Part P: How should it work?


snipped-for-privacy@meeow.co.uk wrote:

    Should we actually be preventing deaths? Surely all we are doing in many cases is condemning people to die from age related diseases which are often much more unpleasant experiences than a quick heart attack, even from electric shock. As death is a mandatory requirement for the human being, maybe sooner rather than later has some social benefits? Just a thought.
    Regards     Capitol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
     snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:

OK, before anyone spots my maths error, the 0.1% should read 0.05% and the 0.02% should read 0.01%. Thought I'd just correct this before someone accuses me of doubling the actual level of electrical fatalities ;-) Still, nowhere near as big a mistake in maths as that made by the ODPM in the consultation paper...
--
Andrew Gabriel

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

Nope
Yup
Add the requirement to the building regs that all electrical work be carried out and tested to BS7671. That way you give force of law to the regs (as currently in Scotland IIUC). No need to do anything else.

You are trying to solve a problem that does not really exist (or at least is on such a small scale that you could get far bigger "bang for you buck" by targeting your efforts on something else).
These suggestions all take the premise that the desire is to improve safety. Since however I doubt this was the real motivation for the legislation in the first place, is it hard to know how effective it will be at fulfilling its real purposes.
--
Cheers,

John.

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

I very much agree that this has sod-all to do about safety, and a lot to do about closed shops and very substantial extra government receipts (they're getting quite cute now at giving us the shakedown, aren't they?). Put simply, proponents of, and apologists for, part P seem to drop into one of the two old classifications - either knaves or fools. The government has an unrivalled selection of both......
The one aspect I haven't seen much discussed in all the threads about Part P is the humble RCD. Am I missing something? IF Part P were actually concerned with safety, wouldn't the obvious thing be to allow pre part P freedom in properties fully protected by [fill in technical specification???] best in class RCDs, which could even be tagged up and as non-bypassable as a meter or company fuse. If the property does not have this level of protection, then Part P would apply......
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Except that the humble RCD is not the panacea for all ills....
--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Please elucidate....I am under the impresssion that it is the panacea for an awful lot of ills.
Take the range of 2-10 electrocutions last year that were talked about elsewhere in this thread. My hunch is that if all of these had been protected by top quality RCD installations they would have been reduced to 0 or in a very exceptional case 1. Of couse, an RCD will not necessarily prevent cable overheating (until a small amount of leakage to earth starts, anyway), but that is a rather different point and as has been discussed elsewhere overheating tends to occur in old properties where the wire may have been neglected for 40 odd years, so that issue is rather separate from any Part P debate.
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
timycelyn wrote:

lot to

(they're
Put
into one

government has

about Part

freedom in

best in

a meter

protection,
There must be some thinking behind this idea, but I cant see what it is.
Lets say then that RCDs could reduce the annual death rate from appliances from 30 to 20. Its questionable of course, since
a) all the really risky installs will not get RCDs fitted, not until theyre reqired and made safe anyway.
b) Also there is the fact that with the false sense of security provided by RCDs, people will get much more careless at times.
But anyhow, lets be optimistic and say they save 10 deaths a year by electrocution.
First, at what cost? 30 parts cost per house (it will be more like 100-150 when RCBOs are used of course) New fits lets say 0 for extra labour Retrofits say 70 for labour.
I'm being as optimistic as possible all the way here, IRL the costs will be higher.
And lets guess 50% of fittings are retrofit, 50% new (since I dont know).
So, to equip the nation with RCDs will cost:
30 million x 50% x (30+0) + 30 million x 50% x (30+70) = 1.95 billion pounds.
To achieve what, lose 10 electrocutions per year.
Now, it doesnt end there. First, RCDs cause nuisance trips on some installs. Lets say 1 in 50 installs has a lot of hassle with them, resulting in further costs of 400 to sort everything out. Thats another: 30million / 50 x 400 = 240 million.
And RCDs cause the ditching of serviceable and safe appliances such as immersion heaters, washing machines, dishwashers, cookers, and other items where leakage is relatively common, but the risks close to zero.
Lets say 33% of households throw an appliance out as a result of RCD. Lets say 2/3 of those are a 10 item, and 1/3 are a 250 item. Thats another: 30 million x 1/3 2/3 x 10 + 30 milion x 1/3 x 1/3 x 250 = 89 million.
On rereading I think really this is a very optimistic figure, it will be much higher IRL.
So our total cost of installing RCDs nationwide, ignoring for now the losses of further appliances over the coming years, is: 1950 mill + 240 mill + 89 mil = 2.279 billion pounds.
When you factor in the additional appliances that will get tossed over the life of the RCD, its quite a bit higher.
But... this is still not yet a true picture, because the risk increases of RCDs have not yet been discussed. While they reduce electrocution risk, they also cause nuisance trips when the kids are running up and down stairs. Stair falls cause way way more deaths and serious injuries than electrocutions.
Then theres the question of fire deaths. RCDs both reduce them and cause them. They reduce them by cutting power to some types of shorts - and only some. They increase them by killing lighting during fires, putting householders in total darkness when they most need to escape.
Someone else can take over, Ive got work to do! Suffice to say RCDs are a complex picture safetywise, and those billions could be spent solving the real problems instead. Mandating a high friction finish on stairs in new builds would probably save more lives with the money. Medical investment could save way more.

necessarily
starts,
RCDs have no effect on cable overheats.

may
separate from

RCDs will never cover the oldest installs, and those I would expect to be the main contributors to our few deaths, since they are by far the riskiest. People dont fit an RCD to an install when they know the thing will simply cut the power all the time. Nor when theyre choosing to stick with a ropey old round pin setup.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
timycelyn wrote:

I think blatant is more the word ;-)

Sure to be one along in a minute...

