Part P conudrum.....

snipped-for-privacy@care2.com Wrote:

Thats exactly correct. All these people who a fully competent with wha they are doin, are flapping about part pee when it ultimately mean bugger all in the long run. No one checks, no one gets prosecute unless you stupidly own up to your capers (highly unlikely), you ca moved without too much fuss (if there is you throw it straight back a the purchaser by getting them to pay for the checks).
So, nothing has changed with the intro of the pee code. DIY is, an will continue to be, the cheapest and most productive way of gettin what you want exactly how you want it if you are competent enough Those qualified tradesmen can rant all they want about the regs, and i is only because they have a vested interest in protecting their income and for no other reason. They can't seriously be concerned over th safety of persons they dont even know carrying out supposedl 'unauthorised' work, even though they claim to be.
Save you money and do it yourself, but ONLY if you are competen
-- Cordless Crazy
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cordless Crazy Wrote:

A man after me own heart!
Poke your Part P up ur ass!
-- Part P Avoider
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ian_m wrote:

Didn't the ODPM's Regulatory Impact Assessment mention of figure of £35? If so, how can they justify charging £290? Surely ODPM didn't pick £35 just to make their figures tally.
Andrew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Rumm wrote:

I tried this approach a couple of months ago. The fee in my case was quoted at Β£200 for the building notice (not the lowest level as it included other work) and then an additional Β£170 for the electrical inspection, if I chose to DIY. I pointed out the relevent bit of the odpm site about charging extra, and they told me that they were restructuring their charges to take that into account. Fast forward to now, and they have indeed restructured their charges! Whereas before they could not alter the charge of a building regs application once it had been agreed, they have simply updated their forms to say Part P inspection work is charged at Β£170 extra. So _technically_ they are complying with the odpm memo by not charging extra, as the charge is specified in advance, although the way I read the memo it suggested that the extra cost of inspection should not be passed onto the client....
Ben.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can you explain why you think the cost of the electrical inspection shouldn't be passed onto the client? Would you do work which cost you money?
IanC
"> the memo it suggested that the extra cost of inspection should not be

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

Clearly if the work has to be done, it has to be paid for, and if it costs the council X to do it, they can charge the client X, get X from Gordon Brown or put up the rates by the amount required to recoup X.
In this case I think many people's complaint is that ODPM suggested that the council wouldn't charge the client directly, presumably assuming that council's would absorb the cost and no one would notice (although presumably govt will be soon making huge savings by shutting down the fire stations and hospitals that used to be used for the victims of all those pre part P DIY electrical disasters, so it should work out OK in the end) .
Andy
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy McKenzie wrote:

I also expect that they grossly underestimated the cost of doing these inspections. Most things that BCOs need to inspect they can do themselves simply by looking. Full on electrical testing is a whole new ball game though.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:18:46 +0000 John Rumm wrote :

If the RIA put the cost of compliance at £35 and the actual cost is several times that, then some MP really ought to ask for the regulations to be rescinded on the grounds that the cost/benefit equation no longer makes sense. But then ten other MPs will jump up and say that you can't put a price on human life, conveniently forgetting that politicians do so every day.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good idea. I'll drop mine a line.
I suspect that the reality is that they expected that most of the activity would be through self certification with the costs of that hidden in the bill to the customer for the overall job.
However, if there's a way to cause embarassment for the ODPM, I am all for it.
--

.andy


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Hall wrote:

Now this is one aspect of democracy that I can not understand.
If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie the whips are strapped down and blindfolded?
Mind you, as we have a presidential PM I can understand. :-(
I'll stop now, before I get my soap box out :-)
Dave
There is a long and hard knocking on my door, I might be gone for some time.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :

Because the underlying Act - and there are probably thousands like it - says that the Minister is empowered to do so.
"The Building Act 1984 is the enabling Act under which the Building Regulations are made and empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of * Securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings; * Furthering the conservation of fuel and power; * Preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of water"
<http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/environment/buildingregulationsandotherleg is.html>
IIRC such regulations have to be laid before Parliament before coming into effect, thus giving MP's a theoretical right to object but if one does the reply is probably that all interested parties have been consulted and the responses to the consultation have been taken into account.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Bryer wrote:

At this point, I must add that I have driven from Preston to Portsmouth and back today, to bring the g children here, so sorry for any mental aberations.
Why should any office of an elected body have the ability to define a new law, without a vote by our elected MPs? In a democracy, this law should be decided by the elected body that we call a government.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:14:24 +0000 (UTC), Dave

Was this as a result of the driving or the impact of the kids? :-)

In the extreme case, if every new measure had to be debated in Parliament in detail, the legislative programme would never be completed in the time available.
Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it would help.
Therefore they have enabling legislation which allows a certain level of addition and change to go through with little or no parliamentary time.
While this was going through the consultations and RIA and eventually legislative stages, I like a number of people, wrote to the government department concerned, and to my MP. It was very obvious early on that this was being driven by the commercial interests of the trade organisations, with the ODPM being a willing player in anything that would increase regulation.
They didn't want to take heed of stats from RoSPA and others pointing out that accidents and deaths from fixed wiring are negligible, that it implemented the legislation was likely to have the opposite effect or be ignored.
I have a letter, in response to one to him from my MP, from the junior minister (Raynsford), restating almost verbatim, the party line from the government department. It was pretty clear that he didn't really know what the whole thing was about so I doubt had spect any time on it.
So the reality is that this stuff goes through under pressure of commercial and interest group lobbying and a bloated civil service.
Democracy doesn't enter into it.
The effect is that we move inexorably towards the modus operandi of the latin language countries where there is plenty of legislation, but which is mainly ignored unless something bad happens.
That's fine as long as we all understand that that's the rules of the game - sort of like traffic lights in Milan being an indication of policy more than anything else.

--

.andy


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Hall wrote:

They seem very fond of the so called "statutory instrument" these days. IIUC it was intended to be used only in a select few cases where there was a need to constantly revise legislation (or parts of it) - the finance act being a good example since it allowed the budget to become law automatically each year without need of extra parliamentary time. I suppose you could argue that building regs fall into this category. However these days it seems to be used all over the shop as a way to reduce the scrutiny of new law, or to enable the use of very poorly drafted legislation on the understanding that the courts can sort out the mess later at jo public's time and expense.
It is almost they are trying to create work for lawyers... oh hang on a mo

and then it is only used to apportion blame....

;-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:13:53 +0000 John Rumm wrote :

For Building Regs this has been the case since 1875 when the Public Health Act gave local authorities the power to make byelaws concerning buildings. Most followed the model byelaws but there were local variations.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:46:21 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

Ah I think I get it, at last.
For instance (electrics): The stated policy is such that there is no way that you can make a business out of doing minor electrical work. 1) You are responsible for the entire installation after any modification. 2) You are required to perform tests. A) Now these test require expensive, calibrated test gear. B) Annual recalibration expenditure. 3) The original paperwork is meant to be around for you to make reference to. 4) Failing (3) You have to test the whole lot. 5) The full inspect, test and certify is likely to take up to a day in a typical house. 6) There will be many items which will need to be fixed immediately. etc.
Or... Just do the job and leave as little paperwork as possible, make sure there is nothing glaringly wrong. Hope nothing goes wrong, if it does, hopefully, it won't come back on you, but if so start wriggling and get the best help you can afford.
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:35:03 +0000, Ed Sirett

Of course.
Take the customer for a coffee and a grappa and there will be no problem
--

.andy


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

But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords - that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and outside...
--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of humans.
--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.