Part P notification from April 2013

[virgilns]

EFL and BAS, you are right...it does say there are alternative ways to comply with the building regs and it says *should* comply, not needs to comply. But as the post above suggests, there's got to be a boomin good argument NOT to follow the British standard or the iee regulations, surely?

Out of interest can you think of any scenarios where you'd not want to follow bs7671 in a normal house install and be able to justify the deviation?

 

[ericmark]

ban-all-sheds should remember how the last time there were two documents. One in layman's language the other detailing exactly what was required. He picked me up numerous times where I quoted from the layman's version.

There are exceptions to near every rule. I read the first BS7671:2008 and it referred to RCD protection and missed completely SELV where you could neither protect with a RCD or with earthed outers on the cable. To me the word should is simply used to cater for the odd place where it does not make sense.

I am sure ban-all-sheds will find the technical document and once we all read that I am sure these questions will be answered.

Being in Wales there are no changes yet. I am sure the IET will be giving lecturers to those in England as they did when Part P first came in. I will watch my email box for when we have one in Wales.

Likely it will be given by a scheme provider who I am sure gives the lecturers to his members first. In the same way as I pay the IET many out there must be paying scheme providers so come on what is their official line on this?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But as the post above suggests, there's got to be a boomin good argument NOT to follow the British standard or the iee regulations, surely?

Absolutely.

Out of interest can you think of any scenarios where you'd not want to follow bs7671 in a normal house install and be able to justify the deviation?

Using red/black cable to do alterations to an installation already using exclusively that. Although technically that is allowed by BS 7671 as there is provision for an installer to deviate in ways which are not unsafe.

 

[SimonH2]

Out of interest can you think of any scenarios where you'd not want to follow bs7671 in a normal house install and be able to justify the deviation?

I can think of one, for which there has been another extensive thread.
The guidance doc to Part P more or less (in practical terms) says to follow the BGB. The BGB says to follow MIs (Manufacturers Instructions). The MIs for most bathroom fans say you need an isolator switch.
So, the argument goes, to comply with Part P you need an isolator switch.

So what if you have, say, a rental property and know that tenants will be likely to switch the fan off if they can - the last tenants in one of my properties did this for cost saving over the warm air it would suck out of the flat. If the fan is switched off, there'll be a damp problem - and apart from the damage and resulting remedial costs, mould is a health problem.
So there's an argument for not having an occupier accessible switch.

IMO this would trump any other requirement to have the switch - it's only there as a convenience should the fan fail. IMO it says alot about the manufacturer's expectations if they require you to have a switch so it can be disconnected when it breaks down ! As an isolator for any works it doesn't count - I've not seen a domestic fan isolator switch that has any facility to lock it off, and so the only safe way of working would be to lock off the MCB supplying the circuit.

... many out there must be paying scheme providers so come on what is their official line on this?

Having listened to a talk by someone from NICEIC to a non-technical group - I'm fairly certain the message will still be "you MUST use one of our members as ONLY our members can possibly do a safe job". At the time I heard this talk (fairly recently), he then went on to imply that only their members can deal with the building control aspects of any electrical work.
I found it hard not to shout "LIAR" from the back of the room, the message was so misleading

 

[EFLImpudence]

he then went on to imply that only their members can deal with the building control aspects of any electrical work.

That is probably true ...

because only their members will be accepted by the BC - who knows why?.

I believe attempts are being made to rectify the situation.

 

[AdamCH]

I am sure ban-all-sheds will find the technical document and once we all read that I am sure these questions will be answered.

I think the Building Regs are the technical document in this case - it's just that it's a legal document.

The approved docs are there to guide us in complying with the Regs but the approved docs themselves say that the standards and technical approvals referenced may set a higher standard than that required to comply with the regs.

I'd image for most it's a case of going along with whatever the LABC says is their interpretation (cheaper to do what they say than to argue) or your trades body / insurance say is required, which is where compliance with approved standards comes in.

 

[bernardgreen]

Out of interest can you think of any scenarios where you'd not want to follow bs7671 in a normal house install and be able to justify the deviation?

Maybe using YY cable instead of several runs of twin and earth for complicated multi-way lighting ciruits ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Out of interest can you think of any scenarios where you'd not want to follow bs7671 in a normal house install and be able to justify the deviation?

Maybe using YY cable instead of several runs of twin and earth for complicated multi-way lighting ciruits ?

Why would that not comply with BS7671?

 

[AdamCH]

What about not testing?

Would a court decide that "Reasonable provision .... installation ....." means testing it? I'd suggest that it would depend on what it was and that BS7671 would set a higher standard.

DIY'ers are likely to lack the kit and training required to complete all of the testing specified so may well want to install to a non BS7671 standard.

 

[ericmark]

DIY'ers are likely to lack the kit and training required to complete all of the testing specified so may well want to install to a non BS7671 standard.

