Unwanted Laws - Part P

[John Whitworth]

I could never understand that. They spend all that time hammering CORGI CORGI down your throat, then change the blinkin' name!

[cynic]

SNIP

I copy here a post to the IET forum which relates to a PIR carried out on a village hall installation. Obviously the producer was incompetent but not necessarily unqualified. The use of PIRs as a safety net seems dubious based on this particular one.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi, I've been asked to price for some work generated by a PIR, all of these were 'category one'.

Three fuseboards are BS3036, which require upgrading. Two fuses have more than one circuit on them, these must be split. No rcd protection for some sockets, and water heater. No 10mm earth to any fuseboards. No local isolators for IR heater.

And the customer says he wasn't given any schedule of test results for any of the five fuseboards.

What does the panel think?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Food for thought eh?

[John Whitworth]

And of course, I actually meant 'gang' not 'pole'. D'oh.

Still, the guy on Rogue Traders called the light switch a plug! :-)

[js.b1]

Part P turned qualified electricians into cowboys. #1 work need not be to BS7671 just a reasonable standard #2 so permitting any regulation to be made up on a whim to work up the hours with yes NICEIC in particular when challenged by solicitors boasting "we are a charity, you can not sue us, we can do what we want". Fortunately the solicitor is the son of an MP and the truth dawned on the whole idiotic "parliament writes SI 1-line, private sector vested interests write the profit plan".

I am not surprised by the "PIR". Two circuits into a CPD, so must be split. How much longer is this idiocy going to go on? NO!, if it is a ring fix, if it is a radial label; a radial can have any topology from the CPD down and indeed a ring can be a radial from the CPD to a ring later (lollipop like).

Test results for EFLI are highly subjective depending on the instrument, hence LT7 are still popular and very easy to pass/fail as you desire.

It is like billing 4hrs for covering a cupboard under the stairs in badly fitted trunking "because all cable must be in trunking". FTE is medium impact rated or AG2, domestic environment is light severity or AG1, so that nice little earner is out the window. Same with one isolator for a whole install, the classic Peak+E7, no each may be treated as an installation with main switch (which they are and better to comply with 314.1!). The ESC had both these examples on the website.

I am very pleased to say that a plumber-electrician that got called out in 2010 to shut off the electricity due to a plumbing leak (loft CW with insulation under it) then ran the job up into ripping apart CU & decoration to provide a "mandatory" single isolator for Peak+E7, which was duly turned off, got his bill *reduced* by the insurers when the CW supply burst due to E7 now ALSO being turned off by the single isolator. Yes the damn fool was a DI and the damn fool insurer was Zurich.

We really need a electrical code for domestic, that way people are protected from "do not have to comply with anything" and reduce traffic on the IET to actual commercial rather than what-we-can-argue- the-job-up-to. Yes that de-skills electricians, but what exactly is a

5-day course compared to C&G 2382 2392?! It is just bollocks. Domestic work is not equal to Industrial work in any way, 5 days compared to 3 years, sums it up really - despite the nonsense of =A3100/yr domestic and many an industrial spark struggling to get =A310/hr and get paid in the same financial year.

[Tim Watts]

Doctor Drivel wibbled on Friday 02 July 2010 09:28

The same could be said about your straitjacket!

[NT]

I dont have time to go through numeruos files & put a letter together. How about we here do one? Maybe more people will send it then.

NT

[js.b1]

Which was most likely professionally done

AND

Which would have been prevented by RCD 17th

BUT

17th Reg Amendment w.r.t. RCD protection now REMOVES.

Is that a back door attempt for the IEE/IET/CSE crowd post dust settling to take back control? :-)

[dennis]

Its not illegal for someone to DIY gas. Its not illegal to charge someone for being taught how to DIY. Opps! that looks like a loop hole.

[Dave Liquorice]

Similar to the black market. Bits of the economy that are above board but don't leave an offical audit trail of who did what and when, which when linked with other records could produce for how much as well.

[Peter Parry]

It doesn't really matter that they are not carried out. Moreover, such a requirement would undoubtedly spawn a horde of "inspectors" charging £500 per inspection or a number of tradesmen holding sellers hostage by condemning perfectly reasonable installations until they are given the job of replacing the consumer unit or something equally unnecessary.

A PIR today costs between £150-£400 for a 3 bedroom house depending upon location, if it was made mandatory for each sale that sum would at least double.

[sm_jamieson]

Assuming I'm not missing a joke, can someone explain this ammendment in more detail please ? Simon.

[Andy Wade]

=> Given the scope of the problem (i.e. accidents and fatalities resulting

I can't see simple revocation of Part P passing the 'art of the possible' test. It would be seen as retrograde and a "licence for cowboys", etc. (Cue Daily Mail headlines.) Reform is much more likely to be possible.

Given the amount of dubious electrical work still being done kitchen fitters, plumbers, builders and, dare I say it, handymen (casting no aspersions on anyone here...) etc. it doesn't seem that unreasonable to regulate those doing it for a living.

Less bad wiring would be 'slightly foxed' I presume :~)

I can't see that getting very far, now that HIPs and HCRs have gone. The fact that the insurance industry doesn't usually insist on PIRs for owner-occupied premises supports your view that there isn't that much of a general problem, I suppose.

Talking of PIRs, have you noticed the proposed radical reform of the process in the draft 1st Amendment? The PIR is to be replaced by the EICR - electrical installation condition report - with significant change to the standard coding system and forms.

[js.b1]

As I recall: Under 17th amendment 1 you can take the position that retrofitting an RCD is not required if there is no significant risk from the circuit.

Obviously for an outdoor socket an RCD *IS* required.

The MPs daughter was killed by someone fitting a spice rack where a screw penetrated a cable which was (IIRC) slightly out of zone (it might have been within the 3.5-degrees of vertical limit). An RCD would have prevented the death. There was no comment as to whether the install was professional or DIY, it is most likely professional which makes the Part P attack on DIY even more contemptible because out of many DIYers I know ranging from physicists, physiologists to even lawyers they all fitted RCD long ago - themselves. It is not particularly difficult to those with a physics O level & A level background. It is incorrect to assume that everyone needs nanny state to wipe their backside, particularly when some spend their living wiping nanny state's.

[Andy Wade]

It is a draft amendment, not yet in force - and may change or be deleted before it comes into force. If this does go through it would take effect from 1st Jan 2012.

The proposal is to allow an exception from the rule requiring 30 mA RCD protection of cables buried in walls in the particular case of a minor works alteration (i.e. small addition to, or alteration of, an existing final circuit) where "the designer is satisfied that there would be minimal increased risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration by screws, nails and the like". The design decision is to be recorded on the minor works certificate.

[js.b1]

Does a cowboy leave a MWC ? :-)

17th at least required them to walk with RCD'd spurs on their boots, now they just need have spurs on their boots :-)

[The Medway Handyman]

I certainly won't touch gas, don't know enough about it. I have a mate who is registered so I pass it to him.

[Peter Andrews]

That's because when the government changed the supplier (can't remember who though!) they found that they didn't own the name CORGI and that has been retained by the first supplier. 'GasSafe' is, so I'm told, now definitely owned by the government!!!

Peter

[Clot]

And operated by Capita.

[tim....]

I'm sure that I could have guessed that :-)

But what possible value is it to the company that do own it, if the government decline to buy if off them at their asking price?

tim

[cynic]

Come on Tim - what better reccomendation to abandon part P than for it to be a good thing in drivels eyes?