Part P (again)
 

Apologies if this has been previously mentioned but I just picked up
from the ODPM website a circular letter re Part P

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1131042

"There have been reports that some local authorities are asking
householders to have electrical installation work inspected, tested and
certificated by someone other than the person carrying out the work.
Section 33(2) of the Building Act 1984 (which would give power to local
authorities to require persons carrying out building work to carry out
such reasonable tests, at the person's expense, of or in connection
with the work for the purpose of enabling local authorities to
ascertain whether the work complies with the requirements of the
Regulations) has not been commenced. This means in our opinion that
local authorities do not have the power to require householders to
retain an electrician to test and certificate the work in accordance
with BS 7671. Local authorities which have adopted such a practice
should discontinue it immediately."

"It has been drawn to our intention that some local authorities in
letting contracts for electrical installation work in dwellings specify
that only installers registered with the National Inspection Council
for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC) or which are members
of the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA) should be acceptable
for carrying out the work. Local authorities are reminded that there
are ten authorised competent person schemes for Part P. Installers
registered with any of the full competence schemes have been assessed
as competent to carry out any electrical installation work in dwellings
in accordance with the requirements of the Building Regulations;"

"Local authorities should ensure that charges for checking full plans
applications or building notices and carrying out inspections of
building work, including that relating to Part P, are pre-fixed in
their charges scheme as required by the Building (Local Authority
Charges) Regulations 1998. Authorities do not have powers to reassess a
fixed charge, which they have levied for a particular application or
notice, during the course of the work."

It does suggest that some LA's have been too keen by half

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

Part P (again)
 

Tony Bryer wrote:

"It has been drawn to our intention that some local authorities

Gosh, I didn't realise that Two Jags actually writes this stuff himself...

David

Part P (again)
 

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:14:28 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Tony Bryer wrote:

"It has been drawn to our intention that some local authorities

Gosh, I didn't realise that Two Jags actually writes this stuff himself...

David


That would be impossible....


--

..andy

Part P (again)
 

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:14:28 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Tony Bryer wrote:

"It has been drawn to our intention that some local authorities

Gosh, I didn't realise that Two Jags actually writes this stuff himself...

David


That would be impossible....



Behind 2 jags' fine words, what does the circular really mean?

Clearly it says the LA can't require you to either supply an 'official
certificate' nor pay the expense of a a 3rd party inpecting the work.

But can it have different tariiffs for applications which are entirely
non-part Pee as opposed to those which include some or are exclusively
part Pee, which SFAIUI is the other aspect of the grouse?

And there is another issue: SFAIUI a B Regs application is confidential
between the applicant & the LA. Some work could involve novel
solutions (theoretical or practical - including calculation and
computer programming [& not to mention help ex such as uk.d-i-y ]).
Can it send in a non-LA inspector & thus force me to disclose those
solutions FOC?