"Kitchen" - more Part P silliness?

[JohnW2]

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.

I'm a bit confused here - I thought you two were actually agreed for once!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

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.

I'm quite prepared to accept that there were those in both the trade organizations and the government who knew full well that it was not at all about improving safety but about work protectionism (NICEIC et al) and about correcting that "oversight" of electrics being the last major unregulated aspect of houses (the government).

However I'll concede that in all probability there were those involved in the process who were used as convenient pawns by the others and who may have genuinely, through misinformation, been led to believe that it was for safety.

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

1) Made compliance with BS 7671 mandatory.

Would that not have been deemed impermissible under one of the EU "harmonization" regulations? I don't believe that the specific references to other EU/EEA standards in the Approved Document are there for any other reason, since no other standards besides those and BS7671 are mentioned.

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.

Well, for somebody who agrees that Part P was introduced for no good reason, you seem to indulge in some incredibly tedious reminders about it at every opportunity when anyone asks a question on this forum.

But what exactly are you getting at with the first part of that comment? have LABC's tried to discourage householders and other non-registered people from notifying electrical work? Undoubtedly. Numerous councils have tried to mislead by implying that some works "must" be done by a registered electrician. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm quite prepared to accept that there were those in both the trade organizations and the government who knew full well that it was not at all about improving safety ... However I'll concede that in all probability there were those involved in the process who were used as convenient pawns by the others and who may have genuinely, through misinformation, been led to believe that it was for safety.

I think we're probably all being a bit unfair in what we're saying about safety. The concept, if not implementation, of Part P almost certainly has the potential to improve safety to some extent. If properly implemented and policed, and with measures in place to ensure that 'competent' people really were competent, it would at least ensure that some work which would otherwise be undertaken incompetently was actually being done competently.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

I agree that the concept has the potential for improving safety. But for the reasons you've outlined already, the present implementation and policing pretty much wipes out any potential gain, and in fact I would go so far as to say that it might well have a detrimental effect. Look at the situation in places like Australia and New Zealand where an extremely strict regulatory regime resulted in a distinct decrease in electrical safety in the home.

The issue of competency certainly highlights another glaring inconsistency in the current Part P regime, where, to take another example, a highly experienced industrial electrician with years of practice under his belt and the highest qualifications in the field can be trusted to install the entire electrical system in a factory, but is then supposedly not suitably qualified to fit a few sockets in his own kitchen. Yet one of those "five-day wonders" who really has no grasp of some of the most basic electrical principles apparently is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Would that not have been deemed impermissible under one of the EU "harmonization" regulations?

As I said, IANAL, but as long as our standards are harmonised, I don't think we would be forbidden from mandating them.

Well, for somebody who agrees that Part P was introduced for no good reason, you seem to indulge in some incredibly tedious reminders about it at every opportunity when anyone asks a question on this forum.

That's because it is there - the regulations exist, and people don't become exempt from them because of what you, I, they, or anybody else thinks about the circumstances which led to them being passed.

But what exactly are you getting at with the first part of that comment? have LABC's tried to discourage householders and other non-registered people from notifying electrical work? Undoubtedly. Numerous councils have tried to mislead by implying that some works "must" be done by a registered electrician. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.

The point that I'm trying to make is that whatever special interests were at work when regulation was being sought, they most assuredly did not include LABCs seeking a land-grab and another revenue stream. The last thing they wanted was to be given electrical work to control, which is why so many went to such lengths to stop people from submitting requests and handing over money.

 

[Paul_C]

As I said, IANAL, but as long as our standards are harmonised, I don't think we would be forbidden from mandating them.

But is BS7671 the same as any of those other standards? Despite the pre-BS7671 15th edition being based on an outline European model standard, and despite changes in the 16th and 17th editions which might have brought BS7671 closer to the standards of those other EU countries, there are still some substantial differences.

That's because it is there - the regulations exist, and people don't become exempt from them because of what you, I, they, or anybody else thinks about the circumstances which led to them being passed.

Yes, the regulations, bad as they are, exist. There is justification in mentioning them to be sure that somebody knows they exist and can then choose to ignore the notification requirements if he wishes after considering any possible ramifications of doing so. But the incessant comments along the lines of "How did you say you would comply with P1 when you submitted your plans for approval under the building regulations?" come across rather differently.

The point that I'm trying to make is that whatever special interests were at work when regulation was being sought, they most assuredly did not include LABCs seeking a land-grab and another revenue stream. The last thing they wanted was to be given electrical work to control, which is why so many went to such lengths to stop people from submitting requests and handing over money.

