I like @Someone-else reply, the problem is over the years the method of training electricians has changed, my dad did a 5 year apprenticeship and then 2 years journeyman with 6 months in 4 different firms, night classes were optional, I did a 5 year apprenticeship and I had day release, as a result collages did not do night classes, then the system changed again with block release, the problem is school leaving age, dad left at 14 so was qualified at 21, I left at 16 so was qualified at 21, today they leave at 18 and still qualified at 21, so to do that the collage training still has same time, it is the on the job training that is reduced, but at the end of each year the student gets a qualification, so the names given to the qualifications have changed.
There is also the point, does the qualification actually teach the student what he needs to know, I have a Fdeng behind my name, however it did not teach me anything about domestic electrics, the city & guilds 2391 did however, and the latter was taken in latter life as were the exams to say I can read BS 7671, that exam your allowed the book in the exam, however not enough time to read it all in the exam, so you need to answer some questions from memory, but some of the questions were daft, now no longer the case, but there were 4 classes of person, ordinary, instructed, skilled and competent, the last two the different was skilled looked after his own safety, and competent his own safety and others, and was a regular exam question, yes was daft and now removed. But it points out the daft things one had to learn to pass exams.
The regulations came out in 1882 Entitled `Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks Arising from Electric Lighting' and have been rewritten 17 times, in 1992 they became a British standard and this has also changed four time starting at BS7671:1992 then 2001, then 2008 and finally 2018, each edition says the date when designs must follow them, note design not the installation, so if designed in 1992 and only finished today, it can still follow BS7671:1992. And each edition states it is not law but can be used in a court of law, and
Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.
the phrase "not necessarily" is used as CENELEC and HSE plus others make laws, which need to be followed so where the regulations are rewritten to encompass some other law or regulation is may be law.
However the PIR (periodic installation report) was renamed EICR (electrical installation condition report) and the 4 codes were reduced to three and C added to the number, so you know which version, and the "does not comply with current regulations if designed today" code 4 was removed as being unhelpful and confusing. Code C1 is dangerous, and there is little argument over what is dangerous, code C3 is recommended and clearly the owner has to make up his mind, there are codes like LIM and FI which say what has been included, but the problem one is C2 potentially dangerous, all 230 volt electrics are potentially dangerous, so no one can say the code has been given when it should not be, and the reverse is also true, in the main as electricians in the main, we consider if once allowed, then it is not potentially dangerous, there are exceptions, but we tend to use the electrician safety councils best practice guide as the rule book rather than BS7671.
However there are cases where BS7671 has been clarified in latter editions, for example definition of a circuit - "An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against over current by the same protective device(s)." this would include fitting a FCU, but it has been stated by most organisations fitting a FCU does not produce a circuit, likely since fitted to a ring final and you can't have a final final. More down to English to electrics. And "314 DIVISION OF INSTALLATION" makes it clear when it says "(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation" that a RCD does form a circuit, although many disagree.
The City & Guilds exam on the regulations does not require the student to interpret what it means. Only repeat word for word. And there is a little more to electrics than that, one items which is in the forefront today is solar panels and EV charging points and the selection of the correct type of RCD, and the different papers written do not seem to agree.
Laws are written then cases go to court, and the law is refined by case law, but unless it goes to court, poorly written laws often allow loop holes, so a consumer unit is a type tested distribution unit designed to be in the control of an ordinary person, anything fitted to a consumer unit must be authorised by the manufacturer to retain the type testing, so if you bought a Wylex consumer unit and fitted fusebox RCBO's it is no longer a consumer unit, it is just a distribution unit, so the law saying fitting of a consumer unit must be registered with local authority has a get out in England, not in Wales as in Wales it lists what you can do, where in England it lists what you can't do. I am sure if it went to court case law would result and say a consumer unit and distribution unit should be regarded as the same, but until some one is killed, there is unlikely to be a court case.
The whole idea of the schemes was to let the home owner know who was considered qualified, and to stop kitchen fitters doing electrical sub standard work, it was made illegal to claim your a scheme member if your not, so if you drop membership from a scheme, any logos on the van, or paperwork must be removed, you must not claim to be a member if your not, this is rather important as it is the home owner who is responsible for informing the LABC not the electrician when notifiable work is done by non scheme member, but for a scheme member this is reversed.
However the scheme providers have started to sell EICR forms, they have different colours to show if covered by the scheme or not, but a scheme member who is not authorised by the scheme provider to do an EICR can do one on forms with the scheme logo on them if the colour is correct, in fact even a non scheme member can buy a pad of the forms and used them if correct colour.
So a non scheme member like me, can buy a pad of EICR forms, and do reports, and the house owner looks at the form and thinks it is backed by the scheme provider, OK I have a city & guilds 2391 so can do an EICR correctly, but as long as I highlight faults, then I have not done it wrong, so I can decide not to issue any code C2's, if I give it a C3 I have still highlighted the problem and recommended it is fixed, so no court can say I have done it wrong, but it means there is no 28 day limit to getting it fixed with English landlord law.
Even that 28 days, on reading the law it does not include weekends and public holidays, so it is nearly 6 weeks allowed.
I did soon after Part P came in, some work for my parents, the builders ran off in the middle of it. I assumed incorrectly that LABC had been informed, so told them I was taking over the job, seems they had not been informed, and they pointed out in no uncertain terms it was done to home owner to inform them, even if most builders did it for the home owner. And getting them to accept my signature on the installation certificate was not easy, my son insisted that anyone doing an EICR to show our work complied must be equal or higher qualified to myself, and he pointed out I have a degree, and only then did they say I could sign the certificate. Yet my son had been employed as an inspector for other peoples work with a scheme registered firm, so he could have been the one doing the third party inspection yet he was not allowed by building control to sign the installation certificate. The LABC inspector it seemed had no idea what a C&G 2391 was.
When I mislaid the certificates on selling mothers old house, and tried to get replacements, was told it would take 4 months, so much for traceable records, and when the council did work on mothers house in spite of asking I never got the minor works certificates, so if the council don't follow the rules, why should anyone bother, it is all a money making exercise.