Has Part P lost what few teeth it had?

[JohnW2]

Are we saying there is confusion as to whether a board change is notifiable?

I'm not sure which 'we' you're talking about, but one of the few things which remains (in England) explicitly notifiable, and very few people have argued about, is 'replacing a consumer unit'. I really don't think one can sensibly get around that by 'installing a new CU' alongside the old one (arguably not notifiable) and then 'transfering all existing circuits' (hence no notifiable 'new circuits') from the old one to the new - since that is really just a method of 'replacing a CU'! However, I suppose there "will always be one" who will try that argument!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattylad]

I was just going to mention that, what if I fitted a CU next to my existing one (( have one bought before part P came in waiting for fitting), left it there 6 months then transferred a few circuits over. Then a while later moved some more. It "exists" - whether its new or old it exists.

Methinks I want the new part P doc

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If think the issue here is "Notifiable Work" rather than "Part P".
I personally believe, if the nature of Part P is safety, then all work should be notifiable, simply because once you have opened an enclosure and/or terminated/re-terminated conductors, there is a possibility that a fault or an unsafe situation could be introduced (if not already existing).
And with correct I&T and documents to represent/back up this work, and a register to confirm what work was done, then that would make things a lot safer.

I know that will never happen, but if we are trying to keep things safe what is the alternative?

And at the end of the day, I come across that many jobs, that have not been notified, without any records of I&T. That I doubt anybody really cares, other than the electricians that have a little bit about them!

 

[JohnW2]

I was just going to mention that, what if I fitted a CU next to my existing one (( have one bought before part P came in waiting for fitting), left it there 6 months then transferred a few circuits over. Then a while later moved some more. It "exists" - whether its new or old it exists.

I think we probably all agree that the new wording they produced as regards notification almost certainly does not really reflect what they 'intended' - since I agree that one could easily argue that what you describe above was not notifiable (and I don't think that anyone believes that this was their intent). In fact, you wouldn't really need the 6 months gap for that argument - it could be 6 hours!

Mind you, the new notification rules don't even apply in Wales, so I doubt that they do in BVI

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If think the issue here is "Notifiable Work" rather than "Part P". I personally believe, if the nature of Part P is safety, then all work should be notifiable, simply because ...

As you say, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Part P itself; it merely gives a legal basis for what we all already expect - that electrical work should be done safely. I also have to agree that, in theory, there is little point (in general, not just for the specific reasons you give) in having such a legal requirement unless it is fully policed - which, as you say, in theory would require all work to notifiable. By analogy, there would be no point in having laws (and signs) enforcong speed limits on roads if we then just relied on the fact that everyone would obey those rules, without any 'checks'or 'policing' that they really were.

And with correct I&T and documents to represent/back up this work, and a register to confirm what work was done, then that would make things a lot safer. I know that will never happen ....

As you say, that will never happen. Nor would it necessarily be an answer, unless the system involved widespread third-party inspection/audit.

...but if we are trying to keep things safe what is the alternative?

Probably nothing which is practical. The only 'total solution' would be for all electrical work to be both notifiable and subjected to third-party inspection - which I think would be totally impractical, and undoubtedly far from 'cost-effective'.

One of the problems is getting a handle on the magnitude of the safety issue, which is an essential starting point for deciding what (if anything) we need to do to address it. If we knew that there was a horrendous problem of deaths, injuries and property damage resulting from sub-standard electrical work, then 'we' (society) would have no option other than to introduce some draconian measures - but I really don't think that's the situation.

In practice, we are starved of useful statistics. Anything other than (the tiny number of) deaths due to electricity is very poorly documented - and, even with the deaths, it's imposible to determine how many (if any) had anything to do with unsatisfactory electrical installations. 'Electrical cause' is seemingly used as a scapegoat for fires when no other cause can be found and, in any event, a high proportion of the 'electrical fires' are reported as being due to things other than the electrical installation - e.g. due to appliances, consumer abuses (e.g. 'overloading') or 'putting objects too close to a source of heat'.

All-in-all, we haven't really got any good clue as to how many deaths, injuries and fires are due to problems in electrical installations, nor how many of those that were due to sub-standard installations related to work which had been notified (and self-certified or LABC-certified). It therefore might well be the case that, perhaps contrary to our intuition, 'incidents' related to un-notified electrical work may actually be very rare - and hence perhaps not justifying a complex and expensive 'system' to attempt to reduce such incidents further.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

At least now BAS has to find another reason to tell people they can't do what they want.

