Approved Documennt Part P

[riveralt]

BAS I know we had our differences over this issue - but I cannot find where Part P has been changed from October 2010.
I can find others documents Part F J and J that have changed from 1st October 2010 but not part P - any clues?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Approved Document hasn't been changed yet. According to the latest version of the Building Regulations (see the Explanatory Note at the end):

It is intended that these (Approved Documents) will be subject to amendments to be contained in a forthcoming publication “Amendments 2010 to the Approved Documents”.

 

[riveralt]

Thank you BAS.

Following your link this is the initial results of the consultation process.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1800841.pdf

You will have to scroll down to the Part P results.

 

[radweld]

To quote the report of the consultation period:

2.60 The provisions were first introduced in 2005 and we believe it is now time to
evaluate their contribution to the safety outcomes they were intended to
support

I would hope with the increasing use of RCDs and various other factors, safety will have improved since 2005. If of course it can be measured in any meaningful way, as the original data part P was based on was statistically challenged.

So no doubt, Part P will be trumpeted as a success, unless all the data indicates otherwise and then it will be claimed it needs to continue in order to obtain more statistically valid data.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

with a 7% failure rate

I wish that people would quote the report accurately. It said that 4.2% of those 7% had been deliberately bypassed to prevent them working, only 2.8% of correctly installed ones failed.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So no doubt, Part P will be trumpeted as a success,

That is a judgement that only the Competent Person scheme organisers can make, since Part P was really introduced in order to increase their influence and revenues.

unless all the data indicates otherwise and then it will be claimed it needs to continue in order to obtain more statistically valid data.

The problem is that the data can never be obtained (unless what's happening is a large increase in fatalities and injuries) because the numbers of incidents was already down in the margins of statistically insignificant.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

quoted from doc, (my highlights)--

"2.59 Various reasons were cited for the need to review Part P. However, in
summary they related to the cost associated with demonstrating compliance
with the provisions rather than costs imposed by the way the work itself had to
be carried out, that is either the payment of a building control fee for the work
or payment of an annual fee to belong to a Competent Person Scheme to be
able to self-certify the work. It was often stated that such costs impacted
particularly on small firms. Furthermore, by falling only on those people that
actually sought to comply with the regime it was said this was both unfair and
failed to do anything to tackle those people who were most likely to be
responsible for unsafe work. "

Its only taken them 5 years to realise that this pretty much the same criticisms that were levelled at how badly the CSA was operating a few years ago - Too difficult to chase those who simply slip under the radar, so punish those we know about to compensate for lost revenue.

I wonder how long it will be until a fair system is put into place?

 

[cumbriahandyman]

I wonder how long it will be until a fair system is put into place?

What would constitute a fair system then?

 

[flameport]

A fair system is a single scheme, membership is compulsory, and it applies to all electrical work.

 

[mbga9pgf]

A fair system is a single scheme, membership is compulsory, and it applies to all electrical work.

Or, how about more manslaughter/GBH charges for those completing work that is unsafe and causing injury?

More stick, less carrot. Its quite simple. Anyone, either registered or unregistered can complete the paperwork, it all has to be submitted free of charge to the LABC (who is paid for through council tax). Any work can be then checked and charges pressed where injury/death occur. There needs to be an online system where people can review sparks, for their quality of work, value etc. I would rather pay a few more bob to get a job done properly without registration than some 5 day wonder residential registered part P cowboy that quite frankly wouldnt have a clue or the experience with more complex circuit elements.

Part P is fine. Its the nonsense fees that are complete and utter @rse.

 

[ricicle]

Part P is fine. Its the nonsense fees that are complete and utter @rse.

Exactly. £250 notification fee for me to add a £10 socket in my kitchen !

I wouldn't mind £1.50 to send an email with my certificate.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

£10 socket

Flash g**.

 

[1john]

A fair system is when all 'paid for' electrical work is carried out by registered electricians only. They should be registered with a scheme provider and be able to show qualifications and have at least 2 years working from being qualified of experience before being accepted onto a scheme. In other words treat is similar to gas in as much as not any old tom dick or harry can go about jobbing as a sparky.

DIY electrical work would be allowed, like with gas, although you need to be competent to do it. Proving that is a debate for another day.