"Kitchen" - more Part P silliness?

[JohnW2]

Looking at a thread about some minor work in a kitchen has made me think about this ....

One of my neighbours has a fairly atypical setup - a smallish 'kitchen' with just a cooker (actually run on LPG), a microwave, a sink and 'food preparation facilities' (lots of worksurfaces, cupboards etc.). An adjacent large 'utility room' contains a washing machine, dryer, dishwasher, fridge/freezer and sink but no 'food preparation facilities' (for a start, no 'work surfaces').

The Schedule of Part B defines a kitchen as "a room or part of a room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities".

Taking the rules literally, this seems to indicate that electrical work in the'utility room' would not be notifiable on the basis of being in a 'kitchen' (although it obviously might be notifiable for other reasons), despite the fact that, in terms of electricity/water, the room contains almost as much as most kitchens (lacking only a cooker). Is that how people would interpret the situation?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's how anybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size and who can read English would interpret it.

It all makes perfect sense when you realise that the raison d'etre of Part P was nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with giving "electricians" control over the electrical aspects of kitchen and bathroom fitting, because people do, or have done, lots of those, and they were seen by the industry bodies as nice little earners which should belong to electricians, not kitchen fitters or plumbers.

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1008744#1008744

 

[kevindgas]

not so as it would fall under the "bathroom" classification as it has water outlets. so therefore would still be classed as a special location.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't be stupid.

 

[JohnW2]

That's how anybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size and who can read English would interpret it.

Quite - and it really is totally daft. As you might imagine, the door between the 'kitchen' and the 'utility room' is more-or-less permanently open- so that, apart from a small bit of wall, the whole is functionally just one large 'kitchen'

It all makes perfect sense when you realise that the raison d'etre of Part P was nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with giving "electricians" control over the electrical aspects of kitchen and bathroom fitting, because people do, or have done, lots of those, and they were seen by the industry bodies as nice little earners which should belong to electricians, not kitchen fitters or plumbers.

I can certainly agree that it's nothing to do with safety, for the reasons illustrated by the example I gave. As for what it is to do with, one can but speculate; one would hope that the interests of 'industry bodies' (and their members) would not influence legislation, but I'm not so naive as to believe that hope is necessarily realised! I suppose it could be that it arose because it 'sounds' as if it is to do with safety, and therefore might have been perceived as good for political/PR reasons - but that, too, is mere speculation.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

not so as it would fall under the "bathroom" classification as it has water outlets. so therefore would still be classed as a special location.

What? !!!!! With respect, that is a really silly suggestion.

Even a room with a basin, toilet and bidet (but no bath or shower) does not count as a 'bathroom'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

one would hope that the interests of 'industry bodies' (and their members) would not influence legislation, but I'm not so naive as to believe that hope is necessarily realised!

NICEIC and the ECA lobbied successive governments for years to get statutory controls on who could do electrical work. There was never a geniune safety case for it.

 

[kevindgas]

well that just shows the stupidity of it all! i stand corrected!! was always under the impression that any room with water came under the remit. learn new things every day!

 

[Paul_C]

Taking the rules literally, this seems to indicate that electrical work in the'utility room' would not be notifiable on the basis of being in a 'kitchen' (although it obviously might be notifiable for other reasons), despite the fact that, in terms of electricity/water, the room contains almost as much as most kitchens (lacking only a cooker).

Those are the rules, daft as they are. But then ever since I saw the first list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable jobs in 2004 I've pointed out that there are numerous such silly situations as this. For example, a few months ago I fitted a ceiling fan in my living room. According to Schedule 4, that's a notifiable job. But if I'd run exactly the same 6 feet or so of cable from exactly the same junction box on the lighting circuit and fitted an extra light instead, that would have been exempt. So apparently I can be trusted to the put three wires into a light fitting correctly, but not to connect the same three wires to a ceiling fan without some official supervision. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

The same sort of thing could be applied to a kitchen. If it's supposedly so much more dangerous for somebody to run a few feet of cable to a new socket and connect it up that he needs supervision, then why allow him to replace an existing socket without notification? If he's likely to make a mess of wiring up that new socket, what guarantee is there that he won't mess up fitting a replacement socket to the existing cables?

There are dozens of such comparisons one could imagine which illustrate the inconsistency of notifiable vs. non-notifiable electrical works.

