...mentioned by someone on a freecycle group, but looking for clarification (I didn't think it applied unless it's was a new installation, rather than replacement in-situ of existing switches / sockets)
"if the socket has gone you will need a certified electrician as new government legislations wont let any one work in kitchens or bathrooms due to the risks of water penetration"
TIA
You can still do like for like replacements. So replac "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."
Thanks John - that's what I understood it to be :-)
If that were true, then rewires and changing the CU are also like for like.
dg
Don't be a fool and think about your posts! Also read the 'rules' on Prat P (not a spelling mistake by the way)!
Regards
John
Perhaps you ought to read the document:
"a. Notifiable jobs include new circuits back to the consumer unit, and extensions to circuits in kitchens and special locations (bathrooms, etc) and associated with special installations (garden lighting and power installations, etc)."
"c. Consumer unit replacements are, however, notifiable."
A daft question to some no-doubt, but who's responsible for notifying, the householder or the Electrician?
If the former, how many 'Joe Bloggs' even know that Part P even exists?
Don.
Before considering rewiring my house myself, I skimmed through Part P to get a rough idea what I should do. These "Additional Notes" to "Table 2" weren't in there. I think it perfectly reasonable to assume a like-for-like replacement of a CU would be non-notifiable if the circuit protective measures are unaffected, that is until the "Additional Notes" appeared.
In common with many people I have to admit to misunderstanding "Table
1". I understood it to mean all work in a bathroom is notifiable. It clearly says nothing of the sort. T
I know Part P, and I was merely pointing out that the 'can do like for like replacement' statement was misleading.
dg
Not very many. But they don't need to know yet in order for the legislation to be a success. This is because it had, in my opinion, 3 main objectives:
a. to allow Ministers to say (when, for example, young kiddies die as a result of poor wiring) "not our fault - look how we brought in really tough legislation on electrical safety [and required LAs to police it]"; b. to allow some in the trade to make lots of money by regulating the trade, selling training etc (and with high entry costs for anyone wanting to join their closed shop - have you noticed how there are very few Polish electricians working alongside the Polish plumbers, plasterers etc?); c. to improve the safety of domestic wiring.
These may not have been *conscious* objectives of all concerned but they are credible: I've seen in the past policy formulation get captured by special interests, and the Part P policy was probably looked after by someone very junior in ODPM.
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:22:08 GMT someone who may be "Robin" wrote this:-
In my opinion we know that this was not an objective. We know that the Labour Party claimed they it was an objective, but since we know that anything the Labour Party says is a lie we know that it was not an objective.
The notes are newer than the original draft, although there was still explicit words precluding CU swaps as a like for like swap etc IIRC.
The original document certainly gave that impression. NICIEC were also spouting a similar mantra in the early days (possibly still are). I remember one friend being told by an electrician when querying what changes he could now make in his recently rewired kitchen, that he could "not even touch a screw on a socket".
I think you have missed some of the more obvious one:
Herd more people into official bodies where they will be more visible for taxation purposes.
Not sure C ever came into it! (especially after they realised they were basing their legislation on the wrong stats)
One aim I heard suggested (and it sounds very plausible) is to force cash-in-hand jobbing electricians to join larger firms and hence pay tax and NI. It works because NICIEC (?sp) membership is (roughly) per- FIRM, so the overhead for a big firm is less (and big firms are too big not to do PAYE).
There is a sentence that states that a minor works certificate will not suffice for a distribution board replacement. Thats the only hint I can find that a like-for-like replacement might be notifiable.
I must say that now that point has been clarified, Part P does seem a lot more reasonable to me.
T
While that'd undoubtedly be a nice benefit (for HMRC) I would be surprised if ODPM paid so much attention to the practicalities of tax collection. But I'll ask next time I bump into any erstwhile colleagues who dealt with PAYE/NICs at the time.
Looks like a and b succeeded and we have to hope that c won't be really screwed in the long term.
As for "b" The same goes for eastern heating engineers (who may be well trained, qualified and experienced in polish/czech/hungarian gas and heating heating) but there is no way that they will be up to being registered for a few years yet. When they do, it will be time for another new occupation, me thinks.
About 2/3 of all self employed people are in construction and allied trades. If the gov't want the self employed to go away then they are certainly going some way towards that end.
I don't think I have a copy of the draft document to compare against now. I had a feeling that CUs were in the list of example notifiable works though in the original draft I saw.
It is less unreasonable perhaps, but still plain daft and counter-productive though (never mind unworkable or enforceable).
The sad thing is that ultimately people will die as a result.
That certainly wasn't a real objective. It was easy to show (as I did in my formal response to the proposals) that the legislation would decrease the safety of domestic wiring. However, even I didn't realise just how dramatic that effect would be, as evidenced by the sharp increase in electrocutions since the legislation came in, verses the steady decline in the years up to the introduction of the legislation.
New Zealand found exactly the same thing, going in the opposite direction. They had banned DIY wiring in the same way as Australia does. They then changed this to allow DIY wiring, and the death rate they had shared with Australia has been dropping ever since, whilst Australia's hasn't.
Andrew Brown, but I've no idea how junior/senior he is or was.
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.