Interesting post on SF

[comms]

Wonder if it will work?

http://www.screwfix.com/talk/thread.jspa?threadID=78263&tstart=0

 

[spongsdad]

A number of different thoughts come to mind some of them admittedly a bit disjointed.
1) Awareness of Part P may be high amongst those who are qualified and posters to this forum, but I imagine it is very low or unheard of amongst the general public.
2) LABC's though charged with enforcing the policy, in the main lack the resources to do so effectively and indeed interpretation is not always consistent.
3) By far the majority of domestic premises in this country will have installations which do not conform with 15th edition let alone 16th or 17th.
I have no access to any figures but there must still be hundreds of thousands of premises protected by nothing more than rewireable fuses. In how many of these properties will there be fires caused by the electrical installation or deaths from electric shock?
4) Laudable as part P may be,surely a better return on investment would be obtained by ensuring as far as possible, enthusiastic DIYers had sufficient information to carry out a job safely rather than threatening draconian consequences for not jumping through the hoops of part P.
5) Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I can't help but feel that a reasonably skilled person upgrading his circuit protection equipment is (on balance) improving the safety of his system.
6) Would it not therefore, be better to try and give clear advice on this forum rather than bang on about work "being notifiable" (Although I do agree that this needs to be pointed out together with the advice)
7) Finally, and to put all this into some sort of perspective, does anyone have reliable information as to the level of deaths and serious injuries brought about by installation failure attributed to failure to conform to BS 7671? Indeed does anybody have any reliable information as to what percentage of British housing stock actually has domestic installations that conform to BS 7671?

 

[JohnD]

It looks to me like they are trying to control professionals who are charging householders but not doing a proper job.

No objection to that.

It does not seem to be trying to track down the householder who has DIY-fitted a new socket in the kitchen or fitted an outdoor lighting without notifying, nor policing the old house with a cast-iron fusebox and rubber cables.

 

[stargazer]

1) Awareness of Part P may be high amongst those who are qualified and posters to this forum, but I imagine it is very low or unheard of amongst the general public.

Agreed.

2) LABC's though charged with enforcing the policy, in the main lack the resources to do so effectively and indeed interpretation is not always consistent.

I don’t think they have the money to care - they much prefer the Competent Persons Route – let somebody else deal with the administration and paperwork.

3) By far the majority of domestic premises in this country will have installations which do not conform with 15th edition let alone 16th or 17th.
I have no access to any figures but there must still be hundreds of thousands of premises protected by nothing more than rewireable fuses. In how many of these properties will there be fires caused by the electrical installation or deaths from electric shock?

I have read around 12,500 fires a year are attributed to faulty electrics.

4) Laudable as part P may be,surely a better return on investment would be obtained by ensuring as far as possible, enthusiastic DIYers had sufficient information to carry out a job safely rather than threatening draconian consequences for not jumping through the hoops of part P.

Agreed. As stated you’re unlikely to be prosecuted by your Council for non-compliance – they have better things to do. So in the absence of proper enforcement, certain interested parties are now banging on about invalid house insurance and HIPs, basically in an attempt to frighten people into notifying, or preferably, into using the Competent Persons Scheme.

5) Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I can't help but feel that a reasonably skilled person upgrading his circuit protection equipment is (on balance) improving the safety of his system.

Agreed. You are now in a minority of two.

6) Would it not therefore, be better to try and give clear advice on this forum rather than bang on about work "being notifiable" (Although I do agree that this needs to be pointed out together with the advice)

Yes, a balance needs to be struck. Maybe we should all change our signatures to “your proposed work may be notifiable [part p link]”. Then again, maybe not! It is in the sticky but how many posters look there first?

7) Finally, and to put all this into some sort of perspective, does anyone have reliable information as to the level of deaths and serious injuries brought about by installation failure attributed to failure to conform to BS 7671? Indeed does anybody have any reliable information as to what percentage of British housing stock actually has domestic installations that conform to BS 7671?

Installation failures = 10 deaths a year.

Compared to, say, the number of deaths caused by people habitually breaking the speed limit and driving without due care and diligence

= 3,200 deaths a year.