"Part P in force by 2004"

Page 1 of 3  
"Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine.
Some snippets, more or less verbatim:
- Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM].
- Speaking this month at the NICEIC-hosted 'Green light for Part P seminar', Paul Everall, head of the ODPM's Building Division was unable to confirm an exact start date for the new legislation, but said "ministers were anxious to take Part P forward."
- a [competent persons] scheme the NICEIC has applied to operate, alongside "one or two others which will have to be assessed"
- Self-certification schemes that meet Government approval will be available by December or January.
- Although the ODPM declined to commit to an exact date, Clark [NICEIC] was more forthcoming, claiming legislation would be introduced in February 2004 with a requirement to come into force by the summer. However, he said there is "talk of a two year window to get everyone on board."
[1] Electrical review, Vol. 236, no. 15, October 2003.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

current
If this is introduced closer to the end of 2004 than the start then this will provide a useful disconnect between the old and new fixed wiring installation colours....
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

current
Looks like I'll have to do my rewire next spring then. Has anyone been given any idea what the cost of getting a DIY installation inspected and signed off will be once the Part P is included? Will this cost be regulated at all?
Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This is a Competent Persons Self Certification Scheme, otherwise known as a Self Certification to Assist Moneymaking or SCAM for short.
None of the other scams (sorry schemes) are regulated in the fee sense, so there is no reason to believe that this one will be either.
There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established.
I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. .andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval?
Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before the new regs came in?
Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Please remove that new fixed wiring installation and reinstate the previous rubber-insulated wire-fused bakelite-switched installation"
:-)
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

previous
Point taken!
I know it's old-fashioned, but I try and avoid breaking the law when I'm doing my DIY. So assuming I don't want to just do the work and hope for the best when it comes to selling, I will need to take an alternative course of action.
As I understand it, I will have three options: (1) pay an approved contractor to do all the work and they will then certify that it has been done, with certificates going to both me and the local BCO (2) do the work myself and have it inspected by a local authority building control department (3) do the work myself and pay an approved contractor to come and certify the work to the local BCO (and me).
Option (1) is irrelevant if I'm still thinking about DIY
Option (2) will apparently be prohibitively expensive according to page 29 para 45 of the proposed part P regs. See this page for the file: http://tinyurl.com/tlbf . Apparently the local authority BC departments will most likely be subcontracting the work to an approved agent anyway.
Option (3) is also likely to be expensive, at least at first, since the demand for approved contractors will outstrip supply for some time and as such they will be able to charge whatever they like!
Presumably, as a DIYer, option (3) should end up being cheaper than option (2), because otherwise I would just choose the more independent local authority inspection over the approved leccy.
The question is - what do we think it's likely to end up costing? Let's say I replace a consumer unit, relocating all the old circuits on to the new unit, except that I completely rewire one ring circuit. How much are we talking for certification to the BCO that the work is to regs? 50? 150? 500? More?
Does anyone have any idea? Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You have a 4th option - to do the work yourself. Illegal possibly I suppose, but judges have never had a problem looking through the law to discover the intent of the law and apply that instead. And providing you've done the work to a reasonable standard and complied with the regs then who is to know you did it?
The intent of the law being discussed is to ensure that lives are saved (I've got that in writing from the minister of state responsible for this daft legislation). So providing that you are using every means possible to ensure that lives are not at risk you'd most likely have little to fear unless you owned up to it.
Seems like a bloody stupid target to me though. If you review the contents of the RoSPA web site then there are about 8 lives lost each year through electrical accident which this legislation applies to. If they spent half as much money on anti-smoking and anti-drunk-driving legislation they'd save hundreds of lives.
I expect far more lives are lost each year with stress induced by government ministers who haven't got a clue what they are legislating about.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You can anyway. There isn't a requirement about who *does* the work, only that it is inspected and certified or a building notice issued if anybody *except* a member of a SCAM organisation (who can self certify) does it. There's an exception for kitchens.
From the report about the RIA:
**********
To reduce the work load on BCBs, work undertaken by persons who have been assessed as competent through a scheme recognised by the Secretary of State, or minor work specified in Tables 1 and 2 in the Approved Document need not be notified.
Work in kitchens and the special installations and locations given in Table 2 must be carried out by a competent person or notified to BCBs before work commences.
DIY work on electrical installations will be a controlled service and those undertaking the work, even minor work, are reminded in the Approved Document that their work must comply with BS7671, including inspection testing and certification by a competent person.
and
Work carried out by DIY workers will be treated as work undertaken by persons not covered by a Competent Persons scheme. DIY installations are covered by BS7671 which requires the installation to be inspected and tested by a competent person in accordance with Part 7 of BS7671. Work other than that listed in Table 1 in the Approved Document must be notified to Building Control or undertaken by a member of an approved competent person scheme.
*********
If you read through the rest of it, it becomes apparent that there will be difficulty in drafting legislation for a lot of the aspects.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Amazing isn't it? I have a job fitting a new cooker hood for someone later this week, and in doing so I won't be touching the electrical infrastructure of the house - just connecting up to the fused spur that is already in existence.
This cooker hood could be in or out of the new legislation (arguments welcome), but from next April or whenever it seems certain that I'll have to turn away work that I could have done.
Maybe it'll be time for me to start hammering on the door of the local job centre to collect my JSA. Reason: Can't work because of government initiated dogma.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"PoP" wrote | Amazing isn't it? I have a job fitting a new cooker hood for someone | later this week, and in doing so I won't be touching the electrical | infrastructure of the house - just connecting up to the fused spur | that is already in existence. | This cooker hood could be in or out of the new legislation (arguments | welcome), but from next April or whenever it seems certain that I'll | have to turn away work that I could have done.
The "correct" way will be to extend the flex to the cooker hood with some choccie block and tack it with bent-over half inch nails to the skirting board halfway round the room and under a couple of door thresholds before connecting it to a 13A fused plug (fused at 13A of course) and *plug it into a socket.*
Extending an appliance flex is not fixed wiring and not within the regulations.
Completely dangerous of course, but then these regulations aren't about safety.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah! So one legal option (assuming it is not a kitchen) is to do the work and then get a member of a SCAM organisation to certify it. Is there going to be any maximum time between doing the work and employing the SCAM member? If not we can legally have a large backlog of jobs to be inspected - and until we sell the house never get round to having it certified!
James
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:51:53 -0000, "James"

