The clear success of Part P

[Andy Hall]

You mean because it wasn't the MP? ;-)

[Andy Hall]

I think that even if the truth had been told, it the global scheme of things this is of so little importance that the politicians were disinterested, as were the press (until there was the death of an MP's daughter) and the public were and have remained blissfully ignorant.

I suspect that in the field of DIY, little has changed in practice. If people did their own wiring before and didn't involve bureaucracy or do comprehensive testing, they will continue to do so.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Do you want fries with that?

[Guy King]

The message from [e-mail] contains these words:

Just like ID cards and longer licensing hours, Iraq and many other recent Labour fiascos then.

How long before we import DieBold voting machines?

[Andy Wade]

Your subsequent comments rather bring that statement into question.

This accident took place in a kitchen. The live metalwork was a plate rack, IIRC.

That's quite incorrect. Metal channelling does not need to to be earthed when used over a sheathed cable like "twin-and-earth." See regulation 471-09-04.

Nonsense. A masonry drill will go through thin steel channelling almost as easily as PVC. Channelling/capping is not intended to give impact protection to wiring in a completed installation. Its purpose is the hold the cables in place prior to plastering, and to give some protection against damage by the plasterers trowel and other building operations. Metal channelling does not constitute protection for the purposes of regulation 522-06-06, whether earthed or not.

Absolutely. Moreover the present "safe zones" concept in wiring dates from an amendment to the 15th edition regs in 1987. Before that unprotected diagonal cable runs were quite permissible, so the electrician can't be blamed unless the installation is newer than that. (Also I notice that when the 17th edition comes into force in 2008 unprotected runs outside the safe zones will again be permitted - but only if the circuit is RCD protected and the methods of the present reg.

522-06-06 cannot be employed.)

Or kitchen, even - but, yes, I agree entirely.

True, but not a necessarily a particularly relevant point without knowing what the particular cable drilled into was for.

[Andy Wade]

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

[Fred]

I disagree from experience about metal channelling and masonry drills. It's more difficult than you think to drill through even thin sheet steel with a masonry bit, particularly if the edge is slightly blunted.

The person perhaps should be shot is the husband for putting up the utensil rack. Also the cable was only 5 degrees from vertical, not really diagonal as suggested elsewhere.

It was cable for an extractor fan. I've no idea where they took the feed off but I would imagine, from the description, it would be from a mains ring and so now would ordinarily be protected with an RCD.

any case I find it surprising the regs allow "open" lighting sockets which need not be protected by a low current RCD.

[Joe]

You then pay the tax to the council...

On a wider scale, tax is not necessarily money paid to the government, but payment required by it. The government does not receive the tax on televisions, but will enforce payment. The self-certification bodies receive money that they would not otherwise receive because of the existence of part P. This money buys nothing but a piece of paper, a licence, which is another name for tax.

Licenced electricians can charge more because of the existence of this law, not because they are providing a better service. Again, this extra money is paid purely to comply with the law, and therefore is taxation. No additional skill is bought with this money, as is the case with the driving licence. This is also a tax, but a very small one, and is linked to a higher standard of driving skill than would otherwise exist, at least in many cases. It can be argued that it is a standards-supporting measure rather than a revenue-raising one, though that doesn't stop it being a tax paid by people who drive.

Neither theory nor, so far, practice, suggests that part P will bring any improvement in standards in exchange for its costs.

[Guy King]

The message from Joe contains these words:

Ah, but they're not allowed to charge you for that bit!

[Fred]

Eh, a payment to Building Control is a tax. Any payment for which you get no or minimal direct return is a tax.

[John Rumm]

Depends a bit on how you are drilling. Using rotation only, or perhaps even hammer action on an "ordinary" hammer drill, then you are correct - you would probably feel a difference as you drill (assuming you are experianced enough drilling holes to know what to expect!)

A SDS masonry drill however will romp through most things without much regard for what they are made of.

[Stephen Dawson]

I don't think you are quite right there.

