Part P possible changes

"However, where any concerns do arise it is necessary to address them. That is why we listened to those that expressed concern with the costs associated with the electrical safety in the home provisions in Part P of the building regulations. Some have even advocated that Part P should be revoked as a burdensome requirement on competent electricians. We disagree - Part P has been a success - but we do recognise that there is scope to streamline the requirements by removing the requirement to notify smaller-scale, lower-risk electrical work to a building control body. Currently homeowners can face building control fees of upwards of £240 to have simple electrical work, such as an additional plug socket in a kitchen, approved by a local authority. This change will see the notification requirements focused on higher-risk jobs like the installation of new circuits, or work in the vicinity of showers and baths, which is the right approach. There will, of course, remain a duty for these non-notifiable works to comply with the safety provisions required by the regulations and which we have also updated....

In addition, I will be bringing forward further regulations later next year that will introduce an alternative route to demonstrating compliance with Part P by allowing for third-party certification of electrical work. This will safeguard standards whilst providing a far cheaper way of verifying work is adequate - particularly for those carrying out DIY work. These changes will be accompanied by simpler, clearer and shorter guidance in a new Approved Document P that we will be publishing shortly."

formatting link

Reply to
Tony Bryer
Loading thread data ...

Thanks for that. I'd given up asking/looking as the statement was due monthds ago. It's nice to see a Minister/department that's still got at least a *little* backbone to resist the pressure on them to stick to the "safety at any price" doctrine.

Reply to
Robin

+1 Thanks for the link Tony.
Reply to
ARW

It's nothing to do with safety!

Reply to
alan

Be interesting to see statistics on accidents arising out of bad/ incorrect electrical installation. Before and after part P.

I used to work for the electricity board in the inspectors for a while. Very rare did we have to attend incidents down to bad installation.

Reply to
harry

People have been pressing DCLG not to relax Part P on grounds of safety. And they continue to argue changes will "potentially put lives in danger": see the response to the announcement from Clive Betts

formatting link

Reply to
Robin

Do they give any evidence to support that statement?

Reply to
Andrew May

Lively debate on the whole deregulation thing here:

formatting link

Reply to
Phil

I think this was discussed on here at the time; IIRC deaths from unsafe installations changed from 3 or 4 a year before Part P to 12 a year afterwards. Someone might have the actual figures.

Reply to
Terry Fields

A socket for a plug? It's untidy, but better than calling sockets plugs, which is common.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Apparently the socket is called a "plug socket" and the plug is called a "plug top" according to some discussion I found on t'internet. Well, "plug plug" would be a little silly ;-) I suppose this type of usage is unique to mains outlets, so it does distinguish from plugs and sockets in general. But I would use the prefix "mains" for this purpose. Simon.

Reply to
sm_jamieson

top" according to some discussion I found on t'internet.

I guess the once standard designations of 'male' and 'female' for connectors is not considered acceptable any more.

Robert

Reply to
RobertL

yes- there's an EU directive coming out next year which requires you to have equal numbers of plugs and sockets.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Yabbut all the fixed sockets [1] in my house are on the walls, so the plugs fit beside them rather than on top.

[1] Most of the trailing sockets (is that the correct term?) are horizontal, though.
Reply to
Adam Funk

Just something we'll have to adapt to.

G.Harman

Reply to
damduck-egg

Perhaps they'll be flexible at the switching date?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

One or two of the committee members are a bit AC/DC, I've heard.

Reply to
Grimly Curmudgeon

formatting link
>>

Interestingly, that discussion has a link to the new part p document due next year, which may indicate a little bit of a relaxation of the rules (for those people who worry about the rules that is!)

Reply to
GMM

top" according to some discussion I found on t'internet. Well, "plug plug" would be a little silly ;-)

from plugs and sockets in general. But I would use the prefix "mains" for this purpose.

RB Got any plugs? RC What kind of plugs? RB Rubber ones, bathroom. RC What size? RB Thirteen amp.

Reply to
Graham.

top" according to some discussion I found on t'internet. Well, "plug plug" would be a little silly ;-)

distinguish from plugs and sockets in general. But I would use the prefix "mains" for this purpose.

We used to call sockets "Sockets Outlet", but this was the Civil Service so the proper name was likely "outlet socket".

The one that I remember was a bit of a special, known as a "Sockets Outlet MK 705 Ivory", which was a surface-mount 5A unswitched socket in a traditional MK style with vertical "sides" and rounded top and bottom. These, in our case, were installed on a metal bracket with a "light straw" escutcheon to appear as a flush socket fitted at the base of telecomms equipment racks in a hole some 3½" x 2 ½" in which to plug test sets. Circa 1975.

OOI the same hole could alternatively accomodate a mains transformer and "B" gauge ¼" "PO" jack with a microswitch to power the transformer, to provide a couple of amps of 24V ac for such a soldering irons, headlamps, etc.

Classic!

Reply to
Frank Erskine

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.