Whilst RCDs have a place and an important function to perform, they are not a panacea of all ills. There are plenty of ways you could engineer a dangerous situation in spite of having RCD protection. More to the point there are a whole class of dangerous situations that only occur if you have a RCD. (Have a look at the garage wiring example that Drivel is singing the praises of in the "Part and new rings" thread)
--
Cheers,

John.

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

yes like medicine, accountancy and the law.

What do the government have to gain financially from Part P?
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

.. and bank managers, teachers and policemen. Don't forget them.

Tax revenue from the electricians who decide to join the trade associations.
--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. Anyone can be copper Just join up and they train you for about 9 months. No pre-quals. Same with a teacher and bank mangers can no quals at all.

Lord Hall, now that'll fund the NHS now wont it?
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you a teacher or a bank manager?

I think that that would require the entire population to be electricians.
--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doctor Evil wrote:

You know your mate Gordon will take your money any way he can get it. Still you are right about one thing, no amount of money will ever fix the NHS.
--
Cheers,

John.

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

Extra government income.
OK guys, it goes like this. Let us consider an average bit of work that falls within the scope of Part P - say putting new power sockets into a room in a house, including some plaster chase work. It's being done as a new ring and fortunately the CU is close. In the bad old pre Part Pee days the competent DIY-er would toddle off to Screwfix and purchase the necessary bits & pieces. Say 20 for cable, 30 for all fittings, clips, and perhaps 10 for plaster and any other make good. VAT is paid on this at 17.5 % so that poor Mr Brown only gets 10.50 receipt from the execution of that job.
Now that we have all been delivered from evil by this wonderful piece of legislation, the add up is a little different. The DIYer puts his cutters back in the drawer, and calls in a Pee taking sparky. The sparky carries out the whole job, including basic make good and so on. So now we have a bill from the sparky to the punter for parts and labour. Not being in the trade I feel uncertain as to what this would amount to, but I'm assuming parts would be the same or a little less, but labour (particularly in a make good situation) could amount to 150. So now we have a total bill of 210, on which VAT of 36.75 is charged. It doesn't end there, though. The sparky does his income tax return and has to pay a proportion of that 150 as tax. Let us assume that after other deductions his income from the job is 100, and he is on basic rate tax banding. Thus a further 25 of it goes to the treasury.
So, to summarise, for our hypothetical job:
1. Case A pre part Pee: Income to Govt 10.50 2. Case B Post part Pee: Income to Govt 61.75
Or to put it another way a 488% increase. Not bad!
Now I am struggling to guess at the number of additional paid jobs that will be created by Part P - there's the number that would be if 100% compliance was achieved, and the number that may actually be achieved in the teeth of ignorance, defiance, and so on.
Take the range 1-5M extra jobs pa, of this average size. (Others may have better data than these guesses) Then additional Govt income would lie between 51.25M and 256M. Not enough, I grant you, to fund another war, but definitely enough to get on the treasury's radar screen.
As I said in the earlier post - they are getting quite cute with their new wheezes for shaking us down......
Tim

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

You need to think more broadly. :-)
Many smaller contractors won't be VAT registered, so it isn't the VAT take on the work that is the big factor. If anything it could be less because the DIYer is likely to pay more for materials than the trade guy and the VAT to the government is the same whether the electrician marks up the materials or not.
The UK construction industry has always had a substantial proportion of black economy to it. Under Part P, a self certifying electrician is registered with a trade organisation and has to send a copy of certificates that he completes to the local authority. So now there is a paper trail of every job that he does.
We know that many electricians are packing up and not joining the schemes. AFAICS there are four reasons:
- Realise that they are not really competent to the extent they believe may be required.
- Don't want to deal with bureaucracy
- Don't want extra cost burden of doing so, training, test gear and so on.
- Are no longer so easily able to work for cash
--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On reading the letters in the trade press, it would appear that a large number of electricians are choosing to deliberately ignore Part P. Also from the tone of the letters, add to the top of your list above a general dislike of NICEIC and a very big resentment that they are being forced to pay to join it (or an equivalent).
--
Andrew Gabriel

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

I know of at least one who is doing domestic work and is not Part P because he could not get on a course.
Dave
--
For what we are about to balls up may common sense prevent us doing it
again
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> 256M.
OK so in maybe 4 - 6 years time they will have paid for intoducing it (according to another poster@).
Hmm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Rumm wrote: <hisnip>

I am begining to agree that this would have been the best way forward on the issue as IMO the quantative approach is really an indicator of where government funds should be directed on a national scale (and it seems that they have been woefully misdirected wrt Part P).
On a macroscopic scale, then I want something in place with "force of law" even where it does not result in a fatality / injury. Although probably not fully enforceable/policable (most laws aren't but we still have them) it would hopefully deter at least some bodgers and casual cowboys and give legal recourse (on those who can be traced at least).
Finally, I think that this suggestion would be cheaper to introduce and operate for all concerned.
<losnip>
Add pictures here
<% 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.