"Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine.
Some snippets, more or less verbatim:
- Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM].
- Speaking this month at the NICEIC-hosted 'Green light for Part P seminar', Paul Everall, head of the ODPM's Building Division was unable to confirm an exact start date for the new legislation, but said "ministers were anxious to take Part P forward."
- a [competent persons] scheme the NICEIC has applied to operate, alongside "one or two others which will have to be assessed"
- Self-certification schemes that meet Government approval will be available by December or January.
- Although the ODPM declined to commit to an exact date, Clark [NICEIC] was more forthcoming, claiming legislation would be introduced in February 2004 with a requirement to come into force by the summer. However, he said there is "talk of a two year window to get everyone on board."
[1] Electrical review, Vol. 236, no. 15, October 2003.
If this is introduced closer to the end of 2004 than the start then this will provide a useful disconnect between the old and new fixed wiring installation colours....
Looks like I'll have to do my rewire next spring then. Has anyone been given any idea what the cost of getting a DIY installation inspected and signed off will be once the Part P is included? Will this cost be regulated at all?
This is a Competent Persons Self Certification Scheme, otherwise known as a Self Certification to Assist Moneymaking or SCAM for short.
None of the other scams (sorry schemes) are regulated in the fee sense, so there is no reason to believe that this one will be either.
There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established.
I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. .andy
Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval?
Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before the new regs came in?
I think it will mainly involve new installations in new builds, to begin with anyway, but as each property is sold and moves along the trail of new owners, the regulations will eventually catch up with everyone.
These new requirements will mean that any house sold will have to have a certificate issued to the vendor before anyone will be allowed to pass the property on as being in a safe, as possible, condition when it was sold. So any additional work that you've carried out in the house will then be tested and documented and will show all the variations which you've carried out and are not documented on a previously issued certificate that was given to you when you bought the house.
So the new scheme does have a good workable scheme in this sense and should eventually be able to show that the property has had changes done without permissions or proper testing certifications when it comes to time of sale. If you're living in it and it doesn't comply to these requirements, then I'd imagine you'd be severely dealt with if the new additions which are not covered by previous tests are found to be the cause of any loss or damage to other properties around yours.
I suppose that it could, but I was simply thinking about the practicalities. If wiring were being done as part of work that was otherwise being inspected for building regulations purposest then it would perhaps be noticed by the building inspector.
Otherwise, how would building control departments ever know about it? The only scenarios I can think of are if they did spot inspections on people's property (not likely) or if a neighbourhood busybody cared to report something. However, an addition of a circuit or even a complete rewire is not going to be as externally visible as a new brick built extension.
Who knows? I was simply remarking on the (lack of) enforceability which makes the whole caper pointless anyway. Remember that the whole thing was not based on sound evidence in the first place and the RIA used information selectively to arrive at the desired political conclusion. Therefore, trying to apply logic to the situation is going to be difficult anyway.
There are not that many scenarios:
- The person who DIYs, doesn't have a clue, and makes a dangerous mess of the job. It's doubtful that he would take any notice of any new legislation, even if he became aware of it. This work would likely be picked up at conveyancing time in a survey and corrections, including ripping out and redoing the work requested by the buyer. It may even involve a regularisation application for building regulations purposes, but since a buyer might well specifiy that an approved contractor is used, then that becomes a non-issue. In the meantime, something bad could happen, resulting in loss of property or life. There is little or no evidence that this happens from fixed wiring issues, but from portable appliances. If it does, non-compliance with building regulations is going to rank rather lower in the person's problems than the other effects thereof.
- The person who DIYs and does a competent and conscientious job. Three choices here. a) He submits a building notice, pays the charge and gets it inspected. b) He waits and goes for regularisation at some point in the future at virtually no extra cost. c) He waits until conveyancing time.
- The person who employs a non-registered contractor to do the work. If said contractor wears spurs, then he is not likely to advertise to the customer that testing and certification is required. The householder is likely to be blissfully unaware anyway.
- The person who employs the registered contractor and pays the unregulated stealth tax.
I know it's old-fashioned, but I try and avoid breaking the law when I'm doing my DIY. So assuming I don't want to just do the work and hope for the best when it comes to selling, I will need to take an alternative course of action.