I'll concede it seems to be a curious mixture. On one hand the misleading information given out by some councils does seem to suggest that they were trying to avoid notifications (other than by registered persons) by implying, if not flat-out stating, that some works "must" be done by a registered electrician. 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. Of course, those extremely high charges could be part of trying to "deter" notifications and force people to use the registered-person route instead. In practice, we all know that in reality many of those jobs will simply be done by the householder and go un-notified anyway.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is justification in mentioning them to be sure that somebody knows they exist and can then choose to ignore the notification requirements if he wishes after considering any possible ramifications of doing so.

Then since people are incessantly posting here about notifiable work, the mentioning of them is necessarily incessant too.

But the incessant comments along the lines of "How did you say you would comply with P1 when you submitted your plans for approval under the building regulations?" come across rather differently.

Why criticise me for starting with the assumption that people have obeyed the law?

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.

They are not supposed to make significant surpluses, and are required to publish accounts.

Building control fees are not a source of income for councils.

 

[securespark]

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?

No. Is it late, or is it just me being noodle-brained again?

 

[Stoday]

Many a time and oft I have been berated for adopting a Gallic attitude to the Part P rules. The French wouldn't put up with the inconsistencies. For example:

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?

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.

Don't forget how these rules are practically enforced for DIY work. They won't get picked up by Building Control. You don't have to notify when you sell the house, since under your interpretation, there's no requirement to notify. So you get picked up by your house purchaser. He has to initiate legal action to claim for his loss (bit of a problem there) but to do so he has to get the court to determine if your interpretation or his is correct. That takes a judge. That is so expensive, for so little gain, that it just ain't going to happen.

Above all, we have all heard of cases where cowboys have not notified and the customer complains to BC who don't want to know. If cowboys are not brought to heel, householders won't be either.

 

[Paul_C]

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?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe, but it can be done in ways which come across as being merely informative and not accusatory.

Which is what I do.

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.

"When you applied for Building Regulations approval, what did you say would be the way you would comply with Part P?" is a perfectly neutral question, and an important one. People sometimes copy stock wording from their council's website without thinking. People sometimes agree by default to assumptions made, and documented, on the council's website. People sometimes use professionals to produce drawings and make applications for them and fail to take heed of what that person puts on the application regarding electrical work.

I've explained this to you and many others before, but you all refuse to take any notice.

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.

If what they do is to subcontract I&T to a 3rd party, how much is that going to cost them?

The cables can all be replaced by damaging them, and then replacing them under the exemption in 1(b).

Not that it ever would, but if it did go to court, the chances of you getting away with that are so close to zero that you would have to be utterly mad to try.

But as the politicians are quick to point out when it comes to expenses claims, it would not have broken any of the rules.

Courts can, and do, make judgements based on what they believe was the intention of Parliament, and I know of no cases where their judgement was swayed by considerations of moral outrage felt by defendants about the behaviour of people unrelated to the case.

 

[jpdw]

The only thing you couldn't do would be adding extra sockets and lights, or moving existing points, in the kitchen and bathroom.

What about if the socket / light fitting was installed in a "room" adjacent to the "kitchen" or "bathroom"? Then the walls between them removed, so making the sock/light now in the combined room? For that matter, what constitutes a wall & a door to divide the "rooms". And how long do these "rooms" need to exist as separate entities? (hours?)

 

[JohnW2]

What about if the socket / light fitting was installed in a "room" adjacent to the "kitchen" or "bathroom"? Then the walls between them removed, so making the sock/light now in the combined room? For that matter, what constitutes a wall & a door to divide the "rooms". And how long do these "rooms" need to exist as separate entities? (hours?)

Quite. That takes us back to the post with which I started this thread. In my neighbour's house, a small piece of wall and a permanenty open door have the effect (as far as Part P is concerned) of turning 'a kitchen' in two rooms, with the one containing most of the traditional kitchen electrical appliances being deemed not to be a kitchen!

Indeed - how far can this go? Would a trellis like partition partially separating the two 'rooms' still have the effect of moving the electrical appliances out of 'the kitchen'?

Madness

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Look at the situation in places like Australia and New Zealand where an extremely strict regulatory regime resulted in a distinct decrease in electrical safety in the home.

And when NZ relaxed their restrictions, casualty numbers decreased.

I hear that they recently reversed their ban on GLS lamps too....

 

[OwainDIYer]

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

1) Made compliance with BS 7671 mandatory.

Electrical installations were covered by Scottish Building Standards for years before Part P was thought of.

An installation complying with BS 7671 or an equivalent standard was deemed to comply with Scottish Building Standards.

Then SBSA came along with certifiers and verifiers and made the whole building standards compliance thing complicated.

And don't even get me started on Eurocodes.....