Part P consultation - DIY compliance easier

[Tony Bryer]

".. The overall aim of the Part P 2013 review is to establish what is the most cost effective way to control electrical installation work in the home, taking account of health and safety concerns. We have examined three options for amending Part P in 2013, and in the consultation stage the costs and benefits associated with each one:

(a) Leave Part P unchanged

(b) Revoke Part P

(c) Amend Part P to reduce the costs and burdens it imposes on installers, building control bodies and consumers.

1. The ?do nothing? approach of option (a) is not preferred because it does not minimise costs to business. Revoking Part P, option (b), is not preferred because, despite delivering significant cost savings to industry, there are significant health and safety costs to individuals which, when considered alongside the associated costs of fire damage to homes and consequent attendance by the fire and rescue service, means that there is a net cost associated with revocation of the regime.

1. Amending Part P, option (c), is the Government?s preferred option because it would significantly reduce the cost to business of Part P in a way that continues to deliver the health and safety benefits sought. Savings would be achieved by:

(a) making a greater proportion of electrical installation jobs non-notifiable (see paragraph 31); and

(b) allowing DIYers and other unregistered installers (firms not registered with a Part P Competent Person Self-Certification Scheme) to employ a third party qualified electrician to inspect and test their work as an alternative to using a building control body (see paragraph 36). ..

[Fredxx]

> ".. The overall aim of the Part P 2013 review is to establish what is the most cost

I saw this and sent an email.

Interesting 27b. It says qualified, and not belonging to some closed shop jobsrus club. Do they really mean qualified?

They also claim "electrical accidents caused around 43 fatalities, 2,900 serious injuries requiring hospital treatment, and damage to 6,700 properties". Really? I wonder who supplied these figures?

[Alan]

In message , Tony Bryer wrote

This statement needs to be backed up with the statistics showing a large reduction in fires caused by electrical wiring and fittings in domestic properties since part P was introduced.

The reduction in costs may persuade more people to get the work done professionally rather than bodging it themselves to save money. A world without part P may be safer.

Why has the "industry" changed its mind on something they lobbied so hard for? Or did they think that a closed shop would come without cost and bureaucracy?

[hugh]

And how many were down to work which would now be covered by Part P?

Talking of which, I've just corrected the fourth example of poor quality workmanship on the wiring on our extension which was of course done by a certified/qualified electrician.

[Frank Erskine]

>>> ".. The overall aim of the Part P 2013 review is to establish what is the most cost

They're probably counting ALL electrical accidents, including those caused by faulty or broken appliances. Who knows; they might include "accidents" caused to people attempting to steal copper.. :-)

[PeterC]

When making the final connections for the 2-way switching that I asked about a couple of weeks ago, I found in the ceiling rose (done professionally and checked by the LA): a Neutral with about 4 - 5mm stripped and rammed in until there was a bit of copper under the screw; an Earth wire, not connected, not sleeved and wandering across near the terminals.

This was about 20 years ago, so not Part P but still 'professional'.

[Bob Eager]

And by people using extension leads because Part P stopped them putting in a new 'plug socket'...!

[Andrew Gabriel]

Our response to the original Part P consultation is still here:

[John Rumm]

[ss]

well stepping aside as a layman, pretty good at DIY but dont like touching electrics other than basic basics I take the view that cheaper is safer....The more legislation there is then the more it costs and the more people can ill afford a proper job and will therefore cut corners. I am in the process of DIY ing my current property, I moved to clear my mortgage due to being unemployed and I receive no benefits (dont go there its a thorn in my flesh) anyhow I am using no end of electrical tools outside or inside my shed. I cant afford an electrician to connect the shed to the power supply so use an extension for this work. I am not happy doing this but have no choice. Now this cant be the safest way of doing it but I jump in and out between showers wet days etc. The cost which would include (and I dont blame them) costs for registration or whatever costs are incurred for a professional to be registered are prohibitive to many and therefore we dont implement best practice.

Its late I am rambling now, but you may get my point.

[Frank Erskine]

That sounds a bit 'merican "class action" type of thing.

;-)

[chris French]

Yes, you do. DIY it and ignore Part P.

In reality there will be no comeback from the LA.

When you sell, there may or may not be a query about the electics. likely worst case scenario is that you maybe have to pay a couple of hundred for a pointless indemnity insurance in case of any legal problems arising from the lack of BR paperwork for it.

[John Rumm]

Alas I doubt it would get their attention in the same way...

However we may dray more attention as an "organised group of skilled DIYers" than as individuals.

We can that way include "statistics collected from our membership" etc to help reinforce our claims.

[The Medway Handyman]

Sorry to upset the apple cart, but I actually like Part P.

It gives me and my customers a clear dividing line between what I can & cannot do.

I'm not an electrician & would never claim to be. Non notifiable jobs are the sort of work I want to do. Notifiable jobs are jobs I don't want to do or don't feel I'm qualified to do.

Part P has created a situation where many local electricians either can't be bothered to, or can't make any money from, say changing a light fitting. I can because I can do other jobs whilst I'm there.

CORGI/Gas Safe has had much the same effect on local plumbers. I'm happy to change a monoblock mixer, they aren't.

Yesterday was a good example. Changed a light fitting & dimmer switch, fitted a new siphon to a toilet cistern - and a few other bits & bob's.

And the H&S culture means I often get paid to change lamps in offices...

[Brian Gaff]

Or maybe we should attempt to teach common sense to most humans instead?

Brian

[Andrew May]

And so it should. After all if you are going to steal copper you really ought to notify building control first. Of course, no need to do that if it is not in a controlled area :-)

[Robin]

Oh yes

I suggest they should also be asked about the narrow group from whom DCLG took evidence informally (see para 15), ignoring suggestions that they should also seek evidence from wider interests (including DIY installers) before issuing this con. doc.

In passing I agree that DCLG should be pressed for more on the "policy evaluation" of Part P - ie how it has performed against the objectives and the forecast benefits and costs - as well as for details of their assumed costs and benefits in the new proposals. They really should show - or make available - the workings behind the figures in the interim impact assessment

I suggest an early request to DCLG for these - to inform the response to the con doc. If they don't cooperate fast there is of course the FoIA

[Mike Barnes]

Brian Gaff :

Good luck with that.

[Andrew May]

I have got the impressions from other groups that any request for information should be treated as a FOI request. There is not special procedure for invoking FOI. BICBW.

[Andrew Gabriel]

I cannot see how any changes to Part P (even getting rid of it) would make any difference to you. You can still choose to stick to your current boundaries, or whatever else you decide upon.