Does part P go far enough?

[NotHimAgain]

BAS some of your comments about the NICEICs role in all of this are inaccurate and unfair. I am not attempting to defend or justify their current behaviour, as I don't really have any knowledge of it, and the organisation has changed a great deal in recent times.

When the infant part P first surfaced (in the mid nineties) the NICEIC were faced with a - join in or be left 'high and dry' situation. The NICEIC did not lobby for a 'closed shop' in fact they often spoke against it, preferring their voluntary registration model. There was a good reason for this - if a compulsory system were introduced - and if the NICEIC failed to get control of it - they would become obsolete .

Now on the question of proof of competence for the DIYer. I don't think there is any practical system that could be introduced. If there were would we not need parallel systems for all other forms of DIY work that might have the potential to cause danger.

IMO The best course of action, if any is needed, would be to emphasis by information and by publicising any successful prosecutions - the Law of Tort - negligence. The DIYer should be reminded that they do have some responsibilities for their actions.

I don't think you would achieve any cost effective benefit from 'tests of competence' or the like.

DIY work is a 'fact of life' - most people undertake some form of work, in and around their homes, that they are not 'qualified' to do. Some of this work is well executed and some is not.

Attempts to ban DIY work have not, IMO, proved to be successful (Australia for example).

 

[sealeon]

So can I go home and have a headache pill and a lie down

kin wimp!

The bloke is far too opinionated and upset by this subject it aint worth the time to attempt to change his opinions so whats the point

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS some of your comments about the NICEICs role in all of this are inaccurate and unfair. I am not attempting to defend or justify their current behaviour, as I don't really have any knowledge of it, and the organisation has changed a great deal in recent times.

Haven't they just...

When the infant part P first surfaced (in the mid nineties) the NICEIC were faced with a - join in or be left 'high and dry' situation. The NICEIC did not lobby for a 'closed shop' in fact they often spoke against it, preferring their voluntary registration model. There was a good reason for this - if a compulsory system were introduced - and if the NICEIC failed to get control of it - they would become obsolete .

What they got may well not have been what they wanted. I don't think they wanted a closed shop controlled by just themselves, but there had been years of lobbying of the Govt by them, and the ECA, to essentially restrict all domestic electrical installation work to "proper" electricians. They'd have been happy for there still to be a choice of trade bodies, or the choice for people not to register. I don't even think that they wanted to stop DIY (although somebody must have put the idea in the Govt's head that it needed controlling) - what they wanted was to stop plumbers and kitchen fitters from doing electrical work in bathrooms & kitchens. Why do you think that Part P classes kitchens along with bathrooms even though the Wiring Regulations don't?

But what we got was Part P, and NICEIC took to it like a duck to water, including leading the way in the registering of plumbers and kitchen fitters who could bumble through a 5-day course....

Now on the question of proof of competence for the DIYer. I don't think there is any practical system that could be introduced. If there were would we not need parallel systems for all other forms of DIY work that might have the potential to cause danger.

The oft-maligned DISQ EAL NVQ might actually fit that bill well, but your second point is apposite - why single out electrical work.

I don't think you would achieve any cost effective benefit from 'tests of competence' or the like.

You could if you could come up with a light-touch low-cost method. I'm sure (although have no evidence) that the egregious mistakes made by some DIYers stem from ignorance rather than an active disregard of good practice.

DIY work is a 'fact of life' - most people undertake some form of work, in and around their homes, that they are not 'qualified' to do. Some of this work is well executed and some is not.

Attempts to ban DIY work have not, IMO, proved to be successful (Australia for example).

More people die in Australia, not fewer, because of their restrictions.

 

[NotHimAgain]

Why do you think that Part P classes kitchens along with bathrooms even though the Wiring Regulations don't?

Yes I wondered that so I asked someone that was involved. You are right to assert that they wanted to encompass kitchen fitters, etc. However, the kitchen was apparently a last minute inclusion because the fledgling scheme providers (FSPs) had forgotten it .

The story goes something like - FSPs to JP (John Prescott) - "Here John we forgot kitchens and we need to include them so that we can control the kitchen fitters". JP - (irritated because this is yet another last minute modification) "alright kitchens are in, but that is the last change."

