Then since people are incessantly posting here about notifiable work, the mentioning of them is necessarily incessant too.
Maybe, but it can be done in ways which come across as being merely informative and not accusatory.
Why criticise me for starting with the assumption that people have obeyed the law?
A lot of people still have no idea that this legislation even exists. And of those that do, I'm sure you understand as well as I do that a large proportion of them are simply not going to pay extortionate notification fees to do a little wiring job in their own homes. Hence why I, and I'm sure many others, feel that the
way in which you bring up the issue of notification is rather confrontational.
But on the other hand, they don't seem to have been averse to applying extortionate and rapidly increasing charges for such notifications, up to over £400 minimum in one case quoted here recently.
They are required to cover their costs.
As I've said before, if their costs genuinely require such extortionate fees in order to break even, then the system is so hopelessly inefficient that it needs a major overhaul.
I would say that you should (under the rules) install a lighting point, then replace it with your ceiling fan under Schedule 4 1.(a). Of course, you actually just install the fan; you say you've taken the devious route if called on to justify the lack of notification.
That's a good approach, and not one I'd considered, but 1(a) certainly refers to just "replacement" of equipment without in any way specifying that you can't replace a light with a fan. More Part P silliness. Although I wonder what the official position would be if the fan I fitted had an integral light? Would it have been work which consists of adding a light fitting, as exempted by 2(c)(i), even though the same unit also included a fan?
Using the same sort of approach, one could
almost completely rewire a house without it being notifiable if it were done in the right way and did not involve replacing a consumer unit. Existing sockets, switches, light fittings, etc., including in kitchens and bathrooms, can all be replaced under the exemption in 1(a). The cables can all be replaced by damaging them, and then replacing them under the exemption in 1(b). Bonding of pipework etc. can be carried out under the exemption in 1(e). Extra sockets and lights could then be added under the exemption in 2(c). The only thing you couldn't do would be adding extra sockets and lights, or moving existing points, in the kitchen and bathroom.
I think most people would say it's ridiculous that one could do all of that while adding one extra socket in the kitchen would be notifiable. In terms of the concept of Part P improving safety that John mentioned earlier, I would agree that it is indeed crazy. But as the politicians are quick to point out when it comes to expenses claims, it would not have broken any of the rules.
Don't forget how these rules are practically enforced for DIY work.
Or how they are practically
unenforced, as you outline. Even if the work is clearly notifiable but is done without notification anyway, what's the worst that is ever likely to happen, realistically? The official spiel about how it might make it difficult to sell your house in the future is nothing more than a scare tactic. If you admit the non-notified work at sale time, the worst thing likely to happen is that you might end up paying for a PIR in order to satisfy the buyer that the system is sound, just the same as you might do anyway even if you'd never touched anything on the system the whole time you lived there.
If you've been doing a number of jobs over the years, how much is one PIR at sale time going to cost, compared to how much you would have paid in notification fees for each job over the years at £150 to £400 a time?