Part P the reality.

I phoned my local building control dept. I was posing as someone who 'wanted' to do the right thing.
Turns out after a conversation that whilst you can submit a notice to your LABC and do the work yourself. However the fees are such that it is financially very disadvantageous to do this.
Whilst it is true that the fee for the LABC is 100+VAT (for up to 2000 quids worth of work) they are empowered in this matter to make additional charges for the building notice. [Section 12 something or other ...] The net result is that the LABC simply acts as an agency for sending a registered sparky to inspect the work. There are five organisations whose members may self certify. NICEIC, ECA, NAPIT ...
So effectively the law is use a registered sparky or pay for one through the nose via the LABC.
This law is effectively unpoliceable until something goes wrong. If you need to sell you might as well shell out a few hundred for a full test and inspect ticket.
If there is other work that is notifiable taking place then it might well be that a zealous LABC officer might be interested in Prat-P violations.
This year I'm too busy to sort out registration but I can see I'll have to bite the bullet sooner or later.
DIY has now become a subversive activity...
--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:21:12 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

I did the same, which I've mentioned in detail before, so I won't repeat it here.

I wonder if that "Section 12" was what my Dad's LBA are using to justify making me get my own Periodic Test doneas part of the BNA completion and sign off?...

I'd reckoned on 100+VAT + periodic (at say 150-200 for 3 bed house). Which is quite expensive. Unless you submit a single BNA for all the work you can think of for the next 10 years. Did your council have a view on one BNA covering many small jobs over a protracted period of time?

I agree. Someone is going to find a fault in their house, think "hmm, must fix immediately, very trivial" and is going to just do it, notifiable or not.

I'd been worrying about the reverse. Let's say I put in a shed supply and dutifully write up a BNA. I'm happy if the BCO or agent is exacting about the quality of my electrical installation, it is outside work, after all.
However, what I don't want to happen is him starting to take different angles such as "BTW, your shed is too close to house/fence/etc, get rid of it". It's been where it is for years, there's nowhere else to put it and the neighbour doesn't mind at all.
Or finding Part L or Part M non compliance, neither of which I consider safety related and thus don't really give a damn about.

Hmm.
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(snip)
Hi Tim, In another recent thread on Prat P someone asserted that if work is more than (6 months?) old, the BCO can no longer require removal/change - there is some sort of statute of limitations. Unfortunately there were no replies, so I'm left wondering whether this was correct or wishful thinking. Does anyone know whether a BCO's powers to request alteration of completed work are time-limited in this way??
Cheers
Another Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:19:12 +0000, timycelyn wrote:

Hi Tim
That was possibly me. It's something I read in a recent edition of a book on English building regs. I'll see if I can find the bit and look it up and give you quote. Just need to locate the bit of furniture my baby daughter hid the book under ;->
I could have the wrong end of the stick, or the rule could have been updated.
Certainly one would expect a statuary limitation. I remember being surprised that it was seemed a relatively short period.
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A bit of googling later: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_609257.pdf
( http://tinyurl.com/oz4h )
Paragraph 6.3 states that it is a limit of the Magistrate's powers, that they can't hear a case more than 6 months after the offence - any fines from contravening the building regs has to come before a magistrate. The alternative (or addition) to fines being levied is an Enforcement Notice - which would require you to make good any work, and I assume refusing to do this would be a new offence for which you could be fined. If the work is good, I (who am not a lawyer) can't see how you can be fined for failing to notify, once 6 months is up.
--
Selah

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not only can one now be fined for selling food accurately weighed and marked in standard British units.
Now you can be found guilty of repairing your house to an excellant standard of safety, beauty, function and reliability. And punished for so doing.
Wonderful. One of lifes lessons
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@meeow.co.uk writes

People get the government and laws they deserve (but why do *I*, ..etc.) and you'd be hard put to find many outside the regular posters here who can see anything wrong with 'raising' electrical installation standards, or reducing 'confusion' among purchasers.
People don't think critically about anything beyond what's familiar to them. How can they? How many here would applaud e.g. higher standards of food inspection? That's got to lead automatically to safer food, hasn't it?
Whatever the proponents of modern education say, children are *not* being taught and encouraged to think for themselves. Above all, they're not taught to think more than one move ahead. That's the last thing any state wants.
--
Joe

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the Government really does not want us to be able to think more than one move ahead. After all if we all feel that we are unable to decide things for ourselves we are easier to control and manipulate. There is already a sizeable minority (hey the optimist is speaking now) who will believe whatever the Government tell them without question (especially if it related to a "war" on terror).
As for Part P I am having a difficult time deciding whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. There are quite a few people out there that will try and tackle a job without a good grasp of what it entails and potentially end up with dangerous or even deadly results.
Having seen some of the cowboy work done on my present house, for instance exposed chocy blocks held in place with blu-tak, by "professionals" there is a big part of me that welcomes the oversight of an independent body.
As someone who intends to get properly trained before tackling any work covered by part p I am annoyed as it means yet more expense - often for relatively minor jobs. The idea situation I think would be certification courses. Harry House Owner would go on a (night) course which is examined at the end. If they pass they can do _some_ work without notification.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"doozer" wrote | Having seen some of the cowboy work done on my present house, | for instance exposed chocy blocks held in place with blu-tak, | by "professionals" there is a big part of me that welcomes | the oversight of an independent body.
But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let alone by an independent body. All the certification bodies are financed by their members. There is nothing to stop a cowboy business registering with another body after being 'struck off' (like that would ever happen) by the first.
| The idea situation I think would be certification courses. | Harry House Owner would go on a (night) course which is | examined at the end. If they pass they can do _some_ work | without notification.
Rather better would be to return to teaching kids some common sense and not to go running to nanny if they burn their fingers. And improve the quality and status of so-called vocational training.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, but part of the Part P self-certification process is that the contractor has to provide a certificate stating what they've done and that it complies and has been tested. If work is done and so certified and you (or perhaps a subsequent owner) then need to take action against the contractor they're hoisted by their own petard. Outside Part P it would be very easy for them to claim that they hadn't done that bit of work or you asked them to do a cheap job to save money.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Bryer wrote:

