Should Part P get scrapped?

[JohnW2]

Most professionas, and many trades, have and accept the concept of some degree of 'audit' of work being done (as well as re-assessments etc.) - so why are electricians so hesitant/frightened of the concept?

Why do you think they are hesitant/frightened of the concept?
Surely they already are reassessed annually. If they work to a lower standard when they are not under assessment, then anything less that 100% supervision would make little if any difference.

As I said, and as you quoted me as saying, regular re-assessment/re-validation/CPD/whatever is a totally separate issue from 'audit' - and most professions have, or are developing, both ... but audit is not the same as '100% supervision'. If one knows that any of the work one undertakes could be subject to an 'unexpected' random check (even if the proportion of work being checked is extremely small), that goes a long way to keeping one on one's toes, particularly if the consequences of a 'failed' check are serious. ...just as with random breath tests for drivers, random Customs searches at airports etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

The gvt department is whatever version of the old DCLG exists now. The end-point for your argument is that nobody should be allowed to work with electricity in a domestic environment. There HAS to be an element of trust.

Like trusting people who say that they have not drunk too much to be driving, rather than breathalysing them? I'm obviously not saying that electrical work should not be allowed. I'm saying that, if we are to have regulation, when the work is done professionally, there should be some checks on whther it has actually be done to the right standard. Registration and annual assessments (if adequate) merely indicate that people know what they should do; something else is required to check whether they are actually doing what they know they should do.

You seem reluctant to tell me what you do, yet expect us to accept on trust that you have an insight into the industry. To the level that you see enough bad practice to determine the self-cert scheme should be scrapped.

I've only suggested that self-certification should be scrapped unless it can be seen that work done under the scheme (rather than the 'qualifications' of those undertaking the work) is being adequately monitored. What I do, and how much contact I have with electricians, is totally irrelevant. You've only got to look at some of the posts in forums like this to learn about some of the unacceptable things that 'qualified electricians' sometimes do - and you have already acknowledged the fact that, as well all know, there are some 'black sheep' - whose work is, as far as I am aware, never routinely monitored or checked (except when they know they are being assessed).

Kind Regards, John.

So what you want to happen is every single domestic installation to be notified and signed off by the LABC. This on the grounds that YOU PERSONALLY have experienced enough bad practice to make you deduce that no electricians can be trusted.

Your job is relevant, as you claim you role gives you some unique insight.

 

[riveralt]

. ...just as with random breath tests for drivers ......

Now I know where all this excess wind we're experiencing has come from.
You really have got verbal diarrhea over this topic - by presenting spurious circular arguments and self fulfilling prophecies which in the end are nothing more than rants.
You're almost becoming troll like - just keeping the argument going for the sake of it.

If you want to change the system stop pontificating about it on this site and speak to your MP - man/woman up and do something about it.

Random breath tests are illegal by the way.

 

[JohnW2]

So what you want to happen is every single domestic installation to be notified and signed off by the LABC.

No - I think that something like that may have to happen if measures are not taken to increase public confidence in self-certification.

This on the grounds that YOU PERSONALLY have experienced enough bad practice to make you deduce that no electricians can be trusted.

Why do you keep trying to put those words into my mouth? It's nothing to do with my personal experience of bad practice, and I'm sure that the great majority of electricians can probably be trusted.

Your job is relevant, as you claim you role gives you some unique insight.

Again, you keep saying that - but I don't have, and never have claimed to have, any 'unique insight'. Why do you keep assuming I've said things which I haven't said?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

If you want to change the system stop pontificating about it on this site and speak to your MP - man/woman up and do something about it.

I don't personally have any reason to want to change it. I have enough knowledge to be able to make my own judgement about the standard of work that any electrician undertook for me. Furthermore, the system won't change significantly in any hurry, if ever. I didn't start this thread - and, for the reason I've just given, don't really see the point of it. However, if people respond to my posts, I'm pretty likely to respond back.

Random breath tests are illegal by the way.

In the UK, yes - although, in practice, only 'just'. However, as you know, it was the concept of the 'deterrent' value of any sort of random checking that I was referring to.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

Most professionas, and many trades, have and accept the concept of some degree of 'audit' of work being done (as well as re-assessments etc.) - so why are electricians so hesitant/frightened of the concept?

Why do you think they are hesitant/frightened of the concept?
Surely they already are reassessed annually. If they work to a lower standard when they are not under assessment, then anything less that 100% supervision would make little if any difference.

As I said, and as you quoted me as saying, regular re-assessment/re-validation/CPD/whatever is a totally separate issue from 'audit' - and most professions have, or are developing, both ... but audit is not the same as '100% supervision'. If one knows that any of the work one undertakes could be subject to an 'unexpected' random check (even if the proportion of work being checked is extremely small), that goes a long way to keeping one on one's toes, particularly if the consequences of a 'failed' check are serious. ...just as with random breath tests for drivers, random Customs searches at airports etc.

