Part P review?

[JohnnyG]

According to the Communities Minister there will be one...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/buildingregsnextsteps

Part P (Electrical safety – Dwellings)
2.57 There were 18 responses submitted directly to the Department. There was
some specific support for the Part P, in particular how it had improved the
quality of electrical work in the home and as a result reduced the number of
deaths and injuries. There was a similar number that suggested that the
approach in Part P was unnecessary and/or should be replaced by a
requirement that electrical work should be carried out by a suitably-qualified
and registered/competent person (with the comparison with gas safety often
being made).
132.58 However, Part P was by far the most commented on aspect of the Building
Regulations on the Your Freedom website. While a minority of the comments
on that site supported the existing provision and worried that deregulation
could impact on health and safety in homes, these views were outnumbered
by those that supported revision of the existing provisions.
2.59 Various reasons were cited for the need to review Part P. However, in
summary they related to the cost associated with demonstrating compliance
with the provisions rather than costs imposed by the way the work itself had to
be carried out, that is either the payment of a building control fee for the work
or payment of an annual fee to belong to a Competent Person Scheme to be
able to self-certify the work. It was often stated that such costs impacted
particularly on small firms. Furthermore, by falling only on those people that
actually sought to comply with the regime it was said this was both unfair and
failed to do anything to tackle those people who were most likely to be
responsible for unsafe work.
2.60 The provisions were first introduced in 2005 and we believe it is now time to
evaluate their contribution to the safety outcomes they were intended to
support. We will therefore undertake a review of the requirements, their
implementation and the associated compliance mechanisms to determine
whether there is any case for change

 

[STI]

Trouble is they will consult with the bodies that have a vested interest in keeping the pay a fee schemes, not to the people who like me object strongly to paying a fee to a body who says im ok or not after ive spent thousands of pounds and probably thousands of hours getting my certificates.

We all need to write to this person, stating our points of view, whatever they are. For gods sake they received 18 responses, Responses to what and from whom.

I apologise in advance if your link goes into more detail, i havent read it yet, long day, but tomorrow i will and i will write to this person expressing my views, as should everyone else who has an interest.

 

[dingbat]

But, in any case, how could any responsible person object to Part P itself?

After all, requirements P1 simply states that "reasonable provision" be made for electrical safety in dwellings.

What is wrong is neither Part P nor the competent persons regime, but the actual enforcement of the requirements.

No laws really prevent the commissioning of offences and in most cases 