A receipt provides that, part p does something else. Mandate receipts if thats what you want to achieve.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's not about receipts. I am also not really fussed about DIY electrics as my instinct is that either the work will be done properly (? tested though) or done by someone who will not take notice of any regulations of any sort. But I do think it not unreasonable that anyone who offers electrical installation by way of business should be required to issue a simple certificate stating what has been done and that it complies. The problems - as evidenced by the current Part P self-certification debate and CORGI - is how to do this so as to achieve a reasonable level of control without being unnecessarily costly and bureaucratic.
For a nice picture of 'professional' electrics (Dolphin Bathrooms):
http://home.btconnect.com/tg/dolphin.htm
Should the person who did this be let loose on the public?
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Owain wrote:

What you are essentially saying is that electrical work should be completely unregulated because the current system is wrong. That's bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone but we'll pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of fines and points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and say people should drive whatever speed they like on motorways? I would say that it would be better to modify the system so that it does work.

We have, I admit, fostered a nanny state attitude which I completely agree is wrong however I am at a bit of a loss to know how to teach common sense. To me common sense would be "don't touch the wiring of your house unless you are confident you know what you are doing" because after all you can end up with more than burnt fingers if you get it wrong.
I would like to see an increase in the amount of vocational teaching in schools and a to see teachers stop portraying the attitude that if you don't read English Lit at Oxford you've failed.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

independent
is
being
not
quality
"Nanny state", a political propaganda term used by the Tory party. And they all lap it up and use it, when it is not the case.
_________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"doozer" wrote | > | ... there is a big part of me that welcomes | > | the oversight of an independent body. | > But Part P does not provide any such oversight, let | > alone by an independent body. | What you are essentially saying is that electrical work should be | completely unregulated because the current system is wrong.
No. I am pointing out that the current system does not provide any increase in safety. Safety could have been far better served by making it a B Regs requirement for all electrical work to be done in a safe manner (as is the case in Scotland).
Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys. Most American states require electricians to be individually qualified before they can work on wiring, and businesses have to get a licence from the state or county authorities. Customers can complain to those authorities and too many complaints do result in a loss of licence to carry on business. I wouldn't say the system is perfect but it is miles better than the current British system, where even in NICEIC registered companies there is no requirement for the person who works on your wiring to be either competent or qualified.
| That's bizzare. To use an analogy: everyone (ok not quite everyone | but we'll pretend) speeds on motorways. Ergo the current system of | fines and points isn't working. Should we therefore give up and | say people should drive whatever speed they like on motorways?
Why shouldn't they? It's not speed that kills people, it is driver error. Most speed-related fatalities occur in 30mph areas anyway.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Owain wrote:

Now that sounds like a half way decent implementation. Perhaps we should contact our MP and suggest a system along these lines (although I doubt very much that will change anything). I don't particular like the idea of having state registered x (where x is any trade) but it does solve the problem in a way that a member sponsored body can't.

Perhaps I should have chosen an issue that isn't quite so contentious. I was attempting to provide an example of a situation where the law is being widely broken not begin a discussion about whether the current speeding laws are correct. I could also have chosen copyright infringement when downloading music or shop lifting for example.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not just that, it will actually decrease safety as it increases the barriers to upgrading older and/or unsafe installations to current standards, and making unsafe practices like use of trailing sockets more attractive to the avarage man in the street..

No it woudn't - it would just drive them further underground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Harrison wrote:

Hopefully so deep that most people won't come across them. You are always going to have some cowboys just as you are always going to have some crime. What we have to do is decide what an acceptable maximum is and work to reduce it to that level. Zero tolerance policies and other ideas or that ilk scare me. They shout extremism which is never good.
When I first heard about Part P I dug out the consultation paper and had a bit of a flick through it. One part sticks in my mind more than any other. Something like ten times more people die from falling off chairs changing light bulbs then do modifying their home electrics. Laugh, I nearly fell off my chair!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Harrison wrote:
Part P...

barriers to upgrading older

practices like use of trailing

True if new installs include more outdoor electrics than the old ones being replaced. :)
Seriously though, dead on. Old installs are a far bigger risk than non-part p new installs, I know from seeing some. They really show how trivial some of the issues with new installs are by comparison. Observed in old installs:
- Switches that lack spring action, and will sit arcing away happily. - perished rubber wiring, sometimes with partially bare conductors wrapped around each other but perchance not yet touching. - In one case even the lack of any fusebox - though that was an unusually ancient example. - burnt out wires - bare live wires - bell wire and choc blocks on the surface at touch height. - mains sockets hanging out of wall on wires
etc. These installs are more often owned by the poorest of people, and Part P will provide the maximum delay in rewiring. Yes, such installs are still in use. One of the neighbours had their perished bare rubber wiring redone only last year.

It all depends what and how the regulation occurs. Part p has got it all wrong.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:> >Greater regulation of tradespeople would drive out cowboys.

Agreed. It is interesting to watch things like Grand Designs abroad and Place in the Sun (?) where some people meet huge amounts of bureaucracy and others obviously use cowboys.
On a related aside - can somebody explain how the NEICEI (sp?) monopoly fits in with EU requirements for cross border harmonisation ? How does a German electrician now work in the UK (to a much higher standard than any UK electrician) installing those pre-fabricated Bauhaus houses ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.