I've never told people they can't do what they want because of notification, and in fact in my Wiki article on Part P etc I wrote

Please note that the reason for advising you about Part P and the notification requirements in the Building Regulations is not to hide behind the law as an excuse for not giving advice.

The concern of this site is safety and the giving of good advice, and part of the latter requires telling you about the law because ignorance of it is no excuse, as they say.
.
.

If as a fully informed decision you decide to ignore the law, then that's up to you - it's not the job of this site to enforce the law.

But neither is it to tell you how to do things which could have implications for you without making sure that you are aware of the law.

Any concerns I have about people doing DIY work are always, and have always been, entirely competence-related.

 

[JohnW2]

Any concerns I have about people doing DIY work are always, and have always been, entirely competence-related.

That's how it should be. However, there's the dilemma we've often discussed. If you look at the questions posted in this forum (and similar forums), the great majority of them are very basic questions which would not need to be asked by someone who was fully (or, in a good few cases, remotely) competent to do the work in question. Does that mean that we should rarely answer questions, other than by giving advice about how to acquire knowledge/competence (or simply advising posters not to do the work)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the multiple previous occasions I've answered that question, or one very like it, from him,

 

[JohnW2]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the multiple previous occasions I've answered that question, or one very like it, from him,

Indeed, but the 'we' of forum members continue to answer countless questions which a competent person would not need to ask.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes - but there is a big difference between giving an answer which increases knowledge, leads to understanding, and helps with the finding of other information which increases knowledge and leads to understanding, and telling the poster what to do because they do not have and thus do not need to acquire understanding.

 

[riveralt]

Yes - but there is a big difference between giving an answer which increases knowledge, leads to understanding, and helps with the finding of other information which increases knowledge and leads to understanding, and telling the poster what to do because they do not have and thus do not need to acquire understanding.

You have every right to inform/teach others to gain the necessary knowledge they need to complete work they started, but you have absolutely no right to tell those with the knowledge and experience that they should (implied must) follow your approach.
Nor can you castigate those who find your approach offensive and damaging to this DIY forum - you are driving people away.
You clearly have little patience with those who have little or no knowledge and seemingly little patience with those who have the knowledge and are patient enough to 'Lead' others out of the problems they are experiencing.
This IS still a DIY forum and I for one will continue to try and help people.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes - but there is a big difference between giving an answer which increases knowledge, leads to understanding, and helps with the finding of other information which increases knowledge and leads to understanding, and telling the poster what to do because they do not have and thus do not need to acquire understanding.

There is, indeed, a difference between those two approaches (and it's obvious which would be preferable in an ideal world) but my point was that many posters continue to get 'answers of the second kind', despite your expressed views. When I give such answers, which I sometimes do, I do attempt to give explanations, rather than just a 'list of instructions', but I don't know to what extent anyone takes any notice of that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You have every right to inform/teach others to gain the necessary knowledge they need to complete work they started, but you have absolutely no right to tell those with the knowledge and experience that they should (implied must) follow your approach.

I have absolutely every right to do that when I believe with utter certainty that they are in the wrong.

You believe I am wrong, and yet here you are telling me that I must not do things which you believe are wrong. Can you spell hypocrite?

Nor can you castigate those who find your approach offensive and damaging to this DIY forum - you are driving people away.

As far as I am concerned, and again utter certainty and zero doubts apply here, anybody who does not want to learn, and who does think it OK to muddle along, guessing and doing electricity-by-numbers without truly understanding what they are doing and how it works have no business doing it.

You clearly have little patience with those who have little or no knowledge

Untrue.

I have little patience with those who have little or no knowledge and who do not see that their ignorance should in any way be a bar to them fiddling with things.

and seemingly little patience with those who have the knowledge and are patient enough to 'Lead' others out of the problems they are experiencing.

True, when their leading consists of telling people to put-this-wire-in-that-hole so that they can be led by the nose and still not have any idea of what they are doing.

This IS still a DIY forum and I for one will continue to try and help people.

That sort of help is shallow and transitory, and a disservice.

 

[mattylad]

Well there goes another thread......