requirements for other self-certifi able work – which may include electrical installation work as part of a job – should incorporate relevant competencies for that electrical installation work. This debate led on to the question of whether or not certifi cation of electrical installation work not carried out by a registered competent person could be undertaken by a competent third party other than Building Control (or their agent). It was felt that the risks with this approach – which ranged from the possibility of encouraging work by unregistered contractors, to an increase in electrical installations without a warranty or complaints procedure – could reduce consumer safety and so could not be supported. Other issues considered at the meeting covered how
the cost of becoming Part P registered might be reduced and how central guidance (from, for example, the Building Control Alliance) would help building control bodies establish levels of cost based on the competency of the person undertaking the work. Much time was also spent considering how we could best improve compliance. Changes to the DCLG Conditions of Authorisation
various electrical and related trade bodies, as well as the consumer watchdog Which? magazine, the Trading Standards Institute and the Chief Fire Offi cers Association. What was particularly pleasing about the event was the general consensus established in relation to the need to retain Part P – although concerns about compliance, in particular, were raised. The need to clarify and simplify documentation, and increase the awareness of both consumers and electrical contractors to the benefi ts of Part P, was also highlighted. Our next step was to convene a working group from
those attending the roundtable, with the primary aim of sourcing impact assessment material on Part P for submission to the DCLG’s review and – where possible – establish joint policy positions. The group, which met in April, was comprised of representatives from ABE, BEAMA, DCLG, EAL, ELECSA, IET, LABC, NAPIT and NICEIC. Members confi rmed the view that Part P was fi t for purpose – i.e., to provide additional consumer protection by requiring notifi able electrical work to be designed and installed to protect persons from the risk of electric shock and fi re. The group also discussed the issue of notifi cation,
with the consensus view being that the present scope of notifi able work should not be reduced, as it covers all higher risk electrical work, including kitchen installations. All the scheme operators present agreed to provide the relevant data to support this position.
Competence A key item on the working group’s agenda was to determine if there is still a need for the Defi ned Competence Scheme – and the response to this issue was ‘No’. Instead, a recommendation that the minimum technical competence
52 ECA Today July 2011
for Part P scheme operators, which will take effect from October, means that registered contractors will be required to report unregistered contractors if found to have undertaken notifi able work without notifying that work to the local authority in advance. The group also suggested that an ‘administrative offence’ be introduced, to allow local authorities to issue on-the-spot fi nes or ‘stop notices’ to unregistered contractors who have not complied with the building regulations. It was also noted that under amendments to the Conditions of Authorisation, Part P scheme operators will be required to contribute to the cost of promoting Part P to the general public. This is something the ESC would want to be closely involved with, as it would draw on our existing expertise in campaigning and ensure an integrated approach to promotional activities.
About the author
Phil Buckle Phil Buckle was appointed director general of the Electrical Safety Council in May 2009. He has recently completed a Master of Science degree in Management in the Voluntary Sector, and was previously employed as marketing and business development director at the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC).
Collaboration It is because the ESC believes that it is vital that the electrical industry and consumer groups work together to inform proposed changes to Part P generally – and the Competent Person’s Scheme specifi cally – that we have promoted collaborative working. Our intention has been to offer government an informed view to help balance the competing need of the public to be confi dent in the standards of work being carried out in their homes, while respecting the industry’s desire to avoid unnecessary red tape. The bottom line is that we need to reduce the complexities of Part P without compromising safety. The ESC is working on it.
■ A Building Regulations Advisory Committee Technical Working Party will be making its initial recommendations on the scope and content of the Part P consultation to the minister at the beginning of July, and its fi nal recommendations in September. It is expected that the DCLG will launch its consultation in December 2011 and close it in March 2012, with a view to revised requirements coming into force, after six months’ notice, in April 2013.
KACSO SANDOR / SHUTTERSTOCK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72