Part P the reality.

[Ed Sirett]

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...

[Tim S]

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

[The Wanderer]

'S a funny old world, all this used to be done for free by the old Electricity Boards. I wonder how many now would clamour for privatisation...... :-))

[timycelyn]

(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

[Tim S]

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

[bigcat]

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

[Joe]

In message , [e-mail] 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.

[doozer]

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.

[bigcat]

Its often said, but I doubt it.

standards,

they're

Absolutely. Its difficult for a teacher to handle 30 kids that /are/ thinking ahead, as it needs a lot more attention to each one, that's why. But the end result is miles better.

We'd be a lot better off if people did. Current limietd thought leads to duff decisions and oportunity failures left right and centre. Maybe its the last thing those that dont think very far want.

NT

[Owain]

"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

[Capitol]

The reality is that part P will be as well observed as the use of mobile phones and speed limit laws. ie not often!! As probably a quarter of the house modification jobs being done even now are not building regulation approved and LA inspected, part P is cloud cuckoo land, but a politician can claim they have improved on life's risks for a few morons.

Regards Capitol

[Sugar Free]

Is that what Part P actually does? - I mean, does it raise electrical installation standards, and reduce confusion among purchasers?

The correct answer, by the way, is no.

But it's also true to point out that it seems to lower the standards of purchasers and increase confusion in installers.

You'd be surprised (or not) how many folk know nothing whatever about Part P. You'd be even more surprised (or not) how little the DIY sheds want publicity or knowledge about Part P.....

People, generally, don't think critically. They merely criticise what they don't understand, which is most things.

And I can see they've got to you too if you think that higher standards of inspection will automatically lead to better food - how?

That can only happen if the correct higher standards are applied, and stuck to. Same with electricity.

Children are not being taught much of anything (of value) in state schools these days. Apart from how not to think at all. For that reason it is now perfectly acceptable to stick one's chid(ren) in front of the TV in their room, or the lounge, or wherever, for as many hours a day as possible. There's no danger of thought on that either.

[Dave Stanton]

Only place around here that has notices about Part P is my electrical wholesalers, I was reading it last Sat while getting some stuff.....

Dave

[Paul Barker]

Customers can apply for exhemption from part L. Perhaps they can do th same for part P. What does part M relate to please

-- Paul Barker

[Tony Bryer]

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.

[bob]

£100 yes £100 I will bet £100 that during 2005 there will not be any prosecutions for failing to comply with the Paperwork requirments of Part P, None Not one Providing that the work complies with BS7671 with the exception of the certificates, You will not be prosecuted or You will not be made to remove the Installation I will bet £100 Any JobsWorth BCO want to take me on!! Well!

OK Ed you can go back to work now to earn money to pay tax to pay your council tax to pay the wages of the BCO so he can try to put you out of a job

Regards Bob

[Tim S]

Just out of interest, what might be grounds for exemption from Part L? I'm aware of the points scoring system to exempt the requirement to fit condensing boilers from April 2005. Are there others (apart from reasons due to conservation, eg Grade I/II listing)?

Tim

[Gary Cavie]

Does anybody have any guesses as to what Parts Q-Z are goinng to be?

I'll start:

Part Q: Use of magnolia trade emulsion only. Switches and sockets must not be dropped out to paint behind them, paint must instead be splashed over the edges. Decorators will be able to self-certify this, DIY painting and decorating strictly outlawed.

Part R: Weekly rubbish bags can only be placed outside, ready for collection, by a government licenced waste placement technician

[Frank Erskine]

Provide, of course, that the emulsion complies with a French-inspired EN specification.

Naturally. If any switches or sockets are merely touched by a brush/roller/paint pad, they have to be "independently" inspected by NICEIC, CORGI or the BCO (and a 'reasonable' fee paid) before the house can be reoccupied.

I would hope that this includes face-painting, for which an NVQ will be introduced after the General Election, so no blabbing about this until after said GE...

[Tony Bryer]

Part L basically says that you must take reasonable measures to ensure the conservation of fuel and power. Period. All the rest in the Approved Documents gives you ways of showing that you comply but a BCO may decide that what you have done, whilst not meeting the AD, is reasonable.