Part P government review 2010/11

[ARWadsworth]

There is no such rule for private sales unless you intend to deceive someone.

[Neil Williams]

I think that is the only sensible way to deal with things in the housing market, really. Houses are by their nature not perfect, and requiring a large outlay before sale might well damage the workings of the market or bankrupt people unnecessarily. If I want to buy a house with known unsafe wiring at a good price on the principle that I will sort it out or arrange for it to be sorted out, why shouldn't I?

Neil

[Dave Plowman (News)]

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this. If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off - exactly like car MOTs.

When a property changes hands it's up to the new owner to have such things checked.

[ARWadsworth]

What's the alternative to the MOT?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

There's not. It might be an answer to the dishonest ones by conducting more trial tests with heavy penalties for the rogues.

The most vulnerable don't usually have cars. But everyone needs somewhere to live.

A dangerous car could cause havoc on the roads. Houses rarely. ;-)

[Huge]

Don't houses kill more people than cars?

[dennis]

Well if a buyer has a test done and it shows it to be dangerous and tells the seller he isn't going to buy it because its dangerous, then selling it without telling the other potential buyers is deceiving them. I wouldn't be surprised if they got sued if some buyer they didn't tell got hurt.

You would probably be OK if you knew it was dangerous and told the buyer, but even that is no guaranty these days.

[dennis]

buy a new car.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I'd guess more people die in houses, yes. But I'll bet more die due to road accidents than through electrical faults in the home. How many of those road accident caused by the sort of things an MOT is designed to stop, who knows?

The problem with a house electrics MOT is a potential fault would likely not be revealed by any sensible inspection and testing. A cable drilled through while concealed in a wall, for example.

[jgharston]

The worst house electrics I've encountered weren't visible until parts of the building had been ripped out.

• Removing a false ceiling reveals cables strung diagonally across above the false ceiling

• Cables running under plaster down the centre of the chimney breast, right where your picture hook is likely to go

• Lighting circuit travelling circuitously around the house, picking up an earth, using it once, discarding it, picking up another one, discarding that one, returning to the CU via another route.

• Shower fed via 1.5mm flex wired into the back of a socket in the next room (admittedly, shovelling the crap out of the meter cupboard might have revealed the 45A breaker wasn't wired to anything).

• Kitchen socket fed by 1.5mm spur buried under plaster from CU.

• Socket in 2nd floor flat fed from ring in first floor flat.

• Remove a kitchen unit to find fixing screws going through meter tails, just nicking the CPC but not the supplies. Eek!

Many others. Last time I bought a property I walked around with the vendor and did a visual inspection so we both had an agreement on what I was taking over, with the understanding that I'd be ripping most things out and redoing it all after purchase.

JGH

[Fredxx]

A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer than any MOT test.

[ARWadsworth]

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some surveys) would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

[Fredxx]

And what would be wrong with that? I am thankful I have good enough sight, but if it is deemed a necessary requirement to drive, then the criterion should be adjusted according to other risks, such as talking on a mobile or driving at the drink-drive limit.

I am amazed how doctors can prescribe tranquillizers and not inform DVLA and yet stop those with controlled diabetes driving some classes of vehicles.

[ARWadsworth]

It's a balance between a nanny state and personal freedom.

Obesity kills more people than cars so why not ban fat people from eating chips?

[jgharston]

Or ban them from eating? ;)

JGH

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Are those vehicles ones where the driver has to keep to some schedule etc? A diabetic may have to stop and take medication or food etc exactly when he needs to - not much use if driving a long distance coach.

[John Williamson]

Any large vehicle such as a bus, coach or lorry over 7.5 tonnes gross weight may not be driven by anyone who needs insulin to control their diabetes, unless they have been injecting since before 1991, and have a good record of control. There is no restriction on drivers who control their diabetes by taking tablets or using Byetta.

The rule is in place because of the excessive danger involved if the driver has a hypo attack, especially as the human-identical insulin now used by a large percentage of insulin dependent diabetics gives little or no warning of a hypoglycaemic attack, which can cause a rapid onset of unconciousness. Most local authorities also ban insulin users from driving taxis, due to the irregular work patterns and subsequent increased risk of hypo attacks. The risk for car drivers is deemed acceptable due to the limited damage that a car can do, although car drivers who suffer a hypo attack could be prosecuted for driving under the influence of a drug. Advice from your doctor used to be as soon as you realised, stop the vehicle and throw the keys out of the window, then you can't be prosecuted for driving, only for being in charge. This may have changed since my brother received the advice about thirty years ago. He died following a sudden hypo attack at home, when he couldn't get to the sugar laden soft drink in the kitchen.

[ARWadsworth]

Except salad.

[Clive George]

There's much less of that these days - doses and food can be arranged when wanted, rather than on a prearranged schedule.

The problem is still hypos. There's a risk of these for any insulin controlled diabetic, and I think it's just an attempt to reduce the risk but without being too restrictive. Drivers in the controlled classes are more likely to spend hours at the wheel, thus increasing the chance of it happening, and cause a bigger mess if it does go wrong.

[tim....]

There are different levels of "dangerous" when it comes to electricity installations..

Not having an RCD will get you a report from a sparks that says that the property is dangerous

But it isn't.

tim