The possible issue with this arrangement would be that if there were an accident or fatality between the job being done and the house eventually being sold then the lack of certification could land the person who did the job in very hot water.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

going
member?
Doubt it.
Think you'd have to be pretty negligent in order to get people that actually know about this legislation involved.
Richard
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So do I. But when stupidity is involved (at government level) someone else has to pay for it.

I don't doubt that. BUT......
In the event there was a fire then the local fire chief would be expected to do a post-mortem on the site of the blaze. I believe this is normal procedure, to ensure that causes of fire are understood.
With these post mortems I'm sure there has to be an element of doubt in some cases. In so far that the PM will indicate whereabouts the fire started but might not be totally accurate with respect to the finite cause.
And if the PM gave a hint that it might have been due to an electrical fault, just maybe the fire officer would trigger a process about whether the necessary certificates had been issued. Insurance companies like to do that sort of thing to stop their funds being paid out.
I might also add that all those space probes are wrong, and that little green men do live on the surface of Mars :)
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... but I still can't see how anyone will ever be able to tell whether a particular bit of wiring has a certificate or not. These certificates (as I understand it) won't be detailed enough to tell exactly which bits of wiring they refer to.
--
Chris Green ( snipped-for-privacy@x-1.net)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 Nov 2003 21:43:22 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk wrote:

As I understand it (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the tests that are undertaken could be fairly significant and involve the entire circuit - or installation - that the wiring change was introduced for.
Thus assuming that it comes to the attention of the fire officer (or whoever) that some wiring work may have been carried out it is entirely possible that the certification might have to include the entire installation.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That takes you back to the same question, how do you tell whether a certain bit (or any bit) of wiring was done before or after the certificate was issued?
--
Chris Green ( snipped-for-privacy@x-1.net)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11 Nov 2003 09:29:09 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk wrote:

I don't think it would be wise to underestimate the ability of forensic science to determine whether something was tampered with. If life was lost due to a fire then an inquiry would take place, and neighbours (etc) are all too willing to make themselves noteworthy to the police about fingering possible culprits.
YMMV, but my attitude is that I wouldn't take chances on this sort of thing.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Does this apply to other insurance? Is car insurance invalid because of a safety critical fault?
I would suggest that in many cases careful and thoughtful amateur work will be to a higher standard than that provided by some rushed professionals. Hence there is less chance of loss of life. This is more important than insurance considerations.
James
wrote:

--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.