How to test a consumer unit/house

[ban-all-sheds]

="ban-all-sheds] More than possible matey. I'm just curious as to why you brought it up and then said don't bring it up again..

I think that on this one I was misunderstood, I meant that as competent person issue is linked to part P, I thought that we had enough with part P...

OK - I think we'll have to close this one - you yourself say that the competent person issue is linked to Part P (which it isn't, in this case), you yourself brought up the topic of testing needing to be done by a competent person, and therefore that it was in some way linked to Part P (which it isn't), and then you yourself immediately said "Please not part P again!!! " so there seems little point in going round the loop of "If you didn't want the issue of Part P introduced into this thread why did you introduce it?" any more.

But what does that have to do with inspection and testing?

Because not every ones signature will be accepted on the certificates, and I thought that it should be clear, that if you would like to do DIY work, things changed and almost all electrical work require certificates, the original post was about testing... .

Yes, the original post was about testing. The position of testing, and who can sign EICs, has not been changed in the slightest by the introduction of Part P of the Building Regulations. You do not have to be registered with one of the self-certification schemes in order to carry out testing or sign a certificate. The issue of whether a person who has no qualifications can sign a certificate is still just as vague as it always was.

The original post was abut testing, so why did you erroneously introduce the suggestion that it was somehow affected by Part P?

IMHO there isn't anything like as much mess in reality as there is in what you're inventing...

You are very much involved in supporting people , and if there is no mess why there are thousands of questions regarding the new regs, part P etc.

AFAICT it's because people simply do not take the trouble to read and understand what the law says.

on this one I am sorry to say that I don't agree with you.. may I?

Of course you may disagree with me. I will still maintain, however, that you are wrong - the new regulations are nowhere near such a mess as people believe them to be.

Of course it is- nobody should do things that they are not competent to do.

So we agree on this one, but how do you make clear to someone who wants to do a house rewire and test it, that it is not recommended because if something goes wrong, (not only the immediate risk but there is a long term risk as you know), it might end in court and he will have nothing to support him.

Firstly, dazzlerpalmer was asking about testing, not doing a house rewire.

Secondly, ending up in court because of things going wrong as always been a risk, and that risk has not been changed by extending the Building Regulations to cover electrical installation work. If you were in court because something had gone wrong, I think it's unlikely that they would also add on charges relating to contravention of the building regs. But I could be wrong.

I am genuinely at a loss to know what you are on about. Surely you're not basing all this on the premise that Inspection and Testing is notifiable work, are you?

This was a small part (remark) of my reply to dazzlerpalmer, you picked on it, and from there it just developed to a book...
No I never said that, but what I said was that test and inspection has to be done by a person that is competent to do so, rewiring a house is a notifiable job, testing, IMHO, is integrated part of it.

Rewiring a house is a notifiable job. dazzlerpalmer was not asking about rewiring a house, so the issue of notification is completely irrelevant. It may have been a small part of your reply, but you wrote "unfortunately, this is kind of a job that must be done by a 'competent person', (this is a legal definition)". By using the explicit phrase "this is a legal definition", and by putting quotes round the term competent person you were trying to tell dazzlerpalmer that there were legal restrictions on who could carry out testing. This is simply not the case, and all I did, originally, was to highlight the fact that there is no definition of "competent person" that applies in this case. It's turned into a "book" because you've added all sorts of irrelevant issues like LABC notification, electrical installation work, "competent person schemes" etc into this thread.

(Did you know, BTW, the the term "competent person" does not appear anywhere in Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3210 The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004?)

Qualifications are a way of demonstrating competence. It is possible to be competent without being qualified

Yes I understand what you mean by saying that but you must have a way to draw a line, to my opinion, a formal qualification is a clear cut, what I mean is that if someone is competent because he worked as an electrician for 20 (ok can be a bit less ... ) years and has a record to show, he should be recognized and after a short check officially qualified, but still have papers to show?

Well, that's only your opinion. You cannot inflate your opinion into a statement that effectively says, or implies, that the law says that testing must be carried out by a qualified person, no matter how much you wish that this were so, and no matter how rational a case you can make to show that it really should be so.

To your delight I will be away for 2 weeks, but I Will Be back!

Have a good time. If you're off to foreign parts watch out for dodgy foreign wiring

 

[Albert]

Have a good time. If you're off to foreign parts watch out for dodgy foreign wiring

Thanks and Don't worry I'll post you... especially if i am bored..