Todays Newspaper

[JohnW2]

It seems that extensions to existing circuits are not notifiable so a lot of work in kitchens will not be!

Indeed - and, as I recently said, I do seriously doubt that there was ever any evidence-based reason for making such activity notifiable in kitchens when it wasn't notifiable in most other rooms.

I also note that notifiable only applies to work within certain specified distances of a bath or shower so a lot will now fall outside the notifiable bracket!

Indeed - only in the specified zones. In the case of ceiling lighting (>2.4m), that certainly again makes total sense to me - I never understod why an inaccessible ceiling of a bathroom was materially different from the ceiling of other room.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

As you are not obliged to show the certificates to anyone, you would be entitled to burn them.

It is not possible to tell the difference between a certificate which exists, but no-one has ever seen, and a certificate which does not exist.

 

[JohnW2]

It does raise an interesting question of who needs the certificates. Would an electrician who did work on his own house, complete one and give it to himself? Would a house owner after doing DIY just fill one in?

As I understand it, virtually everyone relies on compliance with BS7671 as the method of 'demonstrating' compliance with Part P (since alternative approachges are much more difficult, particularly for DIYers) - and BS7671 requires certificates. So, yes, I think that whoever does the work should complete the relevent certificates and (in the case of a DIYer householder) retain them in case ever asked for them. This, of course, is the basis on which many people say/imply that it's effectively impossible for most non-electricians to comply with Part P, since they won't have the facilities and/or skills/knowledge to undertake the tests whose results need to be recorded on the certificates.

However, that's all true now, and won't change in April.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As you are not obliged to show the certificates to anyone, you would be entitled to burn them.

In some senses, yes - but, as I've just written to westie, if you cannot demonstrate that the certificates did at least once exist, you would have difficulty in proving that the work was undertaken in compliance with Part P, should anyone ever ask for that proof (which they won't!).

It is not possible to tell the difference between a certificate which exists, but no-one has ever seen, and a certificate which does not exist.

See above - that's the reason why inability to produce certificates would theoretically make it difficcult to prove that Part P had been complied with.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

The classic answer to that is that people such as a housebuyer's solicitor or an insurance company (in the case, for example, of a fire claim) could ask to see them them.

"Ah yes, we keep those in the kitchen drawer after the previous owner..... Damn! it was a kitchen fire wasn't it? No, I never did read the Sparkies spider scrawl name". Now what?

And yes, I do fully comply with Part P and have all the gear, and nous to do so. Just trying a contrary view!

 

[westie101]

Hmm, going back to the good (???) old days when the Electricity Board connected all installation on receipt of a Completion Certificate, these call some results to be written on them and signed by an appropriate person!

Generally no results were entered by anyone, but a signature accepting responsibility was a must! What testing did we do? Well a quick overall IR test,. a visual check of a few sockets and that was it. If we got it wrong we accepted some responsibility for it, but did keep the certificate on file for 6 years!

Was the number of deaths by faulty installations any worse then - I doubt it (but don't have figures)

 

[JohnW2]

Was the number of deaths by faulty installations any worse then - I doubt it (but don't have figures)

That's the $64,000 question, in relation to all sorts of changes. Current statistics on 'electrical deaths' are poor enough, but historical ones are generally pitiful. With not much over 20 domestic electrocution deaths per year in the UK at present, the total number due to faulty installations even today must be extremely low (albeit unknown), and the number due to faulty DIY work even lower - but I've been able to find little evidence that the figures were actually appreciably greater in recent decades. There is therefore little certainty (at least in my mind) that any of the changes (progressive tightening of regulations/regulation, introduction of RCDs, even introduction of Part P) have made a material difference.

Kind Regards, John

 

[viewer]

Although faulty installations themselves may have not been the cause of death and thus fatality figures show no obvious improvements to safety due to introductions of higher standards and technologies, this may hide real benefits.
RCD technology for example has saved injuries (electrical burns etc), prevented use of appliances likely to cause electrocution or fires and so on.

