Part P question

[scousespark]

I thought the term diyer meant a person who practices 'Do It Yourself'. This is as opposed to a qualified and practising professional.

I would say that it does mean precisely that - what is your point? However Electriying may view me, I fulfill my (and your) definition of a DIYer. My point, of course, was that generalisations which tar all 'DIYers' with the same brush are not necessarily always going to be fair.

Kind Regards, John.

Some diyers will have deeper knowledge than others, as will some pros.
My point is that there is a different onus on a professional (when in one of the schemes) for part p.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Perhaps you would share some of the other ways that the DIY'er can satisfy the requirements Part P.

Well, in the context of this thread, I think I already have done - by appealing to a common sense interpretation of the law - don't forget that it is judges and juries who make these calls, not BS7671-indoctrinated people ...

.

From the wording that you quoted

which indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way (but not the only way) of satisfying the requirements Part P...

Is talking about using another standard that is documented, not just saying I don't like that bit of BS7671 so I won't use it?

 

[JohnW2]

Some diyers will have deeper knowledge than others, as will some pros.

Quite so.

My point is that there is a different onus on a professional (when in one of the schemes) for part p.

The very point I've been making - not so much about Part P, per se, but that the schemes require their members to comply totally with BS7671. The legal requirement to satisfy Part P obviously applies to anyone, DIYer or professional.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

From the wording that you quoted

which indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way (but not the only way) of satisfying the requirements Part P...

Is talking about using another standard that is documented, not just saying I don't like that bit of BS7671 so I won't use it?

Not necessarily another standard but another argument. If one had sufficient knowledge, facts/data and inclination, one could even present the justification for what one done on the basis of 'working from first principles' - just as has always been the case in relation to all of the Building Regulations. One can also, as I've recently suggested, base an argument on common sense.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[shedbang]

Wow. A full blown thread into legal (and other) interpretation. Sorry not to participate, but I've been installing sockets today...

To answer the main question. No (shock horror), it's not RCD protected. It will be soon as I do have a sparky (really, no really) due to do a Periodic and replace the CU in the next few weeks.

The cables are a bit of a mixed bag. House was re-wired in 94, and seemingly reasonably well, but since then loft and wall insulation has been poured onto them and all manner of other dreadful things may have occurred (hence the inspection). Cables close to the sockets are in a void behind plasterboard, much deeper than 50mm, but a small run near the new socket is (now) in a stud wall, so marginally less than 50mm so I'm all wrong re 7671, but I'll sleep tonight, especially as the house is empty and will be until after the CU is changed.

I totally agree with the DIY comments. I know my capabilities, research things (within reason) and I have no intention of endangering either myself or my family, and this forum is so far doing exactly what it should do for me...provide help and advice. So thanks.

 

[shedbang]

Firstly, compliance with Part P is required whether or not the work is notifiable.

Okay...

Secondly, you should read Schedule 4 to find out what is non-notifiable.

Yes, I read this, but they say roughly the same thing. My point, in your parlance, is that 1(a)i contradicts 2(c)ii.

 

[JohnW2]

My point, in your parlance, is that 1(a)i contradicts 2(c)ii.

There is no contradiction. Schedule 4 is a list of things, each of which (taken separately) is not notifiable, and there is hence an implied 'OR' (not 'AND') between each of them. In other words, work is no-notifiable if it satisfies 1(a)(i) OR 2(c)(ii) - it does not have to satisfy both to be non-notifiable.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A further thought/question has occurred to me ... if one replaces a, say, damaged socket on a circuit which does not have RCD protection, would you feel that this 'work' on the circuit requires an RCD to be installed to protect the replaced socket?

Well - the Draft for Public Comment of Amendment 1 contained the following:

Regulation 411.3.3 (c) now permits an exception for minor works where the designer is satisfied
that there would be no increased risk from the addition or alteration.

Regulation 522.6.102 now permits an exception for minor works where the designer is satisfied that there would
be minimal increased risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration by screws, nails and the like.

Regulation 522.6.103 now permits an exception for minor works that do not involve a new partition or a cable
passing through a metal part of a partition, where the designer is satisfied that there would be minimal increased
risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration by screws, nails and the like.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is no contradiction. Schedule 4 is a list of things, each of which (taken separately) is not notifiable, and there is hence an implied 'OR' (not 'AND') between each of them. In other words, work is no-notifiable if it satisfies 1(a)(i) OR 2(c)(ii) - it does not have to satisfy both to be non-notifiable.

Yup.

shedbang - basically you stop reading down Schedule 4 as soon as you find a match with the work you are doing. It's only if you get to the end without finding a match that the work remains notifiable.

 

[mattylad]

They'd have to get a copy of each and read the bloody thing first......what's the chances of that??

Well I have every building reg, inc part P also BS7671, several OSG type books etc all in PDF form.

So thats blown your comment right out.
[/quote]

 

[bernardgreen]

but that the schemes require their members to comply totally with BS7671.

Is this because the scheme operators cannot themselves evaluate the merits of an installation designed using common sense, basic principles and manufacturers data about components and cables ? They pass the buck for safety onto British Standards people. If the install meets BS7671 and yet still causes harm or damage then the scheme is absolved of any guilt as it complied with the accepted standard. The blame can be passed over to the British Standards people for creating a "defective" standard.

It is ironic that an installation designed to a higher standard of safety than BS7671 requires cannot easily be installed by a member of a scheme yet can be installed by a DIYer where the LABC can evaluate using common sense, basic principles and manufacturers data about components and cables.

 

[riveralt]

If the install meets BS7671 and yet still causes harm or damage then the scheme is absolved of any guilt as it complied with the accepted standard. The blame can be passed over to the British Standards people for creating a "defective" standard.

So Bernard can you give me an example of the above or are you too catching JohnW2 verbal rambling disease?

 

[riveralt]

If the install meets BS7671 and yet still causes harm or damage then the scheme is absolved of any guilt as it complied with the accepted standard. The blame can be passed over to the British Standards people for creating a "defective" standard.

So Bernard can you give me an example for the extraordinary claim above or are you too catching JohnW2 verbal rambling disease?

 

[JohnW2]

... if one replaces a, say, damaged socket on a circuit which does not have RCD protection, would you feel that this 'work' on the circuit requires an RCD to be installed to protect the replaced socket?

Well - the Draft for Public Comment of Amendment 1 contained the following:
Regulation 411.3.3 (c) now permits an exception for minor works where the designer is satisfied
that there would be no increased risk from the addition or alteration.
Regulation 522.6.102 now permits an exception for minor works where the designer is satisfied that there would
be minimal increased risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration by screws, nails and the like.
Regulation 522.6.103 now permits an exception for minor works that do not involve a new partition or a cable
passing through a metal part of a partition, where the designer is satisfied that there would be minimal increased
risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration by screws, nails and the like.

Hmmm - are these proposals for Amendment 2, or what? Amendment 1 does not contain a part (c) to 411.3.3 and neither 522.6.102 or 522.6.103 contain the exceptions you mention. All three of those parts can therefore be read as to mean that RCD protection would have to be added if a damaged socket were replaced.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the Draft for Public Comment of Amendment 1 contained the following...