Generally I find, if you have an engineering mindset, then you are doomed to deep dive into anything technical that comes up :-)
Yeah, I took the precaution of marrying an engineer :-)
She might question if I am going to make a mess, and cause disruption, but is never fussed about the technical aspects of doing it!
I think you would probably have to try quite hard to create a potentially lethal ducted fan in the loft! :-)
Also worth noting that electric shock fatalities in the UK are
*exceedingly rare* - as in typically 20 to 30 per year in both domestic and industrial circumstances.Domestic fires started by electrical "faults" are far more common (but again most of those will be down to misuse of appliances, rather than actual faults, and of the real faults, not many will be fixed wiring related).
(something the original government justification for part P misunderstood at the time - they did not realise that their own fatality stats included use/misuse of appliances, something that part p does not even address)
While I have heard a number of people voice this concern, I have never heard of any actual cases of insurance claims being invalidated either due to DIY work, or lack of paperwork following on from professional work... your experience may differ?
Part of the difficulty here is as with any technical discipline there tend to be many layers of requirements - that could run to hundreds of documents that either support the main spec, or are actually referenced by it. It is actually quite an undertaking to track down and read and digest all of them. (and if you do, you will quickly realise that there may only be tiny parts for of the referenced docs that are relevant).
By way of example, say you want to design a sub main, and plan to run it in SWA cable, and plan to use the armour as the earth "wire". BS7617 will give you much of the data, but to find things like the CSA of the armour wires, and the resistance per meter, you would need to dig down to BS5467 to get the data.
One of the reasons I tend to stick stuff like that in the wiki articles
- it can be easier than wading through tree of docs looking for the info:
While I sympathise with the concept, I fear it would be reduced to "its all too complicated for you, get a man in"
Many are of that opinion - often in cases where it is actually far more nuanced (but that is a whole other discussion!)
BS7671 itself includes (some) details on testing (there are other companion guides that go into far more detail) - and also requirements on supplying record of that testing to the "person ordering the work", it makes no mention of part P that I am aware of.
Being both the customer and the supplier of the work, is not a nuance that it specifically addresses - so some common sense and interpretation will be needed.
There is no need to "ignore the rest". You can do your tests, record your results using the standard layout shown in the OSG, and keep a copy for your records. You as the supplier of services, have then passed a copy of that to the other you, the consumer of such services.
(for many small jobs, this notification process would be a mental exercise only!)
In the real world, if you have a system inspected and tested, it reports on the state of it, what is substandard, and where it differs from the rules in force at the time of the inspection - it will not "fail" an installation that is in good order because its owner was not supplied with a minor works certificate from the electrician who installed the cooker point for the previous property owner 10 years ago.
i.e. the emphasis is checking if the workmanship is of adequate quality, is the design adequate for the anticipated use, is the selected equipment of sufficient quality, in good state of repair, and appropriate for the application etc.
Electrical installations evolve, and get changed and added to with time
- often at the hand of many different people. Keeping a full audit trail of every change is probably an unrealistic quest.