One of the major benefits of improved installations is that they give protection to users of appliances (most electrocutions, fires and injuries are due to appliance faults not installations) and it is harder to abuse the installation, for example 50 years ago a nail in a re-wireable fuseholder was not uncommon allowing the householder to run an electric fire from the lighting circuit. It's also worth noting the increase in number of appliances in use. Manufacturers of electrical fittings from sockets to lampshades to computers have had to meet standards which did not exist a few decades ago.

So, whilst not commenting upon the benefits or otherwise of paperwork, I'd suggest that we have benefited from tighter regulation and the introduction of new technologies but simply looking at crude death rates is misleading.

BTW examples are from experience, not anecdotal.

 

[Jackrae]

It all kind of pales into insignificance when you consider that, in 2011 alone, there were 1900 fatalities and 23000 serious injuries caused by (presumably licensed) drivers on British roads. Statutory obligations because the occasional person gets electrocuted but a total blind eye to other means of death.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Well the draft seems to allow for alterations to be made on existing circuits, that does not mean new circuits can be installed without notification, and it's a draft and yet to be confirmed.

Do you really think that they would have gone to the trouble of changing the Approved Document if they were not sure if the law was going to change?

At this moment in time as far as I am aware, the document is still at it's draft stages and it has not been implicated that this draft is going to become law, as there could still be alteration made to the draft.
Unless you know otherwise?

 

[maltaron]

It is interesting to note all the comments on this topic but I would consider that DIY work carried out by persons who contribute to websites such as this one and ask advice is the least of the problems. I would hasard a guess that around 75% of the householders in this country have not the slightest knowledge or interest that building regs actually exist and so carry out dangerous works of electrics, building, plumbing. gas etc with no thought of notifying anyone.

Also the suggestion that modern wiring principles with all the reference to RCD protection etc. improves safety is irrelevant if not generally advised widely. I know of at least 7 of the properties in the hamlet where I live still have the original rewirable fuse boards with not an RCD in sight, and at least one has just 2 switchfuses. When advised that it may be unsafe the general comment is "it works so it must be OK"

I would suggest that much wider education of the general public would do far more to improve safety than any piece of paper or council jobsworth. ( and, incidentally, would provide more work for the professionals)

 

[mfarrow]

It all kind of pales into insignificance when you consider that, in 2011 alone, there were 1900 fatalities and 23000 serious injuries caused by (presumably licensed) drivers on British roads. Statutory obligations because the occasional person gets electrocuted but a total blind eye to other means of death.

Indeed. There is also no limit or obligations in place regarding DIY work on motor vehicles.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It all kind of pales into insignificance when you consider that, in 2011 alone, there were 1900 fatalities and 23000 serious injuries caused by (presumably licensed) drivers on British roads. Statutory obligations because the occasional person gets electrocuted but a total blind eye to other means of death.

That number of fatalities was a record low.

I wouldn't say a blind eye is turned regarding the situation but that is a good quote because one thing I never understand is why there is not a compulsory eye test for all drivers.

I maintain that a lot of drivers cannot see well enough.


As for the electrical fatalities, if, as is said, part P was introduced because of one specific death then obviously part P itself cannot have helped.
The unfortunate truth is that twenty fatalities per annum (I always thought it was lower) is not enough to warrant extensive and expensive precautions.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed - and, as I recently said, I do seriously doubt that there was ever any evidence-based reason for making such activity notifiable in kitchens when it wasn't notifiable in most other rooms.

Of course there was.

There was considerable evidence that traditional electricians were losing work which they felt was rightfully theirs to kitchen fitters, which is why kitchens got added to the list of things where obstacles would be placed in the way of people who were not electricians.

 

[JohnW2]

Although faulty installations themselves may have not been the cause of death and thus fatality figures show no obvious improvements to safety due to introductions of higher standards and technologies, this may hide real benefits. ... I'd suggest that we have benefited from tighter regulation and the introduction of new technologies but simply looking at crude death rates is misleading.

Indeed - common sense suggests that this has got to be the case. That is why I usually comment, as I did, whenever people wheel out comments about fatalities in relation to such discussions - there are so few, and so poorly documented, fatalities that nothing could make any appreciable impact on them.

BTW examples are from experience, not anecdotal.

To be a little pedantic, that sounds remarkably like 'anecodotal' to me!

Kind Regards, John