There is to be a review of Part P, see:
maybe the govt will see the light & reduce regulatory burden.
IMHO public knowledge and awareness of simple electrical safety has sadly much decreased since Part P arrived.
Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in opposition.
Sadly I expect d-i-y will become even more restricted if the various trade bodies get their way (and they probably will).
Philip
Nice idea, but possibly a bit late, they have the results of the first stage of the consultation here:
2.39 - one can see building regs mandated wheely bin houses here!
Part P specific comments:
"2.57 There were 18 responses submitted directly to the Department. There was some specific support for the Part P, in particular how it had improved the quality of electrical work in the home and as a result reduced the number of deaths and injuries. There was a similar number that suggested that the approach in Part P was unnecessary and/or should be replaced by a requirement that electrical work should be carried out by a suitably-qualified and registered/competent person (with the comparison with gas safety often being made)."
Interesting they have not understood the requirements of the gas regulations!
"2.58 However, Part P was by far the most commented on aspect of the Building Regulations on the Your Freedom website. While a minority of the comments on that site supported the existing provision and worried that deregulation could impact on health and safety in homes, these views were outnumbered by those that supported revision of the existing provisions.
2.59 Various reasons were cited for the need to review Part P. However, in summary they related to the cost associated with demonstrating compliance with the provisions rather than costs imposed by the way the work itself had to be carried out, that is either the payment of a building control fee for the work or payment of an annual fee to belong to a Competent Person Scheme to be able to self-certify the work. It was often stated that such costs impacted particularly on small firms. Furthermore, by falling only on those people that actually sought to comply with the regime it was said this was both unfair and failed to do anything to tackle those people who were most likely to be responsible for unsafe work.2.60 The provisions were first introduced in 2005 and we believe it is now time to evaluate their contribution to the safety outcomes they were intended to support. We will therefore undertake a review of the requirements, their implementation and the associated compliance mechanisms to determine whether there is any case for change."
2.60 is interesting, but not sure how one contributes to that process.On the "Next Steps" section:
"3.2 First, the programme will contain a significant deregulatory workstream. In particular this will include considering the scope for reducing the burden of Parts P, K, M and N as well as the building control system as a whole. We will also explore what other more minor changes might deliver additional reduced burdens ? particularly whether there is any scope for reducing regulation through Part D or through the specific provisions at H6 and E4."
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.
[1] I discovered a few dangerous faults in my house (moved in last year) when I replaced the socket and switch faceplates. Fortunately they could be made safe without the need for Part P. If, OTOH, a qualified electrician was required, it might have been a while before I'd got round to having them fixed, as arranging to stay at home mid- week for a day for a tradesman's visit is far more hassle than a few hours with a screwdriver at the weekend.Neil
Yep - and AIUI DCLG have since then been gathering further evidence from (not to say getting their ears bent by) bodies such as the Electrical Safety Council (who in turn have been spoon fed by NICEIC and NAPIT). So by the time they publish later this year the con. doc. with their proposals to make changes to the Building Regulations it'll be too late to achieve anything significantly different from whatever they have concluded.
which would be covered by yer standard Contract Law when done for benefit.
(at least it was when I was doing my C&Gs years ago)
JGH
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.
[1] I discovered a few dangerous faults in my house (moved in last year) when I replaced the socket and switch faceplates. Fortunately they could be made safe without the need for Part P. If, OTOH, a qualified electrician was required, it might have been a while before I'd got round to having them fixed, as arranging to stay at home mid- week for a day for a tradesman's visit is far more hassle than a few hours with a screwdriver at the weekend.Neil
And what about all us poor sods who can't afford to have electricians coming in and doing work, because we are on Benefits of some description.
Don't give me thee old blarney that someone gave me recently, that anyone on benefits should not be allowed to own their own home.
There is to be a review of Part P, see:
maybe the govt will see the light & reduce regulatory burden.
IMHO public knowledge and awareness of simple electrical safety has sadly much decreased since Part P arrived.
Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in opposition.
------------------------------------
What really annoys me about Part P is that it gives no protection from self-certifying cowboy electricians. My wife insisted that our new kitchen be fitted by the "professionals", not because I would mess it up - simply that the kitchen would have been out of commission for longer. The electrical contractors supplied the new fridge from a spur off a socket, stuck the new socket to the top of the fridge cabinet (over 6' high!) with clear silicone, then took another spur from that socket to feed the dishwasher. No 13A fuse inserted in the line anywhere. They also installed a new socket on top of the wall cabinets to feed the extractor and simply left it lying loose on the end of about a foot of twin cables. On the same cabinet, the cable to supply the under-cabinet lights was too long, so they simply folded it up, taped it together and left the cable and junction box lying loose (on the same cabinet). What bothers me is that was just the stuff I can see. Just because these people have been on a course doesn't mean they're going to do a good job - I know it was rubbish, but how many unknowing customers get stuck with this sort of crap installation?
I don't recall this, can you provide any links?
There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably be extended to 15 years.
A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?
A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of the electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it more worthwhile, perhaps?
Neil
Worthwhile for whom? Its almost certainly not worthwhile for most homeowners.
Having an inspection before you sell a house so that the seller can pay to put it right might be an idea, but anything else is just lining the inspectors pockets.
For what point? The whole purpose of the government review is to get rid of red tape and costs. You are proposing more, and without any justification.
If you've been electrocuted, you don't go to hospital, you go to the morgue.
JGH
Very few.
I doubt it would make it more worthwhile. It would just be a variation on Part P and one that now includes people who have not had any electrical work done.
Too many sellers in there. The onus is on the buyer to have a inspection done if they are wary of the electrics.
There are less sellers than buyers of a property. if the seller does pay it should be required for faults to be put right before it can be sold, even to a different buyer. I.e.. just make the seller responsible for safety as they are in most sales.
The trouble is that you don't necessarily sell a house in a perfect state of repair, generally.
Neil
Which might work for good houses where the wiring is not up to current standards. But it leads to the absurd situation where an old house, and there are a lot of those around, is in need of refurbishment and the wiring has to be fixed before it can be is sold to someone who is going to rip it all out and rewire anyway.
Caveat emptor. It would make sense for someone who knows nothing about electrics to have a PIR done on a house before they buy it. The housing market will then determine if you can use any repairs required as a bargaining price on the house.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.