Part P / BC question

[ban-all-sheds]

People should try to distance themselves from only thinking about this with regard to a specific area where they personally have the necessary competencies (i.e. electrical work), and consider the general position of anybody doing any work which is within the scope of the Building Regulations.

If a DIYer proposed to build an extension, or do a loft conversion, LABC would want a damn sight more than "I'm going to do it myself and it'll be OK" as a description of how the work would comply with the regs. They would want drawings, structural calculations, details of materials to be used etc, and they would want an indication that the person who had done the design knew what he was doing. They would then want to inspect the work at stages to confirm that the person doing the construction knew what he was doing and that he was doing what had been specified in the design.

Electrical work is no different, conceptually.

LABC have to decide if the person proposing to do the work is competent and whether they can trust him to actually exercise that competence and can therefore accept his assertion that he did do it all properly.

Once you step outside of the framework where LABCs have (in theory) got an assured confirmation of competence to go by there are no defined rules for them to follow, they themselves have differing levels of in-house ability to verify that electrical work is OK, and so we inevitably get variations in the way they handle work done by someone who is not officially trusted to self-certify.

Prior to the passing of the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010, when they were faced with having to subcontract I&T to a commercial firm, possibly more than once, and bear the expense of that themselves, you can see why so many used to try as hard as they could to "dissuade" unregistered people from notifying.

They can now properly recover their costs, but they still have the problem of deciding if they can accept someones test results or if they have to inspect it "themselves" or if they want people to provide their own independent verification. Since they never wanted anything to do with Part P in the first place some councils will still try to "encourage" people to not ask them to do the I&T.

 

[JohnW2]

They cannot prevent sub-standard work if they are not aware of the work being done. .... My experience is that when building control become aware of work that has not been submitted they will take action to ensure the work is done to the correct standard.

In the context of this forum, I suppose the interesting question for less-than-fully-law-abiding, but competent, people (e.g. some DIYers) is what, in practice, happens if BC become aware of electrical work which was undertaken without the necessary notifications etc. but which was undertaken to the appropriate standards.

They would, of course, require some sort of inspection (and, with electrical work, probably testing) to confirm that the work had been undertaken to required standards, and there is presumably provision for that to be undertaken at the perpetrator's cost. Where relevant, I suppose they could theoretically require some 'dismantling of the property' (e.g. of walls, to reveal cable paths) as part of the inspection, although I somehow doubt that would usually be deemed necessary. Indeed, with some electrical work (e.g. just a CU change), it would all be visible/accessible for inspection, and the installation would be available for testing, so no dismantling would be necessary.

They obviously could not require any 'remedial work' if no remedial work was needed. Apart from charges for the inspection/testing, that seems to leave their only teeth as their theoretical option to prosecute for non-notification - but the general belief seems to be that they have never done this in relation to Part P alone.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of this forum, I suppose the interesting question for less-than-fully-law-abiding, but competent, people (e.g. some DIYers) is what, in practice, happens if BC become aware of electrical work which was undertaken without the necessary notifications etc. but which was undertaken to the appropriate standards.

That's a

They would, of course, require some sort of inspection (and, with electrical work, probably testing) to confirm that the work had been undertaken to required standards, and there is presumably provision for that to be undertaken at the perpetrator's cost. Where relevant, I suppose they could theoretically require some 'dismantling of the property' (e.g. of walls, to reveal cable paths) as part of the inspection, although I somehow doubt that would usually be deemed necessary. Indeed, with some electrical work (e.g. just a CU change), it would all be visible/accessible for inspection, and the installation would be available for testing, so no dismantling would be necessary.

I imagine they might have to face test of proportionality and reasonableness in court if the perpetrator dug his heels in over anything more than getting a PIR and handing over the regularisation fee.

the general belief seems to be that they have never done this in relation to Part P alone.

I'm sure that if it had ever happened then somewhere on some forum it would be noted, and with intersecting memberships have spread.

