Part P Petition response

[Owain]

[Clive George]

cheers, clive

[Andrew Mawson]

The 'listening government' ignoring us again ! I suppose it's a 'brownwash' now Tony's down the road

AWEM

[EricP]

[Roger Mills]

Pretty predictable.

Their main defence is, of course, utter rubbish. They claim that the increase in fatalities - as quoted in the Handsard reference which I cited in my petition - cannot be laid at the door of Part P because it includes incidents relating both to fixed installations and to the use of portable equipment. They also noted that the incidents related to installations which had been carried out both before and after the introduction of Part P.

However, there is no reason why installations which pre-date Part P should

*suddenly* start to give rise to incidents. They have not attempted to address the major plank of my argument - namely that (the wish to circumvent) Part P encourages people to engage in dangerous temporary lash-ups rather than doing proper permanent installations - and it is *this* which most likely explains the worsening of accident statistics.

Like most legislation introduced by this crew, they have totally failed to take human nature into account with the result that the legislation - however well meaning it might have been - has actually had the exact opposite effect to that intended.

[Dave]

Was it grinwash before then ;-)

Dave

[John Rumm]

So we had better start getting worried about which unintended consequence this one will kick off:

[Mike Harrison]

"Part P of the Building Regulations was introduced in January 2005 to help reduce the number of deaths and injuries from faulty fixed electrical installations in dwellings causing electrical shocks and building fires. It covers only new installation work since January

2005 and does not regulate the electrical safety of portable appliances. The figures at Hansard 98144 include fatalities from fixed installations of any age and also those from faulty portable appliances. They are therefore not a representation of the effect of Part P since its introduction. "

ISTR reading that they used figures that included portable appliances to justify Part P in the first place..?

" Part P competent person schemes are similar to the CORGI gas safety scheme which has been very successful in significantly reducing the number of gas safety incidents."

..except that a competent DIYer CAN legally do their own gas work without paying out a fortune to councils.

"Part P applies equally to those who are not members of a competent person scheme, including DIYers. They are required to notify the local authority of work to be carried out. The local authority is then under a statutory duty to check that the work is safe."

...And trouser a hefty fee in the process. And then try to claim even more for the actual testing

I notice that all the big DIY shops I've been in recently have stopped even bothering with notices about Part P etc. in their electrical dept.

[Huge]

stone dead. Less control? Fewer forms? You're 'avin' a laugh.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:44:48 GMT someone who may be Mike Harrison wrote this:-

which has been very

While officials may claim this whenever I have asked them for the figures they have just mumbled.

[John Stumbles]

But they still have to notify installation of heat-producing appliances (e.g. boilers, fires & cookers) as with leccy work that falls under part P. And there are electrical works that don't fall under part P, just as there are gas works which don't have to be notified. Thus the two situations are comparable, though not exactly complimentary.

[1] of course whether the "CORGI"[sic] "gas safety scheme [...] has been very successful in significantly reducing the number of gas safety incidents" is another argument, since parallel to the tightening-up on qualifications for who can do gas work most appliances have been getting inherently safer. Maybe another parallel to Part P? (Disuss :-))

[Roger Mills]

of keeping with surrounding properties. But they'll have very safe electrical installations!

One paragraph in the news item which you site says: "Ms Kelly will say the system should support people's aspirations to improve their homes, while retaining safeguards on noise, siting and size to protect their neighbours."

Isn't that just what the current planning laws achieve? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Among other measures in the White Paper is: "Allowing minor amendments to be made to a planning permission without the need for a full planning application, for example the minor repositioning of a door"

AFAIAA that is already the case under current laws - my local council certainly allows you to make minor amendments without having to submit a new application. I know, 'cos I've done it at least twice!

[John Rumm]

There is also a perception difference here I think. Although I have no figures to back this up, I would guess the number of people who would even consider doing their own gas work (outside of uk.d-i-y readers obviously) is much smaller than those who would tackle lekky projects anyway. Where a DIYer does have a go it seems to be typically the better clued up who has done some research.

All the really shoddy gas work I have ever seen has been done by a "pro" (although obviously in the context of most gas work being done by a pro, that is probably not surprising)

(IIRC raden has posted in the past, that at meetings with corgi even they admit that DIY gas work has has been little cause of problems.

[Ed Sirett]

There is a substantial body of evidence and opinion that this law was about making those 30,000 'businesses' have a higher visibility to the authorities.

[John Rumm]

That would be my guess, encouraged by some lobbying from the interested groups etc.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

You are only an e-mail away from the figures under the Freedom of Information Act.

When you get your answer in a months time I trust you will share the news with us.

[John Rumm]

More worrying would be having a duplicate system. All the same forms and control at the council, plus a whole bunch of new ones.

[Andrew]

Odd that. They didn't follow that line of thought when they used the same figures in the consulatation documents for the justification of Part P in the first place.

Andrew