Kind Regards, John

I'm sorry John, I've rather lost track of the point you were trying to make now. Are you saying you want the schemes audited, or the electricians, or what?

Another (possibly provocative) question might be "was Part P introduced to prevent/restrict DIY electrical work, or to prevent/restrict 'cowboys' pretending to be electricians and charging for substandard work?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That is different from monitoring. Even if we had to taking driving tests every year, that would not give any reassurance that someone who passed the tests with flying colours wasn't exceeding speed limits, driving dangerously, driving whilst drunk etc.etc. during the period in between tests. The situation with self-certification of electrical work is equivalent to one in which a person who passed annual driving tests would be able to 'self-certify' that they never drove dangerously etc. In reality, as you know, policing ('monitoring') is actually required to determine whether that is happening.

You keep on creating broken analogies.

The end of self-certification, and its replacement with a much more rigorous independent inspection regime would cost a lot of money.

And it is not worth it.

We police drivers because dodgy driving kills 10 people a day and injures many more.

Dodgy electrical work doesn't even kill 10 people a year.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Random breath tests are illegal by the way.

Breath tests which are completely random in every practical sense are perfectly legal:

Although the Police cannot carry out a random breath test, they are perfectly entitled to stop a driver without explanation. If at that stage, an issue arises that gives the Officer suspicion that the driver has been drinking, a breath test can be demanded. Normally, a driver will be asked if he has been drinking. If the response is "Yes" the test is justified. If the response is "No", the Officer is lawfully entitled to require the driver to take a breath test if the Officer suspects that alcohol has been consumed. It is important to note that the Officer does not have to prove that suspicion to be correct.

 

[riveralt]

Random breath tests are illegal by the way.

Breath tests which are completely random in every practical sense are perfectly legal:

Although the Police cannot carry out a random breath test, they are perfectly entitled to stop a driver without explanation. If at that stage, an issue arises that gives the Officer suspicion that the driver has been drinking, a breath test can be demanded. Normally, a driver will be asked if he has been drinking. If the response is "Yes" the test is justified. If the response is "No", the Officer is lawfully entitled to require the driver to take a breath test if the Officer suspects that alcohol has been consumed. It is important to note that the Officer does not have to prove that suspicion to be correct.

Fully aware of the law, implemented it numerous times. But my statement that random breath tests are illegal is still correct. Futhermore they will remain illegal as highlighted by the governments response to the North report.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Put it this way - if the police want to randomly breath test you they have a way to do it which is perfectly legal, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

"Random breath tests" may be illegal by a very narrow definition, but random breath tests in the real sense can be done quite legally.

In the real world, random breath tests are not illegal.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sorry John, I've rather lost track of the point you were trying to make now. Are you saying you want the schemes audited, or the electricians, or what?

Sorry if it's not clear, but I would have thought it was fairly obvious. I would like the scheme operators to be seen to be auditing the work of their members (electricians),with whoever the operators are answerable to ensuring that this happens, and happens satisfactorily.

Another (possibly provocative) question might be "was Part P introduced to prevent/restrict DIY electrical work, or to prevent/restrict 'cowboys' pretending to be electricians and charging for substandard work?

I would imagine that (as with most/all parts of the Building Regs) it was introduced with the perceived aim of preventing/restricting substandard/unsafe electrical work - regardless of who undertook it.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

duplicate post

 

[riveralt]

Put it this way - if the police want to randomly breath test you they have a way to do it which is perfectly legal, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

"Random breath tests" may be illegal by a very narrow definition, but random breath tests in the real sense can be done quite legally.

In the real world, random breath tests are not illegal.

Been there done it - But random breath tests are still illegal - doesn't matter how narrow you make the definition.
End of story.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

John - could you do us all a favour and change this:

...just as with random breath tests for drivers,

to

...just as with breath tests for drivers who have been randomly stopped,

 

[JohnW2]

You keep on creating broken analogies.

The analogies are to illustrate concepts, and are not meant to be literally relevant to the discussion. In this case, my point was that assessments (e.g. driving tests, scheme operator's assessments), even if done regularly, are merely an indication of what people are capable of when under overt observation and give no information about how the person behaves/works when not being observed - such that if one wishes to assess the latter, one has to do it in a different, additional, way.

We police drivers because dodgy driving kills 10 people a day and injures many more. Dodgy electrical work doesn't even kill 10 people a year.

As above, I was not intending a direct comparison. We've already done this one to death and, I think, have agreed that there is no justification for any regulation/control of domestic electric work on the basis of 'saving lives'. If there is a justification, it has to be something different from that.

Kind Regards, John.