As I understand it, I will have three options: (1) pay an approved contractor to do all the work and they will then certify that it has been done, with certificates going to both me and the local BCO (2) do the work myself and have it inspected by a local authority building control department (3) do the work myself and pay an approved contractor to come and certify the work to the local BCO (and me).
Option (1) is irrelevant if I'm still thinking about DIY
Option (2) will apparently be prohibitively expensive according to page 29 para 45 of the proposed part P regs. See this page for the file:
formatting link
Apparently the local authority BC departments will most likely be subcontracting the work to an approved agent anyway.
Option (3) is also likely to be expensive, at least at first, since the demand for approved contractors will outstrip supply for some time and as such they will be able to charge whatever they like!
Presumably, as a DIYer, option (3) should end up being cheaper than option (2), because otherwise I would just choose the more independent local authority inspection over the approved leccy.
The question is - what do we think it's likely to end up costing? Let's say I replace a consumer unit, relocating all the old circuits on to the new unit, except that I completely rewire one ring circuit. How much are we talking for certification to the BCO that the work is to regs? £50? £150? £500? More?
True. In fact the only thing that's likely to give it away is the new coloured cable, which will be hidden anyway. So if it was found later it would just need regularisation.
But the certificates I've seen don't detail the wiring in terms of a wiring diagram anyway so you can't tell whether anything has been added from the certificate.
But if a certificate is issued after the system is tested, then means your additions passed the test and comply with current standards. Different matter altogether if your additions don't pass the tests.
... but (again!) you still can't really tell from the certificate what has been tested unless it's a very small addition/change. A certificate won't detail the position (or even number) of sockets, lights and other appliances which have been tested will it?
You have a 4th option - to do the work yourself. Illegal possibly I suppose, but judges have never had a problem looking through the law to discover the intent of the law and apply that instead. And providing you've done the work to a reasonable standard and complied with the regs then who is to know you did it?
The intent of the law being discussed is to ensure that lives are saved (I've got that in writing from the minister of state responsible for this daft legislation). So providing that you are using every means possible to ensure that lives are not at risk you'd most likely have little to fear unless you owned up to it.
Seems like a bloody stupid target to me though. If you review the contents of the RoSPA web site then there are about 8 lives lost each year through electrical accident which this legislation applies to. If they spent half as much money on anti-smoking and anti-drunk-driving legislation they'd save hundreds of lives.
I expect far more lives are lost each year with stress induced by government ministers who haven't got a clue what they are legislating about.
Exactly, potentially you (or Council, or purchaser) could get it tested whilst it was safe and then next day add new stuff and there's no way of knowing (AFAIK) whether the new stuff was included in the test. The paperwork would just state that on that date it was safe/okay.
And from what I recall, if you make any alterations to an existing circuit then you are required to ensure that the complete circuit is up to 16th edition regs even if it wasn't before.
You can anyway. There isn't a requirement about who *does* the work, only that it is inspected and certified or a building notice issued if anybody *except* a member of a SCAM organisation (who can self certify) does it. There's an exception for kitchens.
From the report about the RIA:
**********
To reduce the work load on BCBs, work undertaken by persons who have been assessed as competent through a scheme recognised by the Secretary of State, or minor work specified in Tables 1 and 2 in the Approved Document need not be notified.
Work in kitchens and the special installations and locations given in Table 2 must be carried out by a competent person or notified to BCBs before work commences.
DIY work on electrical installations will be a controlled service and those undertaking the work, even minor work, are reminded in the Approved Document that their work must comply with BS7671, including inspection testing and certification by a competent person.
and
Work carried out by DIY workers will be treated as work undertaken by persons not covered by a Competent Persons scheme. DIY installations are covered by BS7671 which requires the installation to be inspected and tested by a competent person in accordance with Part 7 of BS7671. Work other than that listed in Table 1 in the Approved Document must be notified to Building Control or undertaken by a member of an approved competent person scheme.
*********
If you read through the rest of it, it becomes apparent that there will be difficulty in drafting legislation for a lot of the aspects.
Amazing isn't it? I have a job fitting a new cooker hood for someone later this week, and in doing so I won't be touching the electrical infrastructure of the house - just connecting up to the fused spur that is already in existence.
This cooker hood could be in or out of the new legislation (arguments welcome), but from next April or whenever it seems certain that I'll have to turn away work that I could have done.
Maybe it'll be time for me to start hammering on the door of the local job centre to collect my JSA. Reason: Can't work because of government initiated dogma.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.