Part P needed?

Hi
I intend to board the loft space, at the same time, change the wiring for
the upstairs lighting circuit.
I will run this along the top of the boards to a junction box where it will
meet the cable going down to the CU.
Not a big job, so does it fall under "notify council" "Part P" requirements?
TIA
Reply to
Vass
On 7 Jan,
How does that differ from the ruling that replacing damaged cable must run via the same route and be identical in rating to the original?
If I was replacing damaged cable, I would certainly consider why it was damaged, and re-route accordingly, but then it seems to be notifiable.
So for prat P compliance if the cable is damaged you have to replace in the same route?
Then you can alter the circuit to move tha cable to a different route.
Prat P is a load of B*******!
Reply to
<me9
That is a different circumstance slightly - it is saying you can replace a cable without at the same time adding a socket or lighting point etc. and it not count as installing a new circuit (which would be notifiable)
(although "same current capacity" is open to interpretation - i.e. you could argue a larger cable can carry the same current)
Unless you extended the circuit in the process... ;-)
The general guidance (additional notes - page 8) is that:
"b. Replacement, repair and maintenance jobs are generally not notifiable, even if carried out in a kitchen or special location or associated with a special installation."
I would guess they are avoiding the possibility of you altering the design parameters of a circuit - changing the route may also change the thermal environment of the cable etc.
If you know what you are doing it all becomes a bit of a nonsense anyway.
Yup, can't argue with that!
Reply to
John Rumm
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it? If you want an example of how a government can really cock up regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls, they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.
Reply to
Brian
Yup, the way most would go I expect... especially as local authorities don't seem to have got their act in order regarding signing off work set.
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)
The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously, and die as a direct result.
Reply to
John Rumm
In article , Terry Fields writes:
Yes, quite dramatically according to a Parliamentary answer. It had been steadily falling for decades prior to that.
As a comparison, Australia and New Zealand had even more strict regulations on wiring work. New Zealand scrapped its, and has seen such incidents drop very significantly, whereas Australia hasn't. This again backs up what I said during the Part P consultation that the deaths are largely due to not doing anything to wiring installations which really need work doing on them, and not as claimed (but unsubstantiated) by the Part P proposals due to DIY and unqualified tradesmen. Part P inevitably encourages not doing anything, which is the dangerous route.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
Should I come to sell the house though
New wires obvious due to colours,
will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?
Reply to
Vass
New wiring colours came in before Part P. You can buy cable with old wiring colours on eBay. No surveyor, IME, has ever checked wiring colours. Do waht all sensible people are doing with Part P; ignoring it.
Reply to
Huge
New colours were permitted before the introduction of part P and old colours were still permitted after.
Unlikely in practice
Reply to
John Rumm
You could do the work using 'old colours' wire which is still available (on eBay for example).
Robert
Reply to
RobertL
In article , bof writes:
I talked about this in my response to the original Part P proposal:
formatting link
course, the increase happened after that was written and Part P had come into effect, although I predicted in the document that this would happen.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
Has anyone actually been prosecuted under Part P in the three years which it has been in force? I don't mean prosecuted for putting in a dangerous installation but prosecuted for putting in an installation that fully complies with the wiring regulations but without filling in the required paperwork?
Andrew
Reply to
Andrew May
In article , bof writes:
A google search on this NG might reveal the details -- it came up here at the time. IIRC, the figures covered 2005. It might have been early 2007, but only the 2005 figures were available at the time.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
That's not a problem, if the work was like-for-like replacement of something installed before Part P.
Owain
Reply to
Owain

Site Timeline Threads

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.