Unwanted Laws - Part P

I was ahead of you as soon as the idea of a cancelling bill was mooted and already sent this in as a suggestion plus a copy to my MP. Hopefully a lot more people will do the same

Too true. Anyone else see 'Craig' on Rogue Traders last night. Absolutely unbelievable. He tried to install an exterior 'porch' light by changing an existing interior light switch into a double, and simply connecting the new light into the new switch (no extension of lighting ring to power it). And he twinned a kitchen socket, leaving the earth disconnected - didn't have any proper test gear, so 'tested' it by plugging in a metal kettle and checking that it worked.

Loved it when Matt greeted him with the hand buzzer! :)

I may be dropping myself in it, but what's wrong with wiring the porch light into the house lighting circuit ? I did that exact same thing in my last house. (I know ideally it should be on its own circuit so some person shorting out the outside light cannot affect interior lighting, and it should have independent RCD protection.) Also, lighting doesn't use a ring, its usually radial. You don't have to use loop-in, nothing wrong with wiring a single light direct from the switch. Simon.

The point was that all he effectively had in the circuit was the switch (the extra pole - not the pole replacing existing interior switch) and the light. No connection to the mains via a ring or radial (and yes, you're totally correct - lighting is radial - just a slip of the fingers there!)

Oh I see what you mean. What a plonker ! Simon.

Ah. I see.

I couldn't figure out the problem.

Yaesr ago som,e bloke I worked with asked me to look at his cortina Battery kep t going flat 'ever since I fitted the new horn'

Well I looked, and the had the horn push in series with a relay going to the horn. The relay coil was wired across the unswitched battery, so it was always on..draining e battery.

He hadn't a clue "I just swapped wires till it worked"

:-)

Part P is necessary.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel" saying something like:

And with that one post... that single line... that brief sentence, you utterly discredit yourself. Not that you had any to start with.

For what exactly?

It has failed to achieve its stated purpose - in fact fatalities have risen since its introduction (as predicted by many of us here).

Its failed in it real but unstated purpose (to make a section of the black economy traceable).

Its put a responsibility onto LA BC departments that they don't want, and are ill equipped to support.

Its wasted loads of money for householders, and increased paper work at many stages of running a project or selling a house.

Most consumers have never heard of it.

Most cowboys have not heard of it or ignore it.

Those that don't ignore it frequently do backhander cash deals to get the paperwork sorted (even if not the job)

Most DIYers have never heard of it and ignore it, and of those DIYers who have heard of it, I have never met one who has taken any notice of it (unless its part of a larger job)

All in all its hard to think of a more pointless exercise.

And increased the value of pre-harmonised colour coded cable.

Like HIPs it should be tightened up not abandoned.

Really!!!? Something's necessary, I think, but not Part P - repeal already suggested here

My suggestion is to make electrical work subject to similar regulations to gas, i.e.

- repeal Part P of the building regs;

- replace with a set of regulations like the electrical equivalent of the Gas Safety (installation and use) regulations and/or a domestic version of the Electricity at Work regulations. I'm not sure what primary legislation these new regs would come under, but surely that could be resolved;

- said new regulations impose a legal requirement for competence (as for gas), but not for specific memberships etc. for DIYers (as for gas);

- anyone doing electrical installation (and maintenance?) work for gain must be qualified (supervised while training) and be a member of a body approved by the HSE. The Part P schemes could then convert to 'competent electrician registers' similar to Corgi/GasSafe, but hopefully without the monopoly of the gas scheme. Advantage that the HSE is well clued up in matters of electrical safety, unlike the building control bodies.

I admit to being biased - but.

Problem there is that you would make small jobs impossible to get done.

Part of my niche market is simple & small plumbing jobs like changing a set of taps or repairing a toilet. Plumbers just don't want to know about small jobs like those IME. Same with simple electrics - electricians aren't generally interested in changing a light fitting.

Yesterday afternoon for exaple. Changed two double socket outlets that were faulty & repaired a leak on a toilet inlet pipe (washer had gone).

Nothing technical, nothing dangerous. I charged £75 inc parts. Lady was very happy.

Calling out a sparks & a plumber would have cost her 2 or 3 times that - if she could have found any willing to do the jobs.

Indeed, although I have never understood why, since old colours were still allowable after part P and new colours were allowable before it! Hence the colours don't make any definitive statement about when a job was done.

Well I did put a question mark against 'maintenance', and that does argue in favour of excluding such work.

What happens now though with similar small gas jobs? Do they get done illegally, or are registered gas people more willing to turn out?

Indeed they have.

Black economy? Whats that?

Like much idiot Guvmint legislation

True

Interesting point. I'd say slightly over half of the people I deal with have heard that 'the law has changed'. They don't have any further knowledge or details. Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a guess.

I'm very concious of it because of the possible repercussions, so I'm careful not to do anything covered by part P. Part P & CORGI have actually done me a favour because most of the registered sparks & plumbers don't seem to have time for the small simple jobs I do.

Quite - although the year of manufacture now marked on the sheath of most T&E might give you away.

And will the easements that might be coming with Amendment 1 to the 17th ed. create a market in future-dated cable :-)

;-) I suppose that is a reversal of the usual problem of "not to current standards". Will their be a classification for it was wrong when conceived and installed, but ok now?

Given the scope of the problem (i.e. accidents and fatalities resulting from fixed wiring faults), a very valid option is to do nothing. As was the case for many years before the government got themselves confused with appliance related accidents, and pressure from interested parties.

I have an expectation that the majority of injury from foxed wiring is from old, and/or poorly maintained, and/or not to current standard installations. Cases where any attention - even if done poorly to something approaching modern standards, would probably result in a safer installation. Anything that discourages improvement (by way of added red tape, cost, legal implications etc) can only do harm it seems.

Indeed.

I think that is probably going too far.

Perhaps making a full PIR part of the property conveyancing process would be desirable, so that inspections do get carried out from time to time.