But PBoD is saying that will be automatic if you are.
Revised Part P 6th April
- Thread starter AdamCH
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Well that's good. Sounds like there should be lots of approvers out there on 6th April. Thought the schemes might take the opportunity to stick you with an extra registeration fee.
Shhhhhhh! so did everyone.
Does not the current wording of an EIC preclude it being issued by anyone other than the person who has undertaken the work?
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
But not if it is supervised, inspected and tested throughout - as can be done now.
As I said, that was also essentially my thinking. However, as has been discussed, it becomes debatable what that actually means in some cases - particularly a CU change. It could be argued that almost everything about the installation (in particular, all of the final circuits) are relevant to a CU change.
As I understand it, a 'normal' EICR is commissioned by the customer who can define the scope however (s)he wishes. In practice, it would certainly involving unscrewing some sockets and other accessories, but whether or not floorboards were lifted etc. would be up to the customer (who often, perhaps usually, would not want it done). However, the sort of 'EICR' we're now talking about is a bit different, and it would seem odd if the customer was allowed to restrict the scope to less than the inspector/certifier consdiered to be necessary. There are definitely still questions to be answered!
Kind Regards, John
Sure, but the situation still seems uncertain (at least to me) - such that I am far from clear as to whether the new system will require the 'supervision' (or, indeed, any actual involvement of the inspector/certifier prior to completion of the work).
However, there seems to be some implication that such supervision etc. will probably not be required under the 'new system' - otherwise, as you say, it would not be 'new' and there would not have been any need to change anything on April 6th!
Kind Regards, John
Hmmm. The trouble with what they have said to you is that it appears to be untrue. The new Approved Document indicates that third-party certification can only be undertaken by a Registered Third-Party Certifier, and (on page 9) defines such a person as "A competent person registered with a Part P competent person third-party certification scheme". Given that (again on page 9) they also define a Registered Competent Person as "A competent person registered with a Part P competent person self-certification scheme, the implication surely is that they see "Part P competent person third-party certification scheme" and "Part P competent person self-certification scheme" as being different schemes, isn't it?
Kind Regards, John
They could but that would be just a blatant money-grabbing bureaucratic nonsense bearing in mind that the same people would have to be registered twice.
Once to be allowed to do the work themselves and issue an EIC and once to test the same work done by someone else and issue an EICR, and, presumably, by the same scheme (unless, even worse, different schemes were set up for this purpose).
According to PBoD there does seem to have been some common sense employed.
Once to be allowed to do the work themselves and issue an EIC and once to test the same work done by someone else and issue an EICR, and, presumably, by the same scheme (unless, even worse, different schemes were set up for this purpose).
According to PBoD there does seem to have been some common sense employed.
Not necessarily - it could be, as we initially speculated, that there would be additional requirements for registering on the 'third-party certification scheme' - such as having been on the self-certification scheme for a specified period of time, or some other attempt to get a measure the amount of experience (number of self-certifications notified?)
Since they go to the trouble of giving two different definitions, I am inclined to think that the new Approved Document envisioned there being two different schemes. Of course, if there were to be 'additional requirements' (as above), that would be essential.
Maybe common sense, or maybe a misunderstanding/misreading on their part.
Kind Regards, John
I can foresee where to be a registered person will cost £X and to be a 3rd party registered person £X + £Y.
The choice being yours as to which scheme you join (I'm thinking Domestic Installer as opposed to Registered Contractor with NICEIC)
The choice being yours as to which scheme you join (I'm thinking Domestic Installer as opposed to Registered Contractor with NICEIC)
That's obviously what the electricians fear, although it's difficult to see how the scheme operators could truly justify it. Even if the third-party scheme had additional requirements, they would obviously also fulfil the requirements for the self-certification scheme, ao a single fee of £Y (which,on the face of it, shouldn't/needn't be any different from £X) ought to be enough for a 'both' (self-cert + third-party) scheme.
Kind Regards, John
The quote I have posted
Is taken from an email I received from my scheme provider when I asked this question?
Indeed, but as I recently wrote, what they wrote about what the new Approved Document says does not appear to be exactly true. If what your scheme operator wrote were true, why would the Approved Document have defined a 'Registered Third-Party Certifier' as something different from a member of a self-certification scheme?
Kind Regards, John
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
