Part P notification from April 2013

[ban-all-sheds]

Neither of you have any 12v fittings at all?

No.

I have toyed with the idea of getting a 999v one though....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I personally think that there should be one certification body and that should issue licences to electricians based on their ability - judged at yearly visit.

There should certainly be more rigorous mandatory training.

I would like to know who BAS or anyone else thinks lobbied the government for the changes to the approved document this time or why even there has been changes?

Dunno.

I wonder who lobbied them to change it this time.

 

[mbga9pgf]

I personally think that there should be one certification body and that should issue licences to electricians based on their ability - judged at yearly visit.

There should certainly be more rigorous mandatory training.

I would like to know who BAS or anyone else thinks lobbied the government for the changes to the approved document this time or why even there has been changes?

Dunno.

I wonder who lobbied them to change it this time.

Quite a few of us did when the government consultation on cost savings for red tape came out.

 

[SaladFingers]

I personally think that there should be one certification body and that should issue licences to electricians based on their ability - judged at yearly visit.

There should certainly be more rigorous mandatory training.

Train them all you like, but it isn't the trained and qualified who've put such work into question.

 

[SaladFingers]

I personally think that there should be one certification body and that should issue licences to electricians based on their ability

Goodness, no.

Having one body would make them act as if they're the 'law' and things would become a closed shop and get much much more expensive.

 

[SimonH2]

The thing I find most puzzling is that kitchen fitters etc. will no longer be required to notify, either directly to the LA or self-certification schemes.

But, they are now required to do safe work - Part P (as in the real Part P rather than the notification requirements that most people in the street thing is "part P") still applies. In practical terms, that means them complying with BS7671, and that requires them to provide a certificate for their work.

Having to provide a certificate means someone has to do some testing to get the figures. If the testing isn't done, or there's no certificate, then as well as LABC getting involved - so can Trading Standards (not that they have the resources either). Similarly, if there is a certificate but it turns out the work doesn't bear much resemblance to it, then that's a Trading Standards issue as well.

SO while the notification requirements have effectively gone for most work, the fact that Part P still applies does mean that it should be easier to deal with bad tradesmen (like the kitchen fitters everyone seems to be friends with !)

 

[bernardgreen]

A discussion on another forum came up with this little gem,

Installing a door bell on the outside of a front door is notifiable to the building control office.

Sad and stupid ?.

Yes, but no one on that forum could find any words that excluded it from the need for notification in the existing terms of Part P.

 

[ericmark]

A discussion on another forum came up with this little gem,

Installing a door bell on the outside of a front door is notifiable to the building control office.

Sad and stupid ?.

Yes, but no one on that forum could find any words that excluded it from the need for notification in the existing terms of Part P.

Interesting should I put it to the test. I need to fit a new door bell to my mothers house so when it's pressed she can talk to the caller. Since it's all because she is disabled there would be no Part P charge. So at no cost I could try it all out.

Some how I can't see them coming out to inspect. When I did all the work in her wet room I did inspection and testing and took completed form to the council offices. A completion certificate arrived in the post but no one came to inspect it. I had expected some one to come and take one random reading and see if it was same as my paperwork but nothing.

It was this which made me realise how daft Part P notification was. Sadly for me there is no change in Part P. And I do object to having to pay for nothing. Even a casual glance would have made me think they were doing their job. But nothing just a completion certificate in the post.

 

[SimonH2]

I need to fit a new door bell to my mothers house ...

As you say "fit new door bell" I assume there is an existing one. That makes it exempt from notification as you are allowed replacements.

 

[AdamCH]

But, they are now required to do safe work - Part P (as in the real Part P rather than the notification requirements that most people in the street thing is "part P") still applies. In practical terms, that means them complying with BS7671, and that requires them to provide a certificate for their work.

Having to provide a certificate means someone has to do some testing to get the figures. If the testing isn't done, or there's no certificate, then as well as LABC getting involved - so can Trading Standards (not that they have the resources either). Similarly, if there is a certificate but it turns out the work doesn't bear much resemblance to it, then that's a Trading Standards issue as well.

