Part P (again)

[Andy Hall]

Regulation 9 of the Regulation mentioned is simply setting out the requirement for the CE mark to be placed on equipment offered on the market.

It's largely meaningless in a lot of cases where components are used to form a system.

For example, components in your PC carry a CE mark individually and are related to that component in areas like safety and electromagnetic compatibility. Of course, a disk drive can't do anything on its own, so a disk drive vendor will normally put it into a typical system and have it tested by a third party lab. If it passes certain standards then the manufacturer can issue a Declaration of Conformity and apply the CE mark. Then he can sell the product. A major equipment vendor will have complete systems tested and go with that. However, a small system integrator will not go for a lab test and it's pot luck whether the system meets EMC requirements. Because safety is largely a funtion of the PSU, it's unlikely that he would get into trouble on the safety aspects.

For garden lights, vendors supply a transformer, LV wiring and the lamps either as sets or with bits available separately. They should be tested as a system for safety etc. - i.e. all of the relevant standards for that type of product - that is the principle of CE marking. (I didn't say it was any good).

So.... if you were to buy the items from one vendor and install them then there should be no issue, expecially as most of these transformers plug in as appliances anyway.

[Andy Hall]

Perhaps you are the reason why this legislation has been introduced. I would recommend that you follow the guidelines.

By the way... hacksaws aren't much good for stripping electrical cable either.

[Andy Hall]

that needs

Possibly. There is a new mediaeval guild/income tax net for plumbers.

My point was really that service and equipotential bonding is an important safety feature so it is surprising that it is exempted.

[Steve Firth]

IMM wrote:

[Andy Hall]

True. Although I suspect in reality that the whole thing will end up being a white elephant anyway.

Our resident ex and current BCOs might like to comment here, but it seems to me that the only time where violations of building control are likely to be detected are

a) If they are visible from the exterior of the house - e.g. an extension

b) The neighbours shop the householder

c) Something bad happens

d) The property is sold.

For wiring, a) and b) are unlikely if it is the only work - of course if it's part of something else then that's a bigger issue and the person is already in violation of other parts anyway.

c) is possible, but we know that the number of bad things like fires and shocks attributable to fixed wiring are small. Since this regulation allows spurs to be fitted uncontrolled, it does not protect the MP's electrocuted daughter if the cooker hood wiring was to a spur, except in so far that it was in a kitchen and therefore controlled. I see no logical reason why the same thing with a different appliance couldn't have happened in another room.

In case d) what would happen? The purchaser has a survey and the surveyor picks up that wiring was done and no certificate because it was DIY and the person didn't bother. So he gets an electrician in and the installation is tested. If it passes then fine, if not then it gets fixed. I don't imagine that anybody is going to call up Building Control and ask them to come round with handcuffs.

[RichardS]

And of course dont forget that the idea of paying money for the sharpest, slipperiest, most aggressive solicitor that you can find is to protect you from answering any nasty questions untruthfully or to your detriment....

[IMM]

I'm interested in the intention, I am interested in the black and white facts.

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

A ring main is a single circuit. FACT If any or all of the cables are damaged that can be replaced right back to the breaker.

I'm not interested in assumptions and opinions.

NO! the permanent gov department.

He does and he has a great left hook. My hero.

They do not write it up. Techie people from the department do. Then they give it lawyers who convert it to gobbledy gook with hereuntos in it. BOY, you really are naive.

< snip babble >

No just fox hunters. Burn 'em.

You are not used to legal docs that is clear. The "and" joins those beneath it,. not above. Duh!

[IMM]

This is sad, he is getting worse. Must be all that shit he has kicked all his life. Sad but true.

[IMM]

What guidelines are these? Those by Andy the brainwashed Tory.

I told him that. I cut "very" large cables with a hacksaw.

[IMM]

A detective relative of mine said, "never say anything", "never answer questions". A good lawyer or copper may have the knack of ribbing you to get your emotions up. He said "it is a game, ignore them" and he said " I always admired a pro under provocation from us, who just said nothing at all. He won, we lost, he walked away".

[coherers]

It **is** (a) and (b) and (c). That is the way legislation reads.

Part P translates this as

"Work that is not in a kitchen or special location and does not involve a special installation and consists of:.... Adding lighting points (light fittings and switches) to an existing circuit Adding socket-outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit Installing or upgrading main or supplementary equipotential bonding"

i.e. (a) and (b) and (c)

[Andy Hall]

You're going to look for a long time in any legislation enacted by this government.,

A ring main is not used for interior house wiring. A ring circuit (correctly ring final circuit) is.

It may or may not be necessary to replace more than one section of cable if it is damaged.

However, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I already said that I thought the legislation was a nonsense, so I see no reason to try to justify its idiocies.

Would you like me to send you a copy of the letter from Raynsford?

Obviously. He seems to be as confused as you are.

As I said, would you like me to send you a copy of the letter from Raynsford?

Don't be stupid. It's perfectly obvious both from the text and the context that it is all three.

[Andy Hall]

For you I would recommend the Ladybird Book of Electrical Wiring.

Can I recommend that you try those festooned between tall towers - ideally the tallest.......?

.

[Andy Hall]

So were you a policeman as well then, or just the helmet?

[Mike Harrison]

Ever tried cutting 16mm armoured or 25mm meter tails with sidecutters....?

[Mike Harrison]

pipework that needs

Since when did Part P have anything to do with safety ?

[:::Jerry::::]

It's neither, it's fact !

(Electrical) Ring Main = the 'company' distribution cables.

(Electrical) Ring Circuit = building power distribution cables laid out in a 'ring'.

[Steve Firth]

IMM wrote:

[Joe]

Does it say '*accidentally* damaged'?

[Clive Summerfield]

doing pipework that needs

In reality, never. As a weak justification for the formalisation of an exclusive guild structure for electrical businesses with a vested interest, since day one.

Cheers Clive