If that is the case why does it not require the _installer_ to have proven training and competence?
As it is, and as it clearly says in its own RIA, Part P will increase deaths from electrocution.
I beleive that for Part-P (and certain other notices) there is some exemption (section 12 IIRC) which allows the BCO to charge more I.e. the cost of getting a professional to make at 2 visits.
More likely, they are too busy to accept that unless you were personally known to them and they knew you to be competant.
Exactly. "The vendor is not qualified to comment on building regulations. The purchaser must rely on his own inspection of the property and the opinion of his professional advisors."
Owain
Who? Where? Why? What? When?
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
Do you mean those that discourage me from changing my CU to a modern split one with an RCD. Oh sorry those ones. Don't they encourage trailing sockets? Perhaps they are a good idea after all. Yes aren't they a good idea aren't they.
Owain got the answer spot on - I was a little short of imagination and brief at the time. It's a politician's answer, a lawyers answer. Sidestep the whole question.
In a sense, unless you're a BCO or an expert on the building regs, or have sure knowledge that absolutely no work [that was not notified to BC] has ever been carried out on the property, then you really need to answer "NO" to any questions asking if you can confirm that any notifiable work has been approved. Or sidestep it.
How do I _know_ that my patio is compliant with building regs? (before anyone jumps on me about this, my point is how can the layman know that such a work doesn't come within the scope of building regs? the answer is that without details knowledge of the regs he/she cannot know this).
Where I said - read it, it is perfectly plain and the figures are there in support.
More to the point Part P excludes provision for any inspection other than under BCO control. The work has to be done by the self certifier.
"Will I be able to have my electrical work certified as compliant with Building Regulations by other than a building control body?
As the Building Act under which the Building Regulations are formed recognises only those who actually carry out work to be competent to self-certify, it is understood that third party certification (by other than a building control body) will not be acceptable under the provisions of Part P."
A CU is deemed to be outside the scope of DIY. It is very much an involved aspect and demands careful work. Everyone knows you don't have trailing leads and sockets should be in appropriate places. If outside DIY then you get the pro in and pay.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
You're making a big assumption here, Peter.....
Very big ones too.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
I do appreciate that - but there were some pictures as well :-).
modern split
trailing
trailing
You are still missing the point, Part P is un-enforceable, it will not stop the 'cowboy' builder / DIYer, all it is going to stop is the safe up-grading of old, inadequate or damaged wiring by many competent by conscientious DIYers who do there own work as otherwise the work would not be carried out due to cost.
I heard the same when corgi started to become strict. The cowboy will always be there, and many combi's are slapped in by Jack-of-all trade fly by night untraceable builders. In reality cowboy gas installations are pretty well un-enforceable. Only when someone informs corgi does something happen, and only if he is traceable. BUT!!! The cowboy operators dropped like a stone. The same will happen here with Part P. All it needs is a few highly publicised prosecutions and minds will sharpen.
From the point of this ng, it is a matter of knowing how to get around some of the regs, i.e., you can replace a part of a ring, but not install a whole ring. You can work on a CU if the part of the ring is the part connecting to the CU. How do you replace the whole ring then? In stages as it when a part was replaced the others were down too.
In principle from a holistic view, Part P is right. The nitty gritty aspects is all subjective. Once DIYers know what they can and can't do, and get around some aspects, all will settle down.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
Did they allow you to colour them in?
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download
I suggest you read the regulation relating to gas installation and those relating to Part P...
In reality cowboy gas installations are pretty well
happen, and
And just how long has 'Corgi' been around ?...
around some
connecting to
Look, if someone can install an extension to a current ring circuit then why not the whole ruddy thing, the chances are that a full new ring will be a lot safer than X meters of 'ring circuit' or X number of spurs feed off an already old ring. Instead of 3 separate rings serving a floor each of a large Victorian house it could end up with one ring and any number of spurs in an attempt to get around the silly restrictions imposed by Part P.
All Part P is doing is muddying the waters whilst (in theory) forcing extra costs on both industry, trade and home owners.
"Deemed" by who?
There is in reality very little "outside of DIY" given the range of skills and level of knowledge of some DIYers.
Following your logic, a professional sparks would be "deemed" unable to change his own CU on the grounds that the membership to the appropriate guild would belong to his employer and not him - hence he is suddenly deemed not competent to do a job he was competent to do yesterday, and will be again tommorow.
Your entire rational for making that statement seems to be driven by two things:
1) Is is a view contrary to pretty well all the other posters on this ng, and hence affords you the greatest opportunity to argue. Which we know you enjoy. 2) Given your stated undying love and affection for Blair, Prescott et al, you feel you must remain "on message". Perhaps you also have a Milbank controlled pager.
ah.
"Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it".
or even
"Never argue with an idiot - he'll beat you down to his level and then win on experience"
.... attached to his 'testatikas'......
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.