The only thing I've ever seen in relation to this "what if" is this:

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=275610

 

[JohnW2]

They would, of course, require some sort of inspection (and, with electrical work, probably testing) to confirm that the work had been undertaken to required standards, and there is presumably provision for that to be undertaken at the perpetrator's cost. Where relevant, I suppose they could theoretically require some 'dismantling of the property' (e.g. of walls, to reveal cable paths) as part of the inspection, although I somehow doubt that would usually be deemed necessary. Indeed, with some electrical work (e.g. just a CU change), it would all be visible/accessible for inspection, and the installation would be available for testing, so no dismantling would be necessary.

I imagine they might have to face test of proportionality and reasonableness in court if the perpetrator dug his heels in over anything more than getting a PIR and handing over the regularisation fee.

Quite - as you will realise, that's what I was implying.

the general belief seems to be that they have never done this in relation to Part P alone.

I'm sure that if it had ever happened then somewhere on some forum it would be noted, and with intersecting memberships have spread.

Exactly.

It's obviously different from (absent) Planning appliclations - in which situation one might be required to pull down a perfectly correctly constructed building. With building regs, there's nothing much they can sensibly do about properly undertaken work (whether electrical or otherwise), other than take steps to satisfy themselves that the work has been undertaken properly plus some associated charges and, maybe, some penalties/fees. Frequent prosecutions for non-notification of electrical work would eventually result in many more notifications - which, as you often say, is probably teh last thing they really want to happen!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Considering I'm about to start a full rewire of a semi detached property within the coming weeks and envisage myself asking questions, I shall defer to BAS judgement.

The law, i.e. specifically Part P of the Building Regulations, requires this:

P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

Although not mandatory, in practice, in this country, by far and away the easiest way to comply with P1 is to comply with the current edition of the IET Wiring Regulations, aka BS 7671:2008 Amd 1.

I note that you plan to get an electrician to carry out an EICR, so if you are completely comfortable that at any level of formality, e.g. on oath in a court of law (not that you ever would have to - I'm just trying to set the level of seriousness you should give the question), you could with 100% confidence say that regarding your rewire you had exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design & construction, and could certify that the said work for which you had been responsible was to the best of your knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008... then go for it.

I've not looked back through your posts to see if I can get a feel for how competent you are, to what extent you are, if at all, living blissfully unaware in the land of unknown unknowns, etc, so sorry if some of this is TGTSE, but...

You talk about asking questions. Rewiring a house, installing new CUs, outside supplies, submains etc is not a trivial job, and I can assure you that it may well involve knowing far more than you think it does.

Asking questions here can be a useful part of a learning process, but they are not a substitute for proper structured studying. The key term there is "learning process" - you cannot learn all the things you need to know just by asking questions here. It isn't structured enough - it won't provide you with a way to progress where each step builds on what you learned before.

You can't carry out a job of this magnitude by asking whatever random questions happen to occur to you. What if you get something wrong because you have no idea your knowledge is wrong? What if you miss something because you simply have no idea it even exists, and just don't realise you don't know it?

• //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics
  
  
• //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:books
  
  
• http://web.archive.org/web/20080213151445/http://www.kevinboone.com/electricity.html
  
  
• http://web.archive.org/web/20080213151445/http://www.kevinboone.com/domesticinstallations.html
  
  
• http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/1.1.htm[/list]I suggest you get stuck into the last link right away - it won't give you design ideas, and unfortunately it doesn't refer to the current edition of the Wiring Regulations, but it's free, and will still give you a good grounding which you can augment with more up to date publications.
  
  If when you look through all the info above, follow all the links, it's "yo - knew that", then crack on with the rewire.
  
  If it's "Ooh, didn't know that" then crack on with the learning

 

[Stoday]

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/1.1.htm[/list]
I suggest you get stuck into the last link right away - it won't give you design ideas, and unfortunately it doesn't refer to the current edition of the Wiring Regulations, but it's free, and will still give you a good grounding which you can augment with more up to date publications.

If when you look through all the info above, follow all the links, it's "yo - knew that", then crack on with the rewire.

If it's "Ooh, didn't know that" then crack on with the learning

I thought I'd just check I'm not yet so outdated that I need to do some revision, so I opened BAS's preferred link.

