Doctor Drivel wrote:

Do you think a Part P inspector ...

No such person.

... pulls back on the rules because of the person paying?

Yes, actually - and very definitely. What you're talking about here is
assessing the condition of an existing electrical installation, i.e. a
"periodic inspection." This is indeed carried out according to a quite
well-defined set of rules, but the rules allow for limitations of
inspection and testing to be agreed between the person doing the work
(electrician, electrical surveyor) and the "person ordering the work" -
i.e. the vendor in this case. So if the vendor says they don't want a
particular circuit isolated for testing it won't be. If they don't want
covers or wiring accessories removed for inspection because of the risk
of damage to decorations, they won't be. And so on. The limitations
will be noted in the report, but their significance won't necessarily be
appreciated by the casual reader.

To my mind the whole HIP/HCR thing - which, as has already been said,
wasn't going to include testing gas or electrical installations in any
case - is fundamentally flawed. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

You probably do. I suppose you think the same about MOT inspectors
too.

Your analogy with the MOT is quite invalid, IMO. You could compare,
say, a landlord's gas safety check with an MOT, but not an HCR. The HCR
is just a report - you don't pass or fail it.

--
Andy