Should Part P get scrapped?

[JohnW2]

If a DIYer provides a set of values and a documented report of how the testing was done, maybe including photographs, them the LABC is out of order to refuse to accept them.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that I, for one, (and, I would suggest, also you!) would be more than capable of putting together a convincing report about "how testing was done", and a set of photographs, to accompany an entirely fictitious set of figures!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[STI]

Going back to the original question about scrapping Part P, I just add my anecdotes because i think they show the confusion out there. My story started with the notification fees i was about to be charged for some electrical work. After some discussion the LABC agreed the charges they had initially told me (350 PLUS) were wrong and i should pay about 150, sorry i havent got the exact figures with me. It was during these discussions the testing comment was made.

A few months ago it cost me IRO 75 and my test results were acceptable, not sure whats changed or has someone just decided to apply some new rules they have come up with.

Dont want to start the value of the registered scheme discussions again but having decided to save time and go the registered sparks route rather than do it myself i have called in 3 registered sparks to give me a quote for fitting a new CU . So far i have heard back from 2 of them and guess what neither have mentioned doing a EICR prior to fitting.

The whole Part P and registered scheme seems to be a shambles, with differing application or interpretation of rules/guidelines, no real quality standard monitoring no standard costs for LABC involvement.

 

[bernardgreen]

Falsify results ? Me ..... Never ......

Well never on anything that might put me or my loved ones in any danger.



By the time one has connected up a voltage source with meter to an earth rod via an ampmeter and photographed the set up and the needles are clearly showing the voltage and amperage then there is little point in falsifying the results. Of course one would have to have an approved explanation of Ohm's Law to show the LABC technician how resistance can be calculated from volts and amps.

 

[JohnW2]

The whole Part P and registered scheme seems to be a shambles, with differing application or interpretation of rules/guidelines, no real quality standard monitoring no standard costs for LABC involvement.

Exactly.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Falsify results ? Me ..... Never ...... Well never on anything that might put me or my loved ones in any danger.

Well, since it was you that suggested that a registered spark might have done it, it seemed only fair to admit that others might as well

By the time one has connected up a voltage source with meter to an earth rod via an ampmeter and photographed the set up and the needles are clearly showing the voltage and amperage then there is little point in falsifying the results.

True - it obviously depends on how comprehensive a set of photos one is going to produce. If one is going to photograph every procedure and every meter reading then, although it obviously could all be falsified, I agree that there really would be little point (unless one were trying to hide some dodgy results!). However, my time is sufficienly valuable in terms of keeping a roof over my head that it would probably be a lot cheaper for me to employ a self-certifying electrician than to spend my time creating an exhaustive photo-documentary of every single measurement I'd taken! One might also suggest that LABC would be fully justified in levying an additional charge for studying hundreds of photographs! Time is, after all, money!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

Well, since it was you that suggested that a registered spark might have done it, it seemed only fair to admit that others might as well

It was the building inspector who supervised our self build way back in 1981 who said that the LABC could tell fairly quickly and accurately who was trying to pull a fast one. DIYers may act in ignorance but still without an intention to cut corners as it was their own home they were building and he was keen to help them by correcting their ignorance. It was a few "tradesmen" who cut corners because it didn't matter to them how the work was carried out as they would not have to live in the house.

I think that still holds true.

 

[mattylad]

Both the DIYr and the registered spark can falsify reports, anyone can.

I expect that they feel that the reports from a sparky is more likely to be more accurate & true.

Obviously a load of bhollocks because there are cowboy sparks out there.
If they want accurate & true readings then the only way to get them is to do it themselves or accept all that are supplied.

 

[JohnW2]

Both the DIYr and the registered spark can falsify reports, anyone can. I expect that they feel that the reports from a sparky is more likely to be more accurate & true.

Indeed. However, in the case of a registered electrician they know that the individual concerned ought to at least know how the tests should be done (even if they do them wrong, or simply falsify the results) - whereas, unless one goes to Bernard's lengths and writes reports and takes countless photos, they don't even know whether a 'random DIYer' has a clue as what needs to be done.

Obviously a load of b*****s because there are cowboy sparks out there. If they want accurate & true readings then the only way to get them is to do it themselves or accept all that are supplied.

As you have said, to "accept all that they are supplied" is not a way of guaranteeing that they get accurate and true readings. Doing it themselves is the only way they can be sure but, as we've discussed, that isn't going to happen. Peraps one possibility would be for them to "accept all" but to then check some themselves, both at random and in cases where they had 'doubts'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

..... i have called in 3 registered sparks to give me a quote for fitting a new CU . So far i have heard back from 2 of them and guess what neither have mentioned doing a EICR prior to fitting.

Why is this such a surprise?

There's no requirement to do a full EICR before doing a CU swap.

If you wanted one, then it would probably push the price of the CU swap up considerably.

If they are reputable sparks, they will make the inspection/tests that they deem necessary prior to the swap and the remainder of the required testing on completion.

As it happens, I currently offer a free EICR with a CU swap as an incentive to generate work, but it isn't required.

 

[JohnW2]

Why is this such a surprise? There's no requirement to do a full EICR before doing a CU swap.

True, but I think some readers of this forum may get confused. You don't have to look far in the archives to see many instances in which posters have been 'warned off' electricians who quote for a CU change without a prior EICR (or PIR as it would have been in those days).

I would imagine that a high proportion of CU chages are undertaken on installations that are sufficiently old that a full EICR would be advisable, and if that were done imemdiately prior to the CU change, then I would have thought that (provided only the CU change was done) only live tests would then have to be repeated after the CU change. Is that correct?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Why is this such a surprise? There's no requirement to do a full EICR before doing a CU swap.

True, but I think some readers of this forum may get confused. You don't have to look far in the archives to see many instances in which posters have been 'warned off' electricians who quote for a CU change without a prior EICR (or PIR as it would have been in those days).

I would imagine that a high proportion of CU chages are undertaken on installations that are sufficiently old that a full EICR would be advisable, and if that were done imemdiately prior to the CU change, then I would have thought that (provided only the CU change was done) only live tests would then have to be repeated after the CU change. Is that correct?

Kind Regards, John.

The problem is, John, to do a full EICR first, you will be required to complete a 'schedule of inspections' and a 'schedule of test results.

This EICR is on the existing installation, which includes the existing CU, (and protective devices etc), it would take you most of the day on an average 3 bedroom semi, cost the customer an additional £100 to £200 and it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on the day after, when you change the CU.

You would then have to complete an EIC for the CU swap - with accompanying 'Schedules' - granted, you will transfer some of the results, but what a waste of time.

If the customer wanted a full EICR, that's up to them - it's their money after all.

The ESC recommends a full PIR (EICR) before a CU change, but goes on to say that if the customer won't pay for this, then a risk assessment can be made and, if satisfactory, the CU swap can proceed.

I tend to check with the customer, (during quotation), if there are any known problems or if there have been any alterations.
I would also inform them that any remedial work, would be quoted for seperately, if required.

ESC

....the initial approach should be to
persuade the customer that remedial action
should be taken to correct or remove any
immediate danger, potential danger or
condition that would cause unwanted tripping
of an RCD.

If I get the job, I would then check supply parameters, confirm earthing system and Ze, confirm adequacy of main protective bonding and then inspect layout of circuits to familiarise myself with the installation, in particularly lighting, to explore the possibilty of borrowed neutrals.

I would have asked the customer to remove all plugs from socket outlets before I arrived and I would then proceed with an IR test of the whole installation as one.

This, in my opinion, should be sufficient to then proceed with the CU change.

The remainder of the tests would be done with the new CU in situ - during the 'Initial Verification' procedure of the CU.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is, John, to do a full EICR first, you will be required to complete a 'schedule of inspections' and a 'schedule of test results.

Yes, I understand that. However, as you saw, what I was commenting on was the fact that the advice very commonly given to posters in this forum (and other places) is that they should not take seriously an 'electrician' prepared to undertake a CU change without a prior PIR/EICR, that 'no real electrician would do that' etc. etc.

This EICR is on the existing installation, which includes the existing CU, (and protective devices etc), it would take you most of the day on an average 3 bedroom semi, cost the customer an additional £100 to £200 and it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on the day after, when you change the CU.
You would then have to complete an EIC for the CU swap - with accompanying 'Schedules' - granted, you will transfer some of the results, but what a waste of time.

Maybe we're being too literal in talking about the 'prior EICR'. There is, as you say, little point in producing an 'EICReport' (the bits of paper) on the pre-change installation. However, can you not do all the inspection and testing (other than those few things which are CU-dependent) prior to the CU change, but then only document the results (together with results of the post-change live tests and a few bits of inspection) after the CU change (plus, of course, any other post-work tests on any work you may have done in addition to the CU change)?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[acmedone]

(It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous.)

That is a stupid statement - I think you're in a wind up mood!!
Let me assure you it is extremely easy to make an installation potentially and/or actually dangerous.
Out to a job this morning - "my garage lights have stopped working!!!"
Cause stupid **** plumber had hack sawed through the live and switch live cables when installing some pipe work - forgot to tell the owner that he had done so leaving live cables exposed.
While there I asked the owner to check his electric shower - yep he had done that one as well.

Excuse me, but please explain how an anecdote about physical damage relates to installed deficiencies.

But were the fuses/trips not blown?

 

[bernardgreen]

(It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous.)

plumber had hack sawed through the live and switch live cables when installing some pipe work - forgot to tell the owner that he had done so leaving live cables exposed.

Excuse me, but please explain how an anecdote about physical damage relates to installed deficiencies.

The plumber has installed pipe work and created a dangerous situation. Other plumbers and electricians have notched out joists to the point that the load bearing capacity of the joists has been reduced to be dangerously inadequate.

It is very easy to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous if one ignores the problem of mis-use by the ignorant. Cars are the obvious example where mis use makes them extremely dangerous. Like wise any electrical installation that does not take account of mis use is potentially and more often currently dangerous. Leaving the ability for the owner to change an MCB from 6 amps to 32 amps is potentially dangerous and was recognised in the design of re-wireable fuses which had different size pins for different ratings.

 

[JohnW2]

Leaving the ability for the owner to change an MCB from 6 amps to 32 amps is potentially dangerous and was recognised in the design of re-wireable fuses which had different size pins for different ratings.

The flaw in that, of course, was/is that it still left/leaves the user free to decide what size of fuse wire (or aluminium foil, or nails!) to put into the fuse carrier, regardless of its markings and pin size! Furthermore, with many CUs (e.g. Wylex Standard) swapping over a fuse carrier only involved one screw - less effort than changing an MCB.

I know that PBoD's suggestion that replacing fuses in plugs and FCUs should be notifiable is impractically extreme - but is does reflect exactly the same theoretical risk that you refer to in relation to MCBs and CU fuses. However, I don't think there is any sensible solution. As always, I suppose one may derive some comfort by turning to the statistics and asking how many incidents, fires or injuries/deaths have resulted from incorrectly sized OPDs - since I suspect the answer is 'surprisingly few'.

Kind Regards, John.