Revised Part P 6th April
- Thread starter AdamCH
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Thats what I read and that this will be sufficient for building control - no EIC required any more so the installation can be done by anyone. I'd assume that certifier would do all the work that they currently do for a current EICR.
However, since the installer must engage the certifier before work starts (and agree the fees etc) then you might expect the fees to reflect the level of competence etc that the certifier thinks the installer has (and hence how much risk, inspection work and retesting might be involved. It's also possible that some may not want to work on jobs that haven't been installed by a registered electrician.
It could be, but looking from my point of view as a registered domestic installer.
I am only taking responsibility for the inspection, testing and certification.
I would not be putting may name to the installation of any circuits and the routes and methods that where performed, that I am not visibly able to inspect and that will be documented on my reports.
Seems a bit of a farce to me, that a new insulation does not require a EIC and things seem to be going backward!
But the approved doc says the third party should inspect and test as necessary, so with regards to that, what do BC consider to be "necessary" to complete an EICR"? I know what I consider that to be and that is something different than that of a EIC!
Sponsored Links
Does look to be going backwards but could be argued that Part P was too much regulation and that we should step back a bit. The last government did show taste for telling everyone exactly what they should do, how they should do it and when. Gov't departments, quangos, regulatory bodies always have a taste for more regulation.
I'd say that electrical installations should be better regulated and that more clarity should be made both to the installer and the general public.
Would not say it had been over regulated, if we take in to consideration of the number of electrical jobs done in domestic properties since the introduction of Part P, that fall foul of the guidelines and prosecution made!
EXPLAIN why your verdict on a law requiring electrical work do be done safely is "pfffft".
EXPLAIN why you have previously said that a law requiring electrical work do be done safely should be banned.
EXPLAIN why any rational person who is in favour of electrical work being done safely would be opposed to a law requiring just that.
All we have from you are examples of your complete opposition to Part P and unsubstantiated claims that your work is safe.
I (most likely) have this wrong but...
As things stand at the moment, virtually anyone with some qualifications and the nous to understand the form (and know what they're looking at) e.g. ' a competent person', can fill in a condition report (EICR). Whereas to issue an Installation certificate (EIC) you need to be both a 'competent person' and registered with one of the scams.
Does this now mean that EICR forms will be changing their format again?
Will you now have to be registered to do an EICR?
As things stand at the moment, virtually anyone with some qualifications and the nous to understand the form (and know what they're looking at) e.g. ' a competent person', can fill in a condition report (EICR). Whereas to issue an Installation certificate (EIC) you need to be both a 'competent person' and registered with one of the scams.
Does this now mean that EICR forms will be changing their format again?
Will you now have to be registered to do an EICR?
A Registered third party certifier needs to be "a competent person registered with a Part P competent person third-party certification scheme".
So whilst If it's the case that anyone can issue an EICR (don't know if that's the case or not) it won't be sufficient for building control as it's the scheme that submits the paper work toi them. So any EICR completed outside the registered scheme doesn't do the job.
So whilst If it's the case that anyone can issue an EICR (don't know if that's the case or not) it won't be sufficient for building control as it's the scheme that submits the paper work toi them. So any EICR completed outside the registered scheme doesn't do the job.
Thanks. Where does that come from? Assuming that it is correct, it obviously puts a slightly different complexion on things (and perhaps makes more sense) as compared with what some of us had been thinking - specifically in relation to informing the certifier prior to the work being done. However, what you have quoted stops short of saying that the certifier has to inspect the work whilst it is happening - so, again, that would not necessarily allow him/her to confirm that all work was compliant with Part P (effectively BS7671).
However, and perhaps crucially, the above seems to support the view we had that an EICR will probably be the only documentation/ 'certification' that the certifier will be asked to provide - which presumably means that (contrary to what BAS keeps saying) (s)he will not be asked to actually certify that the work has all been compliant (only that the installation is, as far as can be ascertained by 'after the event' I&T, 'satisfactory').
There is still the question of how extensive the EICR will have to be. As I suggested last night, I would have expected the scope to be restricted to 'everything relevant' to the new work - it would seem a bit silly to expect a 'full EICR' (of the whole installation) just because, say, an electric shower had been replaced, or a new small circuit added.
Kind Regards, John
S
SaladFingers
No, you need to have proof that none of my work has certificates and is done correctly.
You're just digging yourself a BAS hole over a few words.
I don't outwardly oppose part p, which is what you think. Just I don't NEED (and never did before part p) part p to be my reason to comply with BS7671. Obviously, YOU did
Really, you are the forum clown
Some of the information is given in the approved document
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_P_2013.pdf
In section C
Additional information via contact with my scheme provider as quoted below
I think it's safe to assume that the scope will be restricted to the new work (or larger if that's what has been asked for).
What would you normally check with an EICR? Would you look at cable run's, lift floorboards, unscrew sockets etc?
That raises the question of why, re: point 2, would you not and why is it not required that an EIC be issued.
Not quite - you need to be registered with a Part P competent person THIRD-PARTY certification scheme. I think that is new? and different from being a Part P registered competent person.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
