Part P conudrum.....

[Andy McKenzie]

Clearly if the work has to be done, it has to be paid for, and if it costs the council X to do it, they can charge the client X, get X from Gordon Brown or put up the rates by the amount required to recoup X.

In this case I think many people's complaint is that ODPM suggested that the council wouldn't charge the client directly, presumably assuming that council's would absorb the cost and no one would notice (although presumably govt will be soon making huge savings by shutting down the fire stations and hospitals that used to be used for the victims of all those pre part P DIY electrical disasters, so it should work out OK in the end) .

Andy

[Ben Willcox]

I was referring specifically to the part of the odpm memo that states:

"We would encourage all local authorities to make sufficient resources available to allow them to carry out their statutory functions in respect of Part P, perhaps by considering reinvestment of some or all of any surplus arising from building control charges received."

Ben.

[Andrew]

Didn't the ODPM's Regulatory Impact Assessment mention of figure of =A335? If so, how can they justify charging =A3290? Surely ODPM didn't pick =A335 just to make their figures tally.

Andrew

[Cordless Crazy]

Thats exactly correct. All these people who a fully competent with wha they are doin, are flapping about part pee when it ultimately mean bugger all in the long run. No one checks, no one gets prosecute unless you stupidly own up to your capers (highly unlikely), you ca moved without too much fuss (if there is you throw it straight back a the purchaser by getting them to pay for the checks).

So, nothing has changed with the intro of the pee code. DIY is, an will continue to be, the cheapest and most productive way of gettin what you want exactly how you want it if you are competent enough Those qualified tradesmen can rant all they want about the regs, and i is only because they have a vested interest in protecting their income and for no other reason. They can't seriously be concerned over th safety of persons they dont even know carrying out supposedl 'unauthorised' work, even though they claim to be.

Save you money and do it yourself, but ONLY if you are competen

-- Cordless Crazy

[Part P Avoider]

A man after me own heart!

Poke your Part P up ur ass!

-- Part P Avoider

[Tim S]

Hi

Two things here:

1) I would object less if the LBA tried to bring the necessary skills to inspect Part P work in house. Most have just copped out and employ external electricians which is bound to cost more as the external firm needs to make a profit. The external firm is also likely to PIR every dwelling it inspects fully, to cover themselves, whereas a suitably skilled BCO is more likely to inspect only the work that has been done which is fundamentally more efficient. Consider how a BCO operates when Part A work is done compared to Part P.

2) I don't realistically expect it to be free but given that I personally didn't want this crap foisted on me, I expect it to be done at cost, not at profit, which is automatically the case once external agents are involved.

Cheers

Tim

[River Tramp]

The way LA Building Control works is residential extensions and alterations are done at a loss, and are cross subsidised by commercial work. However AI's are taking larger and larger %'s of the market. Rumours are the fees for domestic work could triple so we can break even. (no profit, just break even).

IanC

[John Rumm]

I also expect that they grossly underestimated the cost of doing these inspections. Most things that BCOs need to inspect they can do themselves simply by looking. Full on electrical testing is a whole new ball game though.

[James]

I guess the answer to this depends upon whether the population of the country regards extending building regulations into such peripheral areas a service. Unfortunately the electoral system doesn't really seem to give us a choice.

James

[Tony Bryer]

If the RIA put the cost of compliance at £35 and the actual cost is several times that, then some MP really ought to ask for the regulations to be rescinded on the grounds that the cost/benefit equation no longer makes sense. But then ten other MPs will jump up and say that you can't put a price on human life, conveniently forgetting that politicians do so every day.

[Andy Hall]

Good idea. I'll drop mine a line.

I suspect that the reality is that they expected that most of the activity would be through self certification with the costs of that hidden in the bill to the customer for the overall job.

However, if there's a way to cause embarassment for the ODPM, I am all for it.

[Andy Hall]

It does. Don't vote for anybody with a regulating as opposed to a deregulating agenda.

[Dave]

Now this is one aspect of democracy that I can not understand.

If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie the whips are strapped down and blindfolded?

Mind you, as we have a presidential PM I can understand. :-(

I'll stop now, before I get my soap box out :-)

Dave

There is a long and hard knocking on my door, I might be gone for some time.

[Tony Bryer]

I guess that means giving up voting then. Look at planning: when JP says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are outraged. A true deregulating party would want to know why he had such powers in the first place.

[Tony Bryer]

Because the underlying Act - and there are probably thousands like it - says that the Minister is empowered to do so.

"The Building Act 1984 is the enabling Act under which the Building Regulations are made and empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of

• Securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings;

• Furthering the conservation of fuel and power;

• Preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of water"

IIRC such regulations have to be laid before Parliament before coming into effect, thus giving MP's a theoretical right to object but if one does the reply is probably that all interested parties have been consulted and the responses to the consultation have been taken into account.

[Andy Hall]

Sadly I think it does.

I haven't found any who have a clear position on this.

[Joe]

Really? Surely everyone who goes into politics does so in order to legally rob and bully other people. How many politicians, of any party, would actually want to see a reduction in regulation?

Won't happen this side of the revolution.

Still, now the police won't get out of bed for less than £75 (Google gordon wallis 75 if you don't know) it can't be too long before they won't bother enforcing building regulations.

[John Rumm]

I expect we are there now. The scope of work that is expected of building control has grown so fast that there seems little chance of them keeping on top of it all, and more importantly, of even the builders / tradesmen / diy folk even remaining aware of what is actually required. How many "ordinary people" have heard about Part P or L for example?

The same situation has been reached with business regulation - legislation pertaining to running a business is currently expanding by more than 1000 new pages per year. So it is no longer possible for any except the largest firms (who can afford to employ dedicated compliance officers to manage the task) to keep on top of all the requirements. Nett result being that most firms will be guilty of inadvertently breaking some regulation or other simply through ignorance.

[Ed Sirett]

And the April they are adding Part G and F the precise details I am not yet aware of.

It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course this week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but everything to do with shutting down small businesses (making the environment uneconomic for them to operate in).

If safety/quality was an issue.

1) Make all standards clear simple and available free of charge. Currently the required 'how-to' docs are spread throughout a range of documents some free and some prohibitively expensive. 2) Apply resources to track down bad practice rather than regulate those doing best practice. 3) Punish bad practice with compulsory training and then apply sanctions if they still don't "get the plot".

[Doctor Drivel]

Bollocks. Get your sycophantic mind right. It is to close down cowboy operators. You have been listening to that clown Boris Johnson.