That's why the assesor comes to visit every year and picks out two or three jobs at random to go and look at.
Scrap Part P?
- Thread starter Mad_Doctor_X
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Not by the standards of the day, but things change, technological advances occur, standards improve.
Would you want cars to go back to the standards of safety that they had in the 1930s?
Not all.
It may well be that you can't, but nobody is telling you that you may not. They are telling you that you must make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.
Do you have a problem with that?
They are also telling you that for non-trivial work you have to notify them so that they can check that you have complied with the above requirement. Leaving aside the distortion of putting kitchens on the same footing as bathrooms, that too seems like a reasonable idea.
Or do you think that there should be no legal standards applied to the design and construction of houses, and that anybody who buys one just has to take his chances that it won't kill him?
When you get people who can't change light fittings without creating short circuits, don't have a clue about what the terms "load" and "supply" on an FCU mean, have no idea about how, where and why cables need overcurrent protection and don't even know the difference between switches and circuit breakers it's hard to agree that there should be no attempts to raise standards.
[sigh...]
Mbga9pgf, you are deluded. You don't even have a proper name - it looks like the sort of user name that a troll might adopt. But what would I know, eh?
You don't understand because you don't understand and you almost certainly will not accept any answer that does not agree with your opinion.
That's fine, but I'm out of this one because it just sounds like you're here to stir up trouble.
part p should never have been instead an electrical test should have been included in the hip packs when a house is to be marketed, no pass = no forsale sign
Sponsored Links
I have no issue with notifying them. I object to the extortionate amounts of money it costs to do so. Of course there has to be a legal standard. But what is going on is pure daylight robbery, so thanks, I will takes me chances and choose not to line the pockets of some scrote in the council planning offices thanks, who hopefully will be collecting his P45 in the post courtesy of the coalition government.
We have just bought a home with full knowledge it had no certificates. Did it bother me? Not in the slightest. We are far too wrapped in cotton wool these days, people need to take far more responsibility for what they do instead of trying to hide behind litigation and reams of red tape.
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
What ever happened to buyer beware? If someone wants to pay £100K+ on a house and not bother getting a proper survey done, then that's their problem. Thank God hips are going as well.
I've had three lots of professional electrical work done on my house and not one of them has followed the regs to the letter. Do I care? No, their work was safe and I've got a stupid piece of paper to say that it passed and that's all that counts. Ain't progress wonderful?
To be fair, all a survey would do (as our building survey did) was mention getting in a specialist to get the electrics checked... as did most of the other items on the survey.Complete waste of money and surveyors only come second in my estimations to the local planning office.
So when you were advised to get certain things checked, what did you do, did you ignore them? have you got a boiler leaking carbon monoxide into your house??
If you could come up with the data that empirically PROVES part P has increased safety by a significant margin, then I will concede the point. But we both know that isnt true.
Which then leads me to the conclusion the only reason part P was introduced was yet another jobsworth creation scheme on behalf of the Labour government. I have no issue with increased safety, which is already achieved in British standards. I have issue with the notification requirement. Part P is nothing more than government enbuggerancing DIYers and creating jobs that are effectively worthless.
I expect to get something slightly more for 800 quid than "get an expert to check it", which off the count, 87% of items included as part of the write up. Chancers.
As for the CO, I dont know. I will let you know as soon as we have the gas tank filled, system checked and I install the carbon monoxide detector. Gas and CO is something entirely different to squiggly amps; squiggly amps dont leak out of tested insulated wires and explode, nor do the combustion products of squiggly amps kill you in your sleep, if yoiu have followed British standards when carrying out an installation.
Oh, getting the gas supply tested costs a quarter of the cost of getting the electrics checked out.
Yer gotta have some method of checking that its done properly or not.
However flawed or expensive that method is you can not have no method at all!
However flawed or expensive that method is you can not have no method at all!
Checking an electrical installation takes much longer than checking a gas suppy. You can also use the quotation for remedial works to negotiate on the asking price.
'Squiggly amps' that arn't checked can be leathal.
'Squiggly amps' that arn't checked can be leathal.
Your conclusion is deeply flawed. The way that so many LABCs did their utmost to get out of doing anything regarding notifiable electrical work shows that the last thing that it was was a jobsworth creation.
I fear that you are being irrational, and should probably get together with Paul_C for some mutual moaning about big government and the international socialist conspiracy.
So do you think that the mere existence of standards is enough? That there should be no regime of checking that people comply with them?
Maybe you should get in touch with the government - I'm sure it would be cheaper to give everybody a copy of the Highway Code and all the various Road Traffic Acts, and then abolish the driving test, breathalysers, speed cameras, the traffic police etc, since all the safety one needs would be achieved just by having the laws.
This is Part P:
P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.
That's it in its entirety.
No its not.
This is part P in its entirety:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf
And it says that I have to submit an application simply to carry out a new installation. Jobsworth creation pure and simple.
I ask again, where is the evidence, empirical evidence, that Part P has improved safety?
No its not.
This is part P in its entirety:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf[/QUOTE]
No - that is Approved Document P.
Part P is a part of the Building Regulations.
It was originally created by Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3210, The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004, which added this to the existing Building Regulations:
That was later amended by SI 2006 No. 652, The Building and Approved Inspectors (Amendment) Regulations 2006:
Leaving us with:
"Simply"?
The only people who think that new installations are simple are simpletons.
Since not one LABC welcomed Part P with open arms and went out and hired people in order to meet their new responsibilities this cannot be true.
There is none.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
