Quite. That's why, amidst all the reservations I voice about Part P, you'll never find me moaning about the fees, other than to say that they should not make a 'profit' for LABC. If we are to have Part P, then, as you imply, the cost of non-self-certified notified work must be bourne by those undertaking/commissioning the work, not by Council Tax payers in general. The fees obviously should reasonably reflect the true cost to LABC, without any 'profit'.
Which, IMO, they demonstrably don't.
In some cases that is probably true - which is wrong and IMO should be corrected; I'm not even sure that it's lawful for them to 'make a profit' from such fees. However, you may be underestimating the true costs to a large bureaucratic organisation. For example, rightly or wrongly, when properly calculated, the true cost of merely receiving and responding to a letter can easily be £20-£30, and the true calculated cost of 'getting someone to pop around' might well surprise (or shock) you!
In that case, as BAS has said, you don't really need more than one resistor.
In fact, if you have a TN supply, you don't really have to measure Ze or PFC - both EIC and EICR forms will accept values obtained by enquiry from DNO.
I wouldn't say that is true of me. I built what I did in the days when I only had one MFT which had been obtained cheaply and which had not be calibrated for a long time. I therefore wanted not only to be able to check for any calibration drift from the time at which I purchased it but also to give myself some reasurance that the readings being obtained were not only consistent but also at least roughly correct.
The problem is that it has scared off a good few people that didn't really need scaring off (knowledgeable, competent and conscientious DIYers and non-certifying electricians who would probably always do work properly and safely) but has not scared off a lot of the people that probably did need scaring off (uninformed DIYers or cowboy electricians, who may well not have the knowledge, ability or inclination to work properly/safely - and who simply ignoire Part P {if they've heard of it!}).
I have emboldened the part I wish to discuss.
I am also astounded, but that's how it seems to be - and it applies to most 'small and medium sized' companies as well as the giant companies and organisations to which you refer. Some of it is obviously due to unnecessary waste/inefficiency, and in some cases to excessive profits, but even without those factors, the true costs work out as almost unbelievably (to you and I) high.
Which is what the box is for.
So you have a calibrated meter which measures a loop impedance at your test socket of 1.2Ω and 2.2Ω when you switch in the extra resistance.
Except this way the RCD is there, and handy to test at the same time without disrupting the house.
As I said (per what you've quoted), one needs a 'known loop impedance' in order to evaluate an unknown uncalibrated meter. If one also has a calibrated meter, then one effectively has a known loop impedance to use for the test. Indeed, even without your switched resistance, if the calibrated meter read 1.2Ω and the uncalibrated one 1.18Ω when measuring the same loop impedance, then I would be pretty happy with the uncalibrated meter - although I agree that the results obtained by switching in a resistance would give further reassurance. However, the basis of your test would be comparison of the calibrated and uncalibrated meter - the switchable resistance being a little bit of icing on that cake.
That's true, but I still don't think that relying on the 'expected' behaviour of an RCD (whether an in-service one or one in your box) is a very satisfactory way of evaluating an RCD tester. As we know (one of the reasons for testers!) the fact that it hasn't operated very often is the last of reasons for assuming that its behaviour will be unchanged from year to year!
I think you misunderstood my point. Whether the actual value is justified or not is another matter, but if I do minor electrical DIY work and present test results then I'll be charged £150 for them to pop round, look at what I've done, and then post a certificate. If it's minor non-electrical work then they can do the same amount of work for £75 - so why the difference ? If I can't supply test figures then they charge an additional £75 which will be to cover the cost of testing my work - which seems "proportional" given the cost of (for example) getting a PIR done.
I don't think I misunderstood your point; my reply was about the general principles. Needless to say, I can't explain, let alone justify, the differences you highlight, but there may possibly be a rational explanation (e.g. maybe they know from their experience that, on average, 'popping round' in relation to electrical work involves more time than for non-electrical work) - you'd have to ask them. I have to say that, in terms of how these things usually work out, for a large organiation to do any 'popping out' (including travel and travel time) for £75 seems pretty 'cheap'.
That certainly doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
If it is important to you ask them to explain how they can be certain that the registered spark has actually carried out testing or has just filled in the expected values without putting a meter to the installation.
That doesn't surprise me. I know nothing of the legality, but suspect that an LABC is free to work to whatever 'rules' it feels necessary in order to satisfy themselves that Part P has been complied with. One has to have some sympathy, since it would be naieve of them to blindly accept pieces of paper on which words and numbers had been written by some 'Tom, Dick or Harry' about whom they knew nothing - so I don't know what the answer is for them.
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