SO while the notification requirements have effectively gone for most work, the fact that Part P still applies does mean that it should be easier to deal with bad tradesmen (like the kitchen fitters everyone seems to be friends with !)

Surely it's the need to notify and BC looking for evidence of competence and safe work that creates the practical requirement to comply with BS7671 an provide paperwork? - BC making it easy for themselves. I'd have thought that without BC involved policing the work you'd likely get all sorts of stuff going on - not complying with BS7671 doesn't automatically mean it's unsafe so wouldn't itself be a breach of the regs (and who'd know anyway without the work being subject to BC) - so standard might drop if they don't worry about BS7671 to maintain PIL & trades memberships.

 

[SimonH2]

Surely it's the need to notify and BC looking for evidence of competence and safe work that creates the practical requirement to comply with BS7671 an provide paperwork?

No, LABC doesn't really come into it - all they can do is agree that yes it does, or no it doesn't. comply with Part P. Compliance with Part P is mandatory - and in practical terms it's not going to be possible for most people to comply unless they comply with BS7671. I say in practical terms since you'd need to have a fair level of skill and knowledge to demonstrate compliance with Part P without also having complies with BS7671.

I'd have thought that without BC involved policing the work you'd likely get all sorts of stuff going on - not complying with BS7671 doesn't automatically mean it's unsafe so wouldn't itself be a breach of the regs (and who'd know anyway without the work being subject to BC) - so standard might drop if they don't worry about BS7671 to maintain PIL & trades memberships.

Well cr*p was happening anyway !
I suspect that many insurers would insist on compliance in order to keep your PIL - it would be interesting to see what most require (who wants to look at their policy ?) But if there's any shoddy work going on, then LABC now have a tool to beat the trader with - before Part P electrics disn't "need" to be safe to comply with regs ,now they do. If in doubt, LABC can say "demonstrate it" if someone claims that they've complied with Part P without also complying with BS7671 - and if they don't have skills and qualifications then LABC aren't likely to take their word for it.

 

[flameport]

I suspect that many insurers would insist on compliance in order to keep your PIL - it would be interesting to see what most require

In many years of buying insurance from various companies, not a single one has ever asked for any evidence of qualifications, membership of schemes, the use of BS7671 or other standards, compliance with building regulations or anything else.

The only electrical related enquiry was 'do you work on 3 phase systems'.

 

[ericmark]

Found it The Building Regulations &c. (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Giving of building notice or deposit of plans6. In regulation 12—
(a)after paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) A person intending to carry out building work in relation to which Part P of Schedule 1 imposes a requirement is required to give a building notice or deposit full plans where the work consists of—
(a)the installation of a new circuit;
(b)the replacement of a consumer unit; or
(c)any addition or alteration to existing circuits in a special location.”; and
(b)in paragraph (9)—
(i)after the definition of “fronting”, omit “and”; and
(ii)after the definition of “private street”, omit “.” and insert—
“; and
“special location” means—
(a)within a room containing a bath or shower, the space surrounding a bath tap or shower head, where the space extends—
(i)vertically from the finished floor level to—
(aa)a height of 2.25 metres; or
(bb)the position of the shower head where it is attached to a wall or ceiling at a point higher than 2.25 metres from that level; and
(ii)horizontally—
(aa)where there is a bath tub or shower tray, from the edge of the bath tub or shower tray to a distance of 0.6 metres; or
(bb)where there is no bath tub or shower tray, from the centre point of the shower head where it is attached to the wall or ceiling to a distance of 1.2 metres; or
(b)a room containing a swimming pool or sauna heater.”.

Now need link to old one so I can insert the alterations. Over to BAS.

 

[EFLImpudence]

THE Building Regulations

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/regulation/12/made

 

[SimonH2]

(b)the replacement of a consumer unit; or

Now there's an interesting thing. Is an old rewirable fuseboard a Consumer Unit for the purposes of the BR ?
If not then it seems you can remove an old fuseboard and fit a new CU - but not replace an existing CU.