I got no further than the first page. It's rubbish! It's full of b'locks and errors. In particular, there's a gross error that BAS took exception to when a vendor of dubious electrical equipment said the same (in a slightly different context) in advertising literature.

I shan't spoil everyone's fun looking up the page and spotting the bull**it by identifying the errors now. Suffice to say that BAS ought to read the stuff he's proposing others should read. Anyway, an analysis of that rubbish should be in a different thread.

 

[Geps]

Considering I'm about to start a full rewire of a semi detached property within the coming weeks and envisage myself asking questions, I shall defer to BAS judgement.

The law, i.e. specifically Part P of the Building Regulations, requires this:

P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

Although not mandatory, in practice, in this country, by far and away the easiest way to comply with P1 is to comply with the current edition of the IET Wiring Regulations, aka BS 7671:2008 Amd 1.

I note that you plan to get an electrician to carry out an EICR, so if you are completely comfortable that at any level of formality, e.g. on oath in a court of law (not that you ever would have to - I'm just trying to set the level of seriousness you should give the question), you could with 100% confidence say that regarding your rewire you had exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design & construction, and could certify that the said work for which you had been responsible was to the best of your knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008... then go for it.

I've not looked back through your posts to see if I can get a feel for how competent you are, to what extent you are, if at all, living blissfully unaware in the land of unknown unknowns, etc, so sorry if some of this is TGTSE, but...

You talk about asking questions. Rewiring a house, installing new CUs, outside supplies, submains etc is not a trivial job, and I can assure you that it may well involve knowing far more than you think it does.

Asking questions here can be a useful part of a learning process, but they are not a substitute for proper structured studying. The key term there is "learning process" - you cannot learn all the things you need to know just by asking questions here. It isn't structured enough - it won't provide you with a way to progress where each step builds on what you learned before.

You can't carry out a job of this magnitude by asking whatever random questions happen to occur to you. What if you get something wrong because you have no idea your knowledge is wrong? What if you miss something because you simply have no idea it even exists, and just don't realise you don't know it?

• //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics
  
  
• //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:books
  
  
• http://web.archive.org/web/20080213151445/http://www.kevinboone.com/electricity.html
  
  
• http://web.archive.org/web/20080213151445/http://www.kevinboone.com/domesticinstallations.html
  
  
• http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/1.1.htm[/list]I suggest you get stuck into the last link right away - it won't give you design ideas, and unfortunately it doesn't refer to the current edition of the Wiring Regulations, but it's free, and will still give you a good grounding which you can augment with more up to date publications.
  
  If when you look through all the info above, follow all the links, it's "yo - knew that", then crack on with the rewire.
  
  If it's "Ooh, didn't know that" then crack on with the learning

• 
  
  Thanks BAS you did raise this point before when we discussed DIY rewires actually.
  
  According to Part P, section 1.24 it says the LABC takes responsibility for ensuring it's compliance so would it not be them who would need to stand up in court?
  
  http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADP_2006.pdf

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I got no further than the first page. It's rubbish! It's full of b'locks and errors.

The whole page is rubbish, it it?

Each of the 9 paragraphs are full of b'locks and errors, are they?

Suffice to say that BAS ought to read the stuff he's proposing others should read.

I have read it - not every word, cover to cover, but a damn sight more than just 0.43% of it, unlike you.

I even own a copy.

I know that as it's free and online it is a worthwhile resource despite that error and despite being a guide to the 16th.

Perhaps you ought to read the stuff you are criticising, rather than trying to stop people reading something useful which you have not read.

 

[JohnW2]

.... that at any level of formality, e.g. on oath in a court of law .... you could with 100% confidence say that regarding your rewire you had exercised reasonable skill and care ....

Whilst I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying to the OP, I think you're going a bit OTT with the legal concepts - I suspect that even the court itself (indeed, our whole legal system) would have a big problem with the concept of 100% confidence about anything, let alone 100% confidence that something was 'reasonable'

.... to the best of your knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008...