Sometime later the FSPs realise that they have also forgotten utility rooms, and that these are very like kitchens. "Here John what about utility rooms." JP - "have you seen my big clunking fist"

I did ask what attribute of a kitchen separated it from a utility room - the answer being that food is prepared in a kitchen . This opens up all sorts of possible loop holes

 

[holmslaw]

So can I go home and have a headache pill and a lie down

kin wimp!

The bloke is far too opinionated and upset by this subject it aint worth the time to attempt to change his opinions so whats the point

That was meant as a joke.

You asked for my opinion of part P, I could say many things. But, my main objection is that you become qualified by taking an exam, that you pay for, with an organisation that is only interested in you passing that exam (thats why your allowed to take the regs into the exam) and then paying them fees until the day you retire. IE a worthless qualification.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

(thats why your allowed to take the regs into the exam)

Surely that's only 2381 (and successors), and it's always been a C&G practice, and has nothing to do with any trade bodies or Part P or domestic installer status.

And it makes sense - the point of that qualification is to show that you know how to find things in the regulations, not that you've memorised them.

 

[holmslaw]

(thats why your allowed to take the regs into the exam)

Surely that's only 2381 (and successors), and it's always been a C&G practice,

Not when I took my C&G, the exam was to prove that you understood the technical, theoretical, practical and regulatory relationships. That is why when I've taken a couple of online tests (no idea of validity) with no knowledge of the 17th or part P, I passed. Also, with the old C&G passing the exam also proved you had a good understanding of the three R's.

And it makes sense - the point of that qualification is to show that you know how to find things in the regulations, not that you've memorised them.

Do you mean "they prove you know how to read and use a book index", I was taught that at school. The problem with that type of learning is it does not prove any electrical knowledge. Electrical knowledge is being able to understand and describe e.g. the effect of a loose joint, why copper is used as a conductor, why is discrimination important, why are safe zones a nonsense. Without knowledge the regs are meaningless eg domestic rings must have rcd protection - correct, therefore I will install a dual rcd board - wrong.

 

[sealeon]

You asked for my opinion of part P, I could say many things. But, my main objection is that you become qualified by taking an exam, that you pay for, with an organisation that is only interested in you passing that exam (thats why your allowed to take the regs into the exam) and then paying them fees until the day you retire. IE a worthless qualification.

Thats a fair point it is not good to be checked by someone that wants you to work for them.Although could be different if that person is giving a guarantee on your work maybe.As far as I can remember when I did my exams 2360 1 and 2 I didnt have my book with me.
As for the joke you can see what I am saying

 

[ban-all-sheds]

(thats why your allowed to take the regs into the exam)

Surely that's only 2381 (and successors), and it's always been a C&G practice,

Not when I took my C&G, the exam was to prove that you understood the technical, theoretical, practical and regulatory relationships.

Well - the 16th 2381 was an open book exam, so even if it wasn't like that when you did yours it was still a long-established C&G practice, which clearly pre-dated Part P and Domestic Installer Qualifications.

Do you mean "they prove you know how to read and use a book index", I was taught that at school.

There's a little more to it than that, I think, as you've got to understand the question to know where to look, and to understand what you read so you know which multiple choice answer to tick, but that is a significant part of it.

The problem with that type of learning is it does not prove any electrical knowledge. Electrical knowledge is being able to understand and describe e.g. the effect of a loose joint, why copper is used as a conductor, why is discrimination important, why are safe zones a nonsense. Without knowledge the regs are meaningless...

Indeed so, which is probably why, once upon a time, merely knowing your way around the Wiring Regulations was not enough to join NICEIC or NAPIT etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As far as I can remember when I did my exams 2360 1 and 2 I didnt have my book with me.

No - with those you wouldn't have, (nor incidentally do you have any books or notes with you for any of the EAL Domestic Installer NVQ tests), but with C&G 2381 you did.

 

[sealeon]

As far as I can remember when I did my exams 2360 1 and 2 I didnt have my book with me.

No - with those you wouldn't have, (nor incidentally do you have any books or notes with you for any of the EAL Domestic Installer NVQ tests), but with C&G 2381 you did.

I think your right for sixteeth I did.For my NVQ tests up to level 2 was incredibly basic and done in college[this maybe like the EAL course?] however the nvq level 3 was all site based and covered a huge amount of different types of work[indus comm dom argr] so it was more proof of my experience in the work place.So the 2360 was the under pinning knowledge and the site bassed diary proof I could do the work together they make NVQ3.