As now retired I suppose I would be considered as a DIY guy. I have full test kit. My son no longer a sole trader has moved to work in industrial so no longer is self employed so domestic work he does would be classed as DIY he also has a full test set. My father-in-law now in his 80's again any work he does would be DIY and again he has a full test set.

So only male member of my family who does not have his own test set is my son-in-law. And we would of course lend him one and he also trained as an electrical engineer in Turkey before he came to UK.

So whole of my male family with exception of grandchildren under age of 3 can inspect and test their own work, and non are now employed on domestic electrical systems.

My friends have also in the main at some point worked as electricians and all can lay their hands on test gear. In some cases borrowed from work. There are many electricians who are not employed in domestic but have the skills and equipment to do A1 domestic work in there own home.

Non domestic electricians are normally supervised in some way and if they were unable to do the job would not last long. Employers ask for work records and do talk to each other so bad electricians soon run out of places to work. However the house holder does not ask for qualifications and so bad electricians tend to migrate to the housing market where in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. There are some very good domestic electricians but also a lot of people who call themselves electricians but are not really trained to high enough standards.

As an industrial electrician I have been appalled at some of the domestic workmanship I have found and this was not done by DIY but electricians which according to their paperwork should know better.

I am very wary of employing sole traders. Does not really matter what trade. The sole trader seems to be split into too groups. The highly skilled who will come and sort out the really complex jobs. I often employed these to do jobs like PLC programming. And the chancer and thick guys no firm would employ.

Although Part P was to stop these guys in some cases very willing to work hard but lacking the skill from working on domestic property. Plain and simple it didn't work.

Before Part P after some local floods many commercial electricians turned to doing domestic work and quickly got the effected properties liveable again. After Part P this did not happen no one was willing the pay the scheme membership fees and the home owner often had to wait months before the work could be done.

Before Part P I would regularly take on a domestic job after Part P this stopped. Just not worth the hassle. I was not the only electrician who stopped doing domestic. This forced people to DIY even when they knew they really had not got the skills.

But I objected to being told I couldn't work on my own house.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Would a court decide that "Reasonable provision .... installation ....." means testing it?

I think you would be on firm ground if you argued not, because the original version of the legislation had P1 and P2, P2 being an explicit requirement to provide test results.

They then removed the explicit requirement to test in a later amendment, and replaced it with.....


....nothing.

IANAL, but that sequence of changes must count for something?

 

[AdamCH]

As now retired I suppose I would be considered as a DIY guy. I have full test kit. My son no longer a sole trader has moved to work in industrial so no longer is self employed so domestic work he does would be classed as DIY he also has a full test set. My father-in-law now in his 80's again any work he does would be DIY and again he has a full test set.

So only male member of my family who does not have his own test set is my son-in-law. And we would of course lend him one and he also trained as an electrical engineer in Turkey before he came to UK.

So whole of my male family with exception of grandchildren under age of 3 can inspect and test their own work, and non are now employed on domestic electrical systems.

DIY Maybe but exactly typical.

Lots of regulation is a typical civil servant / politician solution to trying to raise standards or respond to calls that "something must be done". Each bit seems like a good idea but eventually you end up needing to get a cert every time you take a dump and people start resenting being told what to do in ever increasing detail.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

eventually you end up needing to get a cert every time you take a dump.

Dear God imagine being a 3rd party inspector for that....

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Why not? So long as it's done properly. Who are you to say people can't do things in their own home? It's only the sore headed tradesman who tastes sour at someone doing something for themselves - it's got s** all to do with us.

Doing it properly is the key!
By notification and documentation of correct procedures, that will go a long way to proving the correct methods have been used. If not they have not., then they should be made accountable.
As notification can be made and installations performed by the householder/DIYers, I am not against that and have not made any comments stating that, but they should be properly versed in the correct procedures and notify.
As an incompetent person can start messing around with a circuit or circuits in a location deemed not notifiable or notifiable, they can quite easily introduce a danger or potential dangers.
With a lack of knowledge of your general homeowner/DIYer into the requirements and testing procedures and the results required. I doubt that many of the instances of DIY electrics within the home are done properly!
It normally becomes a simple plug in/switch on, if it works that'll do scenario without any thoughts on the dangers that may have been introduced or even existing.

I have been to many jobs and one only yesterday that will back up my argument!

 

[SimonH2]

DIY Maybe but exactly typical.

I was thinking that myself, but he does make some good points.

... needing to get a cert every time you take a dump ...

Imagine the undercover inspectors trying to catch people out taking one without the paperwork in place ... Oh, that wasn't a deliberate pun, it's bad news taking a dump without the paperwork present

But I recall Jasper Carrot doing quite a funny gag about "what if sex was taxed ?", just imagine the life of the tax inspectors checking up if you're over quota. Something like "you two, stop right there, you're up to your 2.4 times this week"