That one is obvioulsy a very poor test of anything - since someone who knew virtually nothing about BS7671:2008 could honestly make statements prefaced by "..to the best of their knowledge and belief..."!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.... that at any level of formality, e.g. on oath in a court of law .... you could with 100% confidence say that regarding your rewire you had exercised reasonable skill and care ....

Whilst I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying to the OP, I think you're going a bit OTT with the legal concepts - I suspect that even the court itself (indeed, our whole legal system) would have a big problem with the concept of 100% confidence about anything, let alone 100% confidence that something was 'reasonable'

As I said at the time - I wasn't suggesting he would ever be in court - it was just a way to express the level of confidence he should have, and the degree to which he should believe assertions of compliance to be correct.

That one is obvioulsy a very poor test of anything - since someone who knew virtually nothing about BS7671:2008 could honestly make statements prefaced by "..to the best of their knowledge and belief..."!

Indeed - and the other thing I said was that he should learn about the regulations etc.

 

[JohnW2]

As I said at the time - I wasn't suggesting he would ever be in court - it was just a way to express the level of confidence he should have, and the degree to which he should believe assertions of compliance to be correct.

I realise that, but was pointing out that, in so doing, you were asking for a level of confidence in excess of that which would be required by a court, even if it did get there (which, as we know, it wouldn't).

Albeit (as we know!) it's meaning is open to a lot of debate (and is subject to complex 'tests' in a court), 'reasonable' is 'reasonable' - not "100%" anything - that was my point.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Geps]

But as I said before - isn't it the LABC that takes the responsibility for compliance?

Therefore it would never be myself or indeed another individual defending their actions.

 

[JohnW2]

But as I said before - isn't it the LABC that takes the responsibility for compliance? Therefore it would never be myself or indeed another individual defending their actions.

What you are citing is 1.24 of "Approved Document P", not Part P of the Building Regs. However, that technicality aside, you are rather misinterpreting it. The part you are citing says:

The Building Control bodythen becomes responsible for making sure that the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements in the Building Regulations"

That is analagous to saying that Trading Standards are responsible for 'making sure' that products/services are of a certain standard and in compliance with relevent legislation, that the Advertising Standards Authority are responsible for 'making sure' that misleading or illegal advertising does not occur, that the Financial Services Authority is responsible for 'making sure' that ..... etc. etc.

In all of those statements "...responsible for making sure..." obviously relates to a 'policing'/approving process and clearly does not mean that the authorities in question are themselves 'taken to task' for the misdeeds or incorrect statements/assertions of those they are policing! The only situation in which LABC itself would become 'answerable' were if they were accused of not taking appropriate/reasonable steps to ensure that work had been undertaken satisfactorily.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Geps]

That not exactly an accurate comparison though. I can make a product (and indeed - I have for my day job) and not require Trading Standards to endorse it as being up to a certain spec.

What we have here though is something where the public body (LABC in this case) has already approved the work and has publicly stated it is compliant with regulations.

So when it building a case against the individual, that individual can turn around and say this public body that is responsible for that area of law publicly acknowledged (as indicated by this certificate) that my work meets or exceeds all the requirements. On what grounds would they then be able to still bring charges?

 

[JohnW2]

That not exactly an accurate comparison though. I can make a product (and indeed - I have for my day job) and not require Trading Standards to endorse it as being up to a certain spec.

They are not required to 'endorse' products, but they do have a statutory responsibility to 'make sure' that, say, products which cannot be lawfully sold in the UK (e.g. because of safety requirements) are not offered for sale.

What we have here though is something where the public body (LABC in this case) has already approved the work and has publicly stated it is compliant with regulations.

If the LABC had already approved work as being compliant with Part P and there was subsequently an accusation that the work was non-compliant, they could indeed theoretically find themselves in court (although that's not going to happen!).

However, as I said, you are looking at the wrong document. The legislation, 'Part P' itself, makes it clear that it is a legal responsibility of those designing and installing electrical installations to take reasonable steps to ensure safety. Despite your attempt at a 'clever' argument, there is no way that the perpetrator of an unsafe electrical installtion is 'off the hook' and able to blame LABC- even if LABC themselves have also been incompetent in their statutory role of 'making sure' that the regulations are complied with.

Kind Regards, John.