Maybe it's because they are simple firkwits, who endeavour to be as unclear as ever!
Revised Part P 6th April
- Thread starter AdamCH
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Who - your scheme operator or those who wrote the new Approved Document? If the latter, then your scheme provider is surely on pretty thin ice, since (even though it isnot literally 'law') it's the Approved Document (however unclear or written by firkwits) which effectively defines what is intended, whatever your scheme provider may think or say.
To be fair to those who wrote the Approved Document, there is not really anything unclear about it - they say, very clearly, that third-party certification can only be undertaken by a competent person who is registered with a 'Part P Third-Party Certification Scheme' - which I presume you can't be (since no-one has yet heard of any such schemes!).
Kind Regards, John
Time will tell!
The doc does not mention a third party certification scheme.
No, I do not.
I do not need to have proof of that to observe the total disconnect between your unsubstantiated claim that you do actually do safe work and your complete opposition to a law which requires you to do so.
I do not have to have proof of that to observe that whilst you make these claims of doing safe work you express other views WHICH HAVE NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION OTHER THAN THAT YOU DO NOT DO SAFE WORK.
I'm not in a hole - you are the one who is expressing an opposition to a law which no sane person would do unless they were actually unwilling or unable to obey it.
When you travel in a vehicle do you lick the windows? Or are you just on the way to complete insanity?
You don't oppose Part P?
What's this then:
?
Remember this is a site where people come for advice from others who know more than them, and what you are saying to them is "You know the law which requires you to be competent and do safe work? Pfffft."
Are you really so stupid or so barmy that you don't think that "part pee, pfffft" is expressing opposition to it?
And what of the signature you had a few months ago - "Ban Part P" - I suppose that's not opposition to it either, is it?
OK - let's assume that's true. If it is then the law would not be an imposition on you - it would make absolutely no difference to you.
So for what possible rational reason would you want it banned? For what possible rational reason would your comment on it be "pfffft"?
There isn't one. If what you say were true then at worst you wouldn't care about the existence of Part P and at best you would welcome it because it might make other people work to higher standards.
But you don't welcome it. You don't even tolerate it. To the suggestion that people should be required to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury you say "pfffft" and you have previously called for that requirement to be banned.
Whatever your reasons are for that, already making such provision cannot be one of them.
Sponsored Links
Eh? As I keep saying, it does. As I said a page or so back, on page 9, it defines a 'Registered Third-Party Certifier' as "A competent person registered with a Part P competent person third-party certification scheme".
Are we reading the same Approved Document?
Kind Regards, John.
Once you are, you should all read 3.2 on p9. (I've not got around to cracking the password on the document yet so I can't copy from it and ICBA to type it in).
Is an EICR what BS 7671 defines as appropriate for a new circuit?
Is an EICR what BS 7671 defines as appropriate for a new circuit?
Yes but I had not bothered with APPX A though! So missed that.
But I personally don't envisage a secondary scheme, that existing registered members of a competent persons scheme, would be required to join.
Well, 3.6 on same page appears to indicate that they feel an EICR is what is required for the third-party certification procedure.
Kind Regards, John
You might not personally envisage it, but the Approved Document clearly does - and the fact that (immediately above the definition of a Registered Third-Party Certifier) they give a definition of a Registered Competent Person as being a member of a self-certification scheme, they clearly do envisage both types of scheme esisting.
Of course, no such (third-party) schemes will exist unless/until some organisation(s) set them up - and it sounds as if your current scheme provider, for one, probably doesn't currently intend to - so goodness knows where that leaves us!
Kind Regards, John
Or that they expect to be also classed as that and have decided to automatically register those who can do it now,
It maybe that two schemes could exist, but that does not mean being a member of one, eliminates you from performing tasks of the other.
Yes, they are all possibilities - but if you want to do third-party certification and want to'comply' (if that's the word) with what the Approved Doc says, then the scheme operators would presumably at least have to give you 'honorary membership' of something called a "Part P Competent Persons Third-Party Certification Scheme".
Kind Regards, John
So you guys have obviously heard nothing 100% from your scheme providers yet? Maybe they haven't decided whether to charge you extra yet - some might be waiting to see what others do of course.
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
