Is this setup okay?

[ebee]

I'm currently struggling to get insurers to accept a properly qualified electrician working on commercial premises just because the electrician is not VAT registered.

That should not occour - I suspect it is because the insurers can effectively claim the VAT back, therefore they are merely watching their own pockets than actually applying appropriate standards.
I had the same happen with a carpet claim some years back. My prefered carpet fitter stated "Insurers always refuse my estimates because I am not VAT registered" therefore refused to estimate. Although when the claim went thru their carpet firm they often used then the actual fitter himself was not VAT registered.
I also noted (said by all involved - including the insurance co loss dept themselves) - We expect as standard practice to be given a 10% discount because we are an insurance company.
Looks to me that their headline view is 10% discount and VAT registered (we all know that the notational 10% discount might actually be Rollox in practice)

 

[pcaouolte]

The story so far: A C1 and a C2 on an EICR for commercial premises. Insurers requested a copy of the EICR and gave a deadline for the faults to be corrected. Several quotes were obtained, the cheapest of which was from an electrician who is not VAT registered. The insurance company are not paying for the work but want to approve the electrician used. If the non VAT registered electrician is used then they want another full EICR performing after the faults are repaired which would cost more than using a more expensive VAT registered electrician in the first place.

The insurance company are in control because they provide employers liability cover which the business cannot operate without.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps they have been told that only registered electricians should be used.

So VAT or CPS, what's the difference?

 

[bernardgreen]

It might be that the VAT registration is considered to be the best way to ensure the trader's identity and address are genuine.

 

[ebee]

Well I can understand if they insist upon someone who holdsexample C & G 2381, 2390 etc etc etc or some such qualifications and who has sufficient insurance cover of their own via a scheme/orginisation etc etc etc but just because they are/are not VAT registered then would that not be "Restrictive Practice" and perhaps illegal under UK, EU law etc etc ?

Do they say they only accept say a MIET or FIET for example?

 

[pcaouolte]

The electrician needed to be a scheme member, he has NAPIT membership, but also VAT registered.

 

[ebee]

sheme membership would not necessarily cover EICRs anyway