Part Pee?

[The Medway Handyman]

I've been asked to change some ceiling lights in the toilets of a community centre. Straight replacement.

Am I correct in assuming Part P doesn't apply because its not a domestic property? And that toilets are Zone 3 anyway?

[Frank Erskine]

Any straight replacement doesn't involve Part P.

Anywhere.

[John Rumm]

Not only not domestic, but also not a special location (i.e. room containing bath or shower), or a kitchen. And like for like replacements would be ok even if it were a special location etc.

So in summary, yes ;-)

[R]

Would anyone *actually* check ?

[The Medway Handyman]

Prolly not, but I like to get these things right.

[TheScullster]

"R" wrote

In the *highly unlikely* scenario of one of the fittings failing/causing fire they may. I'm with TMH here: CYA factor 10.

Phil

[tony sayer]

In article , Frank Erskine scribeth thus

Changing a domestic consumer unit from a fused one to one with MCB's is that a straightforward replacement?..

Ought be, 'tho I suspect it isn't;?...

[Owain]

Yes, but the Electricity at Work Regulations will get you instead :-)

I would suggest paying special attention to the risks of vandalism and people hiding drugs up there.

Owain

[neverwas]

I've never been clear about this "like for like". Is there any authoritative guidance from the IEE or others please?

The reason I ask is that most of the guidance I have found just parrots the 2004 regulations (S.I. 2004/3210). They provided a let-out regardless of location only for

"(a) replacing any socket-outlet, control switch or ceiling rose;

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

(d) providing mechanical protection to an existing fixed installation, where the circuit protective measures and current carrying capacity of conductors are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation."

So if, for example, I replace an old ceiling rose zone 2 of a bathroom like for like I am covered by (a). But I am not covered if I replace it by an IP44 enclosure. So far so good (albeit totally daft from the viewpoint of promoting safety).

But what if I replace one IP44 light fitting in Zone 2 by another? The only way I can get that within (a) is on the basis that it is a "socket-outlet". Bizarre but I suppose just about possible?

I can't say this (yet) matters to me in practice. And I suspect it is all the result of sloppy drafting instructions by someone who understood even less than me the terminology. (Eg a flex outlet plate doesn't seem to be any of the things in (a) despite surely being no more hazardous to replace than a socket outlet.)

I have found quite a few comments which assert the regulations permit like for like replacement of things *such as* socket-outlets, control switches and ceiling roses. They include an article in the IEE's Wiring Matters in 2005

.But I can't find anything which gives me any comfort that the author is not just assuming the regulations are sensible.

[John Rumm]

I am not sure that it prohibits changing for a different type of the same thing - it certainly arguable. As would be changing a contactum socket for a MK one etc.

Note however the wording in part P itself is better:

"Replacing *any* fixed electrical equipment (*for example*, socket-outlets, control switches and ceiling roses) which does not include the provision of any new fixed cabling" (my emphasis added)

It does state "any" equipment and used socket outlet et al as an example only.

There is also additional note (b): "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."

No arguments with that - in relation to the whole document. ;-)

see above

.Yup, based on what the building regs state rather than the SI. It would be reasonable to follow the building regs even though technically speaking they are not "law" and the SI is.

I think if you use the approved docs as guidance then you have plenty of plausible deniability even if the SI drafting is sloppy (as is *all* SI drafting it seems)

[John Rumm]

From the notes after Table 1:

"c. Consumer unit replacements are, however, notifiable."

[<me9]

Except consumer units.

[Simon (Dark Angel)]

Pardon my asking, but are you sure about that?

I saw a sting operation where they'd deliberately installed a faulty 240v bathroom fan directly above a bath (it should have been low voltage) then called this local cowboy in to see what he'd do. He offered a straight replacement, whereby trading standards showed themselves and informed him of the error of his ways (it was on one of those "tradesmen from hell" shows or similar).

[YAPH]

If it was an incorrect installation it was nothing to do with whether it was notifiable under Part P or not.

[The Medway Handyman]

I'm a great fan of arse armour...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Think it's like for like, or a repair. As in changing a socket or switch. Dunno about the lights in question - they could be very different.

[neverwas]

thanks for that reassurance though I'm left despairing of ODPM (as was)

I've retied to the foxhole before noting you quote from the Approved Document rather than Part P itself.

I agree violently that the courts would strive to give effect to the Approved Document if it were a case of me vs. government 'cos the Approved Document is the government's responsibility. (It's the doctrine of "legitimate expectations" IIRC.) But it's less clear to me what the position would be if it were me vs. local authority or insurance company or future owner. They aren't responsible for the chasm between the Approved Document and the regs. And they (especially future owner) could argue they are entitled to rely on the statute despite the Approved Document.

Unfair. I don't look at many but think perhaps 1% are quite good (especially those drafted by Parliamentary Counsel). And a large part of the blame lies with this government's use of legislation in place of action and desire for civil servants who "deliver". (Never mind the quality, feel the interpersonal skills.) That said, the late and unlamented ODPM did seem to specialise in c*ck-ups.

All in all, I won't lose any sleep over this but it does make me ashamed to be English ;)

[neverwas]

Having just had the regs and Approved Document open I can see no basis for arguing that replacing a consumer unit is anything but notifiable:

o Approved Document P, page 8, has "c. consumer unit replacements are, however, notifiable"

o I don't see any way to construe the let-out in SI 2004/3210 (see my message at 12:20 today for text) to cover a consumer unit.

I wish it weren't so. And of course you can always find a lawyer willing to give a different opinion. (I'm not a lawyer but know the breed.) But if I were on t'other side of the argument I'd be happy to say "see you in court".

[Tim S]

neverwas coughed up some electrons that declared:

What if you don't have a "consumer unit"? Perhaps you have a main distribution board feeding 45A or 63A distribution circuits down to 2 or 3 sub boards? Which one is the "consumer unit".

Or you have a pile of Henley blocks and lots of switch-fuses (as the house I grew up in did)? It's still a valid, though oddball arrangement (though you'd need some RCDs too and just possibly a main isolator for the lot)?

[Dave Osborne]

No brainer. Sub board = consumer unit = distribution board = fuse box = whatever you want to call it; you just end up break the law two or three times instead of one.

Same argument.