A question from another site.

[The Baker]

The following question was raised on www.argi.org.uk and I just wondered if anyone browsing through this site may have a suggestion.

The question is,

"I tried to do the right thing and asked a sparky (with all the latest most up to date qualifications) to help install an electric fire at a customers house.

The cable length of the new electric fire would not reach to the nearest point so we waited for Mr sparky to arrive. He arrived only to inform the customer he could not alter the existing electrical outlet because she had an old fuse board and it would need replacing, also the earth bonding was not sufficient so without a costly upgrade to the existing supply he could not do the work without contravening regulations.

So the upshot is I lost my sale, the sparky had a wasted visit and most probably the customer bought the electric fire from one of the "sheds" and used an extension lead to power up the appliance........

Has anyone who,s done part P come up with some suggestions?"


So, if anyone out there can help, please do.

regards,

Tim

 

[the_jinj]

Why didn't you sell her an extension lead?

Sparky done the right thing - there would be some others who would do the work anyway and ignore Part-P - best to avoid them.

EDIT - in fact surely this extra socket wouldn't be notifiable?

 

[dingbat]

EDIT - in fact surely this extra socket wouldn't be notifiable?

That's probably true but, notifiable or not, all domestic electrics come under the scope of Part P and, in any case, it's BS 7671 that governs the requirements for modification of circuits. Without seeing the situation first hand, however, it's not easy to see whether the spark was being over-zealous or otherwise.

 

[Adam_151]

Gnerally, the accepted wisdom is that if you arn't making the installation any more dangerous by doing the work, and the defeats arn't massivly dangerous, then the work is done, and the defeats noted on the cert and the customer informed of them.

To install an electric fire, if the ring is broken then that should be fixed before a heavy load is added to it, but if it lacks RCD protection, that shouldn't be a problem unless the socket installed for the fire is the nearest to a door/window (which could be got round by installing an RCD socket or fitting an FCU for the fire) of course the lack of RCD protection would be noted on the cert and pointed out.

Sounds like he was either paranoid, or making work for himself

 

[scousespark]

Dingbat was spot on with his reply. You have to see the installation before you can comment on whether the circuit could have been changed.

It is BS7671 that governs what you can do to an installation, not Part P.

Adam, only a cowboy would do a job on the basis that he has not made the installation more dangerous. The spark made the decision that the installation would need upgrading efore he would do the job. The customer decided not to get the upgrade, so the spark walked way.
It's not paranoia or job-creation, just part of the job.

 

[Spark123]

It is BS7671 that governs what you can do to an installation, not Part P.

I disagree with you on this comment, Part P of the building regs is the law which governs what a person can do in a domestic installation with and without notification, all electrical work in a domestic premises in England and Wales comes under Part P. BS7671 is a non-statutory document which can be used as a method of compliance with P1 of Part P.

 

[fattony]

I think your both wrong, both BS7671 and Part P must be followed. I need to get my head round this part p, just in case i start doing any domestic work.

Please confirm with me,

Before starting work in a domestic dwelling you must:

Check Main Earth
Check bonding to gas meter
Check bonding to main water
Check bonding to central heating pipes
Check bonding to pipes in bathroom

If the fuse board is the wylex re wirable type it must be upgraded to MCB's with RCD protecting sockets which could be used for portable appliances outside.

So I get a call asking a couple of additional sockets, I go to site and see the bonding's not up to scratch and the board requires updating. My price will go through the roof, all circuits would need to be tested and the customers just dont understand they will think your ripping them off. They will end up calling joe blogs who doesn't care about Part P and adds the sockets for penuts compared to what i was proposing.

 

[ebee]

you got it in essence ref earthing/bonding but rewireable fuses are still ok providing that all relevant requirements are met, however RCD protection for sockets reasonably expected foroutdoor thingy`s .
Part P is THE LAW, BS7671 (IEE Regs) is one way of achievinging this (and practicaly the easiest option in rea life - you could folow any EU reg in theory or perhaps even american /australian regs but that throws up a whole can of worms).
Therefore following BS is the only sure way but it is not actually law in itself. Actualy I wish it was it would make life easier.
Dear old BAS could put you pretty much in the picture, in fact if He was in chargeof such matters I can imagine life being simpler.
In a nutshell then `cosI`m waffling.
Part P is the law, BS 7671 is not but pretend it is and you should be OK

 

[Adam_151]

Part P says nothing of the sort, what Part P requires is remarkebly simple

Reasonable provision shall be made in the design, installation, inspection and testing of electrical installations in order to protect persons from fire and injury’

Which will be met if you work to BS7671 (but it is not the only way of complying) however some work is notifiable (which can be done through a scheme or straight to LABC), additionaly some aspects of you work may come under sections of the building regs covering things like fire safety and energy efficentcy.


As to what you check, I believe BS7671 states (quite sensibly) that parts of the installation that your work relies on to be safe, need to be sufficent*, if they are not, then you can correct major ones, and note more minor ones in deviations, comments about unrelated things go in 'comments on existing installation' you also, as a professional have a duty of care to the customer to draw their attention to defeats (recommend having the customer sign to say they have been informed, a quick list and two signitures on a carbon paper would seem to be ideal)

* Forgive me if this is not the case, I don't have a copy to hand

bans part p info: //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49116

EDIT: This might be an interesting read: http://www.theiet.org/Forums/forum/...readid=9012&highlight_key=y&keyword1=tracking escpecially the car comparisions

EDIT2: Sorry, was not a reply to Ebee, we were both replying to the same thing

 

[ebee]

Sorry I stand corrected.
Part P is the law.
The whatsit doc says BS7671 is ONE way of achieving this

 

[scousespark]

This is actually an example of why Part P is such an ill-conceived idea.
There are 2 issues for the spark.
1 He has to decide if the work is notifiable under Part P or not.
On the face of it it is minor works so is out of scope.

2 He has to decide if the installation is in a fit state to be changed.
This is covered by BS7671, which is non-statutory but is quoted in
relation to the EAWR89 (which is statutory).

Regardless of Part P ALL electrical work must be safe, and the easiest way to ensure safety is to follow BS7671.

 

[Jaymack]

Solution is: -

http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=23064&ts=72989

2 Gang 30mA rated tripping current control circuit.

Jaymack

 

[plugwash]

if i'm not mistaken EAW like part P suggests following BS7671 as one method of achiveing compliance but does not require it.

 

[ebee]

I think most of us would probably agree that BS7671 becomming mandatory would be a good move and make life simpler.
In the meantime the easiest /safest way is to treat it as if it is mandatory.

The only downside I can see is that it would cut some of the postings of dear old Ban All Sheds. OK I know some of you think He is quite abrasive and I agree that He can come accross this way sometimes, but I love his postings, they make folk think for themselves and I can`t actualloy remember a thread of his I`ve disagreed with (Yet), He does Forums a great service

 

[plugwash]

I think most of us would probably agree that BS7671 becomming mandatory would be a good move

have fun when all south west trains services stop because BS7671 doesn't recognise protection against direct contact by warning notices afaict.

ignoring that sort of issue (which could be covered by explicit exceptions) in the short term making 7671 mandatory would have little bad effect i agree. In the long term it would be handing a non-govermental organisation that has handed down ever more beurocratic regs even more of a stanglehold on the industry.

Not to mention it would get in the way of european harmonsization.