[Fred]

Building control have been specifically told they cannot charge for the inspection of an electrical installation over and above their standard charge. Their standard charge covers everything associated with building a house beyond planning. If wiring is done by someone who cannot self certify, then building control must be notified, which of course for a new build has already been done.

Where do you think I'm going wrong?

[robgraham]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of these were in Scotland where the Part P doesn't apply and whether there has been an equivalent percentage increase.

My understanding is that we just have to be satisfied that we are 'competent'!

Rob

[John Rumm]

The "any cowboy" bit... If building control are on the ball and subcontracting the inspection work to skilled electricians, then the work will have to be of a reasonable quality in order for the BCO to be given the nod to pass it.

[Andy Wade]

Also the DNO will expect to see a signed-off electrical installation certificate before they'll connect a new installation to the public supply for the first time. BS 7671 isn't explicitly quoted in the building regulations, but it is in the ESQC regulations (where it is referred to as the "British standard requirements"):

25(2) A distributor shall not give his consent to the making or altering of the connection referred to in paragraph (1), where he has reasonable grounds for believing that -

a) the consumer's installation, street electrical fixture or other distributor's network fails to comply with British Standard Requirements or these Regulations; or

[Fred]

everything looks alright then it will be signed off by building control and may never be tested. Aren't the tests building control do discretionary?

Similarly as long as the installation looks OK it will be connected as long as there aren't reasonable grounds for not doing so. Are you aware of installation passing building control but failing the DNO's requirements?

In theory to obtain a certificate the complete installation ought be carried out by someone who is a member of the appropriate body. He shouldn't issue a certificate if someone who has no such professional membership completes part of the job. Am I wrong here? Just that some of the menial tasks such as installing the wiring and clipping the wiring is sometimes not done by a "professional" electrician, so they'd have to fall back to building control to sign things off.

[Andy Wade]

If the work is done by a competent qualified person, either a member of a Part P scheme or a person qualified to conduct inspection and testing, the building control body should accept the EIC provided to them (although in the case of the qualified non-scheme-member the Approved document gives them discretion to decide "what (if any) further action needs to be taken..." In the case of the non-qualified installer "the amount of inspection and testing needed is for the building control body to decide, based on the nature and extent of the electrical work." Some level of inspection and testing should always be required for notifiable work, although the Approved doc does acknowledge that this may be minimal in simple cases.

That's not meant to be the case, but I've no recent experience as to how DNOs are interpreting the rules in practice .

Yes. BS 7671 itself only requires competence, not qualifications /per se/ and certainly not membership of a scheme or any trade body. However Approved Document P, read literally, implies that building control should not accept a certificate from an unqualified person. Again, how that works in practice may be another matter, given that the ADs are only there as guidance.

That's not a particularly relevant point, it's the electrician or a qualified supervisor in the employing firm who signs the certificates and takes responsibility. The full EIC has the option for three separate signatures for design, installation ("erection") and inspection & testing.

[Lightman]

The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100% compliance with part P!!)

In reality, even if all new "cowboy" installations were stopped from day 1 of the legislation, the vast bulk of installations with all of the past legacy "cowboy" work are still in existance. It would take

30 years or more before all old installations were finally rewired (as houses are bought and sold and finally end up having a major refurbishment).

Therefore even if the legistaltion was effective (and in practice it is largely ignored by DIY'ers - just look at what B&Q sells including consumer units etc!!!) I would expect a gradual decline over 10 -30 years

In actual fact there was no problem and as there is not a detailed record of every installation (especially older installations) therefore one can add circuits with no risk of being "caught".

Lumping fixed wiring deaths (a non-problem) with other appliance deaths has obviously been chosen by the useless civil servants to hide what is probably an upturn in deaths from fixed wiring!!

In other countries increased regulation caused more deaths due to forcing up prices and encouraging more "mates from the pub" having a go.

Lightman

[Guy King]

The message from "Lightman" contains these words:

It doesn't mean they're "wrong", just not presented in a suitable context. This is true of most statistics.