It all makes perfect sense when you realise that the raison d'etre of Part P was nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with giving "electricians" control over the electrical aspects of kitchen and bathroom fitting, because people do, or have done, lots of those, and they were seen by the industry bodies as nice little earners which should belong to electricians, not kitchen fitters or plumbers.

Or householders. BAS and I might disagree vehemently about some aspects of Part P interpretation, but on this point we seem to be agreed: The introduction of Part P had almost nothing to do with actually improving electrical safety, that's just the excuse used to impose it.

not so as it would fall under the "bathroom" classification as it has water outlets. so therefore would still be classed as a special location.

I would suggest you read the relevant definition in Schedule 4:

“special location” means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, seventeenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2008

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/4/made

 

[JohnW2]

well that just shows the stupidity of it all! i stand corrected!! was always under the impression that any room with water came under the remit. learn new things every day!

As you say, a lot of it is plain stupid.

It was always going to be so difficult/impossible to define scope for notification (without loopholes and/or absurdities) that, IMO, they should either have not tried or else should have made any/all electrical work notifiable - but, even in the latter case, I imagine that compliance would have been very poor.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Paul_C]

NICEIC and the ECA lobbied successive governments for years to get statutory controls on who could do electrical work. There was never a geniune safety case for it.

And as one local authority bureaucrat let slip on another forum, the electrical installations of houses were seen as being the last major aspect of the building not to be controlled in any way by the building regulations. They had to correct that "oversight," of course, and the fact that the statistics indicated absolutely no need for regulation wasn't going to stop them grabbing an opportunity to seize more control and to collect more money.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It was always going to be so difficult/impossible to define scope for notification (without loopholes and/or absurdities) that, IMO, they should either have not tried or else should have made any/all electrical work notifiable - but, even in the latter case, I imagine that compliance would have been very poor.

IANAL, but I can't think of any reason why they could not have:

1) Made compliance with BS 7671 mandatory.

2) Made the following notifiable:

• Work in or on anything defined in BS 7671 as a Special Location or Installation
• Work which requires an EIC
• Work outside the equipotential zone

But that wouldn't have caught kitchens, so would not have sated the financial desires of NICEIC and the ECA.


Disclaimer - (2) above are just quick, initial thoughts - I'm not suggesting that there wouldn't be inconsistencies when looked at closely.

 

[JohnW2]

BAS and I might disagree vehemently about some aspects of Part P interpretation, but on this point we seem to be agreed: The introduction of Part P had almost nothing to do with actually improving electrical safety, that's just the excuse used to impose it.

I think that,for once, we are all agreed on that.

Where there is more scope for discussion/speculation is in relation to what the motives really were. I tend not to be a great subscriber to 'conspiracy theories' etc. so I'm quite prepared to entertain the possibility that it may have genuinely been based on well-intentioned but misguided and badly implemented considerations of perceived safety.

In any event, as has often been discussed here, before it makes much sense to 'authorise' certain people to undertake and self-certify certain electrical works, it would be necessary to considerably improve the system for ensuring that those people so 'authorised' actually are, and remain,'competant'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the fact that the statistics indicated absolutely no need for regulation wasn't going to stop them grabbing an opportunity to seize more control and to collect more money.

Just like you aren't going to allow the fact that, taken as a whole, LABCs have done nothing except to try and prevent unregistered people from notifying to stop you using this forum as part of your never-ending and incredibly tedious moaning about Big Government.

 

[JohnW2]

IANAL, but I can't think of any reason why they could not have:
1) Made compliance with BS 7671 mandatory.

It certainly appears daft that the legislation contains no detail requirements and, as you suggest, they could have made BS7671 mandatory with just a few words and virtually no effort. However, as we've discussed in the past, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons they have not done that is that BS7671, as it currently is, is nowhere near 'good' (unambiguous, exhaustive etc.) enough to become enshrined in legislation and hence have its interpretation challengable in the courts.

2) Made the following notifiable:

• Work in or on anything defined in BS 7671 as a Special Location or Installation
• Work which requires an EIC
• Work outside the equipotential zone

But that wouldn't have caught kitchens, so would not have sated the financial desires of NICEIC and the ECA.
Disclaimer - (2) above are just quick, initial thoughts - I'm not suggesting that there wouldn't be inconsistencies when looked at closely.

As you say in your disclaimer, and attempt at such a list is almost inevitably going to contain inconsistencies, loophole and absurdities. In fact, apart from missing kitchens, what you propose is not all that different from the present status quo.

Kind Regards, John.