Part P Regulations - my opinion

[John Greenwood]

Hi,

With regards to the forthcoming part p regulations I plan to carry on doing all electrical work in my house myself, just as I do now. This will include big projects like replacing the consumer unit with a split RCD type within the next two years.

If (and it is a big if) I come to sell my house then I will give the impression of being the type of person who can't even hang a picture. All tools will be removed from garage first! All work, I will say, was done by qualified tradesman recommended by people I met in the pub or from the yellow pages.

When asked for certificates I will look blank and ask what certificates?

Then if it is a sellers market the buyer (if he so wishes) can get inspections done. If it is a buyers market then I will (grudgingly) get the inspections done.

I really cannot believe that houses will not sell just because there is not an electrical work certificate available. I would be happy to purchase a house without one.

So my advice is to f**k part p and carry on!

Or am I missing something?

John

[Bluestars]

Perhaps the long term plan is to establish a scheme for house certificates in line with the MOT certificates for cars, where you can't really sell one or use one without it. And of course you have to get the certificate done by an authorised tester.

Roger

[RichardS]

What - with the effect that you have to bring a house completely up to spec before you can sell it?

I actually LIKE buying houses that need work doing on them - not paying unneccesarily for something that will be changed or ripped out in that way.

That would make house ownership a complete liablilty.

Perhaps thats what GB actually wants....

Richard Sampson

email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

[Bluestars]

Possibly.

Apart from the safety aspect, perhaps its partly intended as a consumer protection measure. It would differentiate those houses that were being sold as homes ready to live in from those that needed work.

You can still buy a car without an MOT, but it enables the purchaser to be aware that work is required to bring it up to standard.

Roger.

[Dave Plowman]

Paying tax, maybe. But this and the other major political party don't want to upset their pals in industry by forcing them to take 'the working class' back into proper permanent employment. It suits industry only to pay their workforce for the hours they need them, and not provide any form of career anymore.

[John Rumm]

In which case perhaps a "No Archive" header on this public statement may have been a good move! ;-)

[N. Thornton]

I'm sure it was just a heat of the moment thing. Not everything thats said is fully intended nor actually carried through later.

Saying the above then paying a professional to do the work isnt a crime AFAIK, so I shouldnt worry.

Regards, NT

[NJF]

Hummm, I know of someone working in a Uni physics dept. who repairs cars and MOT's them in his spare time, yes thats right he's an MOT tester, and he just rents the machines in a mates garage when he's testing, I cannot comment on the quality of work/MOT but it would seem if he can do that then others could get certified and test Part P in their spare time too???

Niel.

[Steve Firth]

But it doesn't suit the paymasters of government to have individuals going all entrepeneurial and providing a better service for less money. What they want is a pool of labour unable to sell itself direct to the end user that can be drawn on whenever industry wants it and that costs bugger all when its not being used.

The moves to shaft small IT consultancies on two fronts by this government are another example. Firstly they defraud the small company by forcing a different (adverse) tax regime onto the shareholders of small companies. Then they agree with the big players that because the skilled workforce has the upper hand at present being able to charge an hourly rate that the big companies don't like that the best thing to do is to smash the small players by expediting the entry of foreign nationals to do the same work for less pay. Finally they make it government policy that no small company may bid for government work.

[John Rumm]

That sounds like three fronts to me ;-)

(and you forgot the new s660 route to shafting a small business!)