Part P notification from April 2013

[SimonH2]

Doing it properly is the key!
By notification and documentation of correct procedures, that will go a long way to proving the correct methods have been used, if not, then you should be made accountable.

The problem is that what you say is true, but in practice unworkable.

As I see it, there are three main groups of DIYers (the boundaries are quite blurred though).

You've one group that is capable and knowledgable to do a decent job. All "Part P" did was **** them off, make them resent the rules in general, and/or make them into criminals.

You've a large group in the middle who know their limitations. If in doubt they'd ask.
But, you've now made it so that asking is tantamount to admitting in public that you're doing something illegal. So a large section of those will now go ahead without asking. Good safety policy - encourage people to now ask for help

And then there are those that will have carried on regardless, don't care what the law says (even if they know), and nothing will catch them (in practical terms).

So of those 3 groups, the main target was the last group - who really haven't been that much affected. The first two effectively get punished for the failings of others. IMO I believe the legislators have perhaps heard enough complaints to realise that what we currently have is counterproductive and so are relaxing the rules.

And of course, we all know that "Part P" has been a licence for the unscrupulous to squeeze money out of frightened grannies ...

 

[ericmark]

By notification and documentation of correct procedures, that will go a long way to proving the correct methods have been used. If not they have not., then they should be made accountable.

You may have hit the nail on the head. If the LABC takes money to ensure the work done is safe, and it turns out it's not safe, then they would be the guilty party. May be they have realised the councils are not inspecting as they should and are as a result opening themselves up to court cases similar to those over child care.

As I said before my son made an error on paperwork which showed the work as not complying where a box was moved on new paper work and he entered figures in the wrong box. He was never pulled up on the error so clearly his foreman in the firm, the scheme operator, and the LABC all failed to read the document.

As to not complying with BS7671 with good reason in Suffolk there was a whole block of houses built for the US servicemen and family with 110 volt transformers and USA type socket outlets. Not sure what happened about frequency think it was 50hz. However clearly these would not comply with BS7671. The same could be done for example for Polish workers giving German sockets throughout the house again would not comply with BS7671 but still safe.

This provision for different amounts of inspection according to skill of person doing the work could be a duel edged sword allowing the council to shift the blame where work done by a tradesman but putting the blame squarely shoulders of council inspectors where full fees are charged.

Being able to get third party inspectors must be good for council as again they are not responsible for any faults. But I note it's an electrical installation condition report which is asked for which to me seems wrong. There are already installation certificates with three signatures to my mind these should be used and the person doing the work has to also sign to say they did it right.

 

[SaladFingers]

Doing it properly is the key!
By notification and documentation of correct procedures, that will go a long way to proving the correct methods have been used, if not, then you should be made accountable.

The problem is that what you say is true, but in practice unworkable.

As I see it, there are three main groups of DIYers (the boundaries are quite blurred though).

You've one group that is capable and knowledgable to do a decent job. All "Part P" did was p**s them off, make them resent the rules in general, and/or make them into criminals.

If they do a decent job, then they probably haven't gone against the grain of Part P.

You've a large group in the middle who know their limitations. If in doubt they'd ask.
But, you've now made it so that asking is tantamount to admitting in public that you're doing something illegal. So a large section of those will now go ahead without asking. Good safety policy - encourage people to now ask for help

I see your point, but asking isn't tantamount to admitting doing something illegal. It's never been illegal to do any work themselves.

And then there are those that will have carried on regardless, don't care what the law says (even if they know), and nothing will catch them (in practical terms).

So of those 3 groups, the main target was the last group - who really haven't been that much affected. The first two effectively get punished for the failings of others. IMO I believe the legislators have perhaps heard enough complaints to realise that what we currently have is counterproductive and so are relaxing the rules.

And of course, we all know that "Part P" has been a licence for the unscrupulous to squeeze money out of frightened grannies ...

 

[SimonH2]

If they do a decent job, then they probably haven't gone against the grain of Part P.

But, they will have been made a criminal for failing to observe the notification requirements associated with "Part P" (I put "PartP" in quotes as that's what the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks of) or will have been p***ed off by having to get someone in for something they could have done themselves.

 

[SaladFingers]

If they do a decent job, then they probably haven't gone against the grain of Part P.

But, they will have been made a criminal for failing to observe the notification requirements associated with "Part P" (I put "PartP" in quotes as that's what the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks of) or will have been p***ed off by having to get someone in for something they could have done themselves.

Who said they haven't or won't notify? You're assuming.

As Bas says, notification and Part P are two different things.

 

[EFLImpudence]

or will have been p***ed off by having to get someone in for something they could have done themselves.

That's what everyone says but they don't have to get someone.

For a (soon to be very few) notifiable job they have to inform the LA.
That may very well p*** them off but it's the law and without doing so they are, in fact, not allowed to do the work and nor would I be if I were not registered..

 

[SimonH2]

OK, I'll rephrase it. For "can't" read "can't without paying ridiculous fees to LABC".

As Bas says, notification and Part P are two different things.

Which is why I specifically noted that I was using "Part P" (in quotes) in the way the general public see it - not the technically correct sense. To the majority of the public, it's all "Part P" - insisting on people understanding the difference between Part P and notification is as futile as expecting most people to use "low voltage" in the technically correct sense.

 

[SaladFingers]

expecting most people to use "low voltage" in the technically correct sense.

All of my lighting is low voltage

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My entire house runs on low voltage.

 

[AdamCH]

Neither of you have any 12v fittings at all?

 

[SaladFingers]

Neither of you have any 12v fittings at all?

I don't see the point of 12v lighting (excluding why one may use one in a shower cubicle).

 

[dingodeano]

I've not seen a domestic fan isolator switch that has any facility to lock it off,

Mk logic.

 

[dingodeano]

Neither of you have any 12v fittings at all?

I don't see the point of 12v lighting (excluding why one may use one in a shower cubicle).

It's a crisper brighter light. Better for displays in retail. Unless customers can afford metal halide. But as far as domestic use I personally haven't spec'ed Extra low voltage fittings for a few years.

 

[dingodeano]

I personally think that there should be one certification body and that should issue licences to electricians based on their ability - judged at yearly visit. But maybe that's for another topic.
I would like to know who BAS or anyone else thinks lobbied the government for the changes to the approved document this time or why even there has been changes?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would like to know who BAS or anyone else thinks lobbied the government for the changes to the approved document this time or why even there has been changes?

That's a good question.

The thing I find most puzzling is that kitchen fitters etc. will no longer be required to notify, either directly to the LA or self-certification schemes.

So, perhaps it was pertinent that you directed your question at BAS.