Should Part P get scrapped?

[scousespark]

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.

If the existing CU is obviously ancient, I walk away if the customer won't have an EICR. If this shows any serious faults, the customer has a choice of going ahead or leaving as is. Changing over and then finding faults means the spark can't complete the job until these are resolved.
Not the best way to enhance your chances of getting any referrals.

I was caught in my early days, when I changed a CU and then started testing and lost a couple of days fixing wiring faults before I could commission the new CU. The customer was furious and I decided then I'd never get caught again.

 

[JohnW2]

If the existing CU is obviously ancient, I walk away if the customer won't have an EICR. If this shows any serious faults, the customer has a choice of going ahead or leaving as is. Changing over and then finding faults means the spark can't complete the job until these are resolved. Not the best way to enhance your chances of getting any referrals.

Yes, that makes total sense, and I have assumed is the reason why we so often see an EICR prior to a CU change being advised (or stronger!).

As I said to Electrifying, if changing the CU is all one ends up having to do, then I really can't see why it's necessary to repeat any of the inspection (except of new CU) or any of the dead tests after CU replacement, so the amount of extra work involved is really pretty small. Unless the customer decides not to go ahead with the CU change, I can't see any real point in formally producing a pre-CU-change EICReport, and no doing that would also avoid some extra time/effort/cost. In fact, I would not think that 'doing the initial EICR' ought to impact appreciably on the total cost of the CU change job, would it?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

If the existing CU is obviously ancient, I walk away if the customer won't have an EICR. If this shows any serious faults, the customer has a choice of going ahead or leaving as is. Changing over and then finding faults means the spark can't complete the job until these are resolved. Not the best way to enhance your chances of getting any referrals.

Yes, that makes total sense, and I have assumed is the reason why we so often see an EICR prior to a CU change being advised (or stronger!).

As I said to Electrifying, if changing the CU is all one ends up having to do, then I really can't see why it's necessary to repeat any of the inspection (except of new CU) or any of the dead tests after CU replacement, so the amount of extra work involved is really pretty small. Unless the customer decides not to go ahead with the CU change, I can't see any real point in formally producing a pre-CU-change EICReport, and no doing that would also avoid some extra time/effort/cost. In fact, I would not think that 'doing the initial EICR' ought to impact appreciably on the total cost of the CU change job, would it?

Kind Regards, John.

It doesn't really impact on the cost, as the tests have to done at some time. If the inspection reveals any faults, the customer then knows what needs fixing before they can get the CU changed.

I'll then quote for the change, together with any remedials.
If the customer accepts this, I proceed, and the initial time is absorbed into the job.
If not I just produce the cert and walk away.

 

[JohnW2]

... In fact, I would not think that 'doing the initial EICR' ought to impact appreciably on the total cost of the CU change job, would it?

It doesn't really impact on the cost, as the tests have to done at some time. If the inspection reveals any faults, the customer then knows what needs fixing before they can get the CU changed. I'll then quote for the change, together with any remedials. If the customer accepts this, I proceed, and the initial time is absorbed into the job. If not I just produce the cert and walk away.

Quite - that's exactly the point I was making, but Electrifying doesn't seem to agree, seemingly feeling that appreciable additional costs, which a customer might not want to pay, would be involved. Unless one is (I would say unnecessarily) going to repeat all of the inspection and testing (not just the bits that need to be done) after the CU change, I really don't see it as a time/cost issue.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

... In fact, I would not think that 'doing the initial EICR' ought to impact appreciably on the total cost of the CU change job, would it?

It doesn't really impact on the cost, as the tests have to done at some time. If the inspection reveals any faults, the customer then knows what needs fixing before they can get the CU changed. I'll then quote for the change, together with any remedials. If the customer accepts this, I proceed, and the initial time is absorbed into the job. If not I just produce the cert and walk away.

Quite - that's exactly the point I was making, but Electrifying doesn't seem to agree, seemingly feeling that appreciable additional costs, which a customer might not want to pay, would be involved. Unless one is (I would say unnecessarily) going to repeat all of the inspection and testing (not just the bits that need to be done) after the CU change, I really don't see it as a time/cost issue.

Kind Regards, John.

The problem is the inconvenience caused when you change before testing.
It's fine saying you'll quote for remedials, but the reality is that the customer has no choice but to pay up, as they will have no electricity until the faults are fixed. This is the reason many on here advise an inspection at the start of the job. The cost causes resentment, as it appears the customer is being fleeced.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is the inconvenience caused when you change before testing. It's fine saying you'll quote for remedials, but the reality is that the customer has no choice but to pay up, as they will have no electricity until the faults are fixed. This is the reason many on here advise an inspection at the start of the job. The cost causes resentment, as it appears the customer is being fleeced.

Yes, but I thought we were both agreed that, if done sensibly (without unnecessary repetition of I&T), there shouldn't really be a significant cost implication for the customer to resent?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

The problem is the inconvenience caused when you change before testing. It's fine saying you'll quote for remedials, but the reality is that the customer has no choice but to pay up, as they will have no electricity until the faults are fixed. This is the reason many on here advise an inspection at the start of the job. The cost causes resentment, as it appears the customer is being fleeced.

Yes, but I thought we were both agreed that, if done sensibly (without unnecessary repetition of I&T), there shouldn't really be a significant cost implication for the customer to resent?

Kind Regards, John.

I mean the impact when you swap and then find problems. In this case, there is no option to leave things as commissioning depends on satisfactory test results. Even if the electrician takes the hit for his time (not always the case) there may be costs for parts and materials.

 

[acmedone]

(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.

...but the plumber's error is completely irrelevant to the matter of following electrical regs. Please keep it in context. It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous - until
a plumber puts a saw through it.

Didn't the fuse trip?

 

[mfarrow]

OK my two cents on the subject.

Late last year I discovered that my kitchen ring had a spur off a spur feeding the oven and a socket outlet.

Part P requires me to get a registered electrician to correct this, instead of running a new circuit for the cooker and removing its spur. I cannot afford to do this, so the circuit will remain unaltered and non-compliant.
.
.
.
.
.
well, sort of

 

[Scoter1066]

The Govt are currently reviewing Part P apparently, as they want to know if it has been successful.

Who says so?

Good grief!! Considering that you are constantly on this board arrogantly putting down all and sundry and dazzling us all with your knowledge of life, the universe, and everything in between, are you really saying that you are unaware of this?????

It is in the trade journals. It is happening. As for the rest of your questions, you know the answers to all of them so I am not wasting my time answering them. Everyone else seemed to understand the crux of my post.

Get out, and get laid you update git.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is in the trade journals. It is happening.

Ah - you're talking about the review which was announced over a year ago - I thought you'd come here with new news.

As for the rest of your questions, you know the answers to all of them so I am not wasting my time answering them. Everyone else seemed to understand the crux of my post.

Get out, and get laid you update git.

Actually - thanks to your extremely erudite, rational and intelligent response here, I think I do know the answers to all of them.

And the crux of your post was indeed that you are a stupid and ignorant racist who does not want to have to work in a professional manner.

 

[Alarm]

As we have some plastic copper in GD, I have to ask what was racist about the above?

 

[Scoter1066]

It is in the trade journals. It is happening.

Ah - you're talking about the review which was announced over a year ago - I thought you'd come here with new news.

As for the rest of your questions, you know the answers to all of them so I am not wasting my time answering them. Everyone else seemed to understand the crux of my post.

Get out, and get laid you update git.

Actually - thanks to your extremely erudite, rational and intelligent response here, I think I do know the answers to all of them.

And the crux of your post was indeed that you are a stupid and ignorant racist who does not want to have to work in a professional manner.

I politely request that you desist from being a total tool for once. Give yourself a day off.

I note your post count. >35K posts!! Are you housebound? Do you have a job? Or is this your job? Trying to prove to the world that you are the planet's cleverest person?

You are a bore. A dullard, and expect you can count your friends on the fingers of a mitten.

As I am black, your racist comment makes you look exactly what you are. No-one likes you. Deal with it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As we have some plastic copper in GD, I have to ask what was racist about the above?

... drives people into the arms of Vaslav and his chums ...

That kind of comment indicates racist tendencies, associating foreigners/migrant workers with poor quality work, with being the sort of people you would need to be driven to to use, etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I am black, your racist comment makes you look exactly what you are.

And your belief that racism is restricted to white people does nothing to make you look more intelligent.