomaly at all.  Reading that whitepaper, it looks like the anomaly has been invented by ESR, as part of a campaign to force electricians to join one of the schemes.

    If a competent person, who is not registered with any scheme, decides to do the work, then they must show their qualifications to the LABC.  The LABC then has the choice whether to accept the EIC as is, or to carry out their own inspections.

  • I dont see any issue here either,

    I know Im in Scotland, so not Part P per say, but number of years ago. I carried out work on my own house, I notified the local authority, who initially said I must be a member of a registered scheme etc etc, till I pointed out what the actual statutory regs indicated that if the person that is to do the work and certify it notifies the local authority first, then pays a fee ( if applied by the authority) then the local authority deals with it. They still hesitated when I said I was likley better qualified than some local contractors and why would I engage somebody else to do work in my home when I can equal or even have a better install than they were looking for, so eventually they saw sense.

    Officer came out, looked at the installation and completion cert compliant with BS7671 at that time, said he had never seen such a high quality install in a detached garage before, asked what quals I had? and I told him, ended up he didnt ask any further questions, in fact said he didnt need to return as he knew my install was compliant. Ended up chatting all things electrical over a cup of tea, and was never charged for the application.

    I can understand many local authorities not wanting to go down that route, but you dont need to be a meber of a scheme either.


  • There are three Routes to Certification through the LA Building Control on the chart. 

    (a) inspect

    (b) accept EIC

    (c) use an inspector 

    That has to be an anomaly in route (a) because no one complete a BS7671 certificate. 

    The anomaly in (b) is no one other than the unregistered installer sees the work and the installers competence is not verified. 

    There's is not an anomaly in (c) because the unregistered installers work is inspected, certified by the inspector and the LA verify (presumably) the inspector is competent rather than the unregistered installer.

    Basically the chart is s list so work arounds to circumnavigate what should be a straightforward process and the anomaly highlighted in yellow is not the only one. 

  • It appears that this document has been removed Andy, perhaps because you noticed it!

    The whole lot is anomalous, and that is the trouble with every bit of PartP. A scheme member company may notify some work, but the competence of the installer and particularly the QS is still very much in doubt. The LA for a non-member of a scheme will call on some member of a scheme to Inspect (but not provide a certificate ) of the work, and then it is deemed satisfactory. This actual "Inspector" may not be qualified in inspection and testing, and the QS takes no part! Now how is that not totally ridiculous? I am afraid it is jobs for the boys, and the fees charged are in no way controlled. The experience of GTB shows just how bad such an arrangement is, and it should never have existed. Most of the particularly poor work is never notified anyway, so I consider this just a way to increase scheme membership, there are more holes than a chain-link fence. BTW which bit of (c) says a full EIC must be produced, an EICR form may be filled in but this is not the same at all.

  • The anomaly in (b) is no one other than the unregistered installer sees the work and the installers competence is not verified.

    That all depends upon the LABC. In deciding whether or not to accept an EIC, a responsible LABC would have to consider whether the author is competent or not.

    It is perfectly possible that a diligent LABC may do a better job of confirming an installer's competence than a scheme might do.

  • I thought part p had pretty much withered on the vine and that no one really bothers with it any more, in the same as not notifying the fitting of a new W.C. in your bathroom, or having a window pane replaced.

    As for competence, what are/were exams/qualifications for?

  • Whilst that is true, the underlying legislation has not changed (yet). LA building control is NOT competent to be involved because it is very unlikely any of their staff is qualified in Electrics. If this scheme (part P) continues they should have a statutory duty to have several qualified Inspectors of their own, asking another vested interest is clearly ridiculous.

  • As stated, above... part P was to make money for the colleges'... etc. I know many electricians' that do the works, (re-wires etc), go to the pub and get a cert from their friendly part P electrician, ( for a drink as this saves all of the bother of going part P, and probably, the lack of qualifications, too PLUS... I also know, ((and heard of this from other sparks')), many part P electricians' that just fill in their own figures, (without doing any testing), on the test sheets'... I would never do this as I worry too much)), when the person issuing the cert has never seen the works! I really do not know what part P has achieved, other than it being a profitable project for some.  I don't come here to make waves... just stating, (as John Cleese would say), "The Bleeding Obvious" BUT, who knows, I could be wrong?! All the best, to all! 

  • I suspect it was introduced to a) provide a audit trail for the tax man, & b) with the opening of borders by Bliar back in the day, Prescott saw the influx from eastern europe and the potential for our standards to drop to theirs as new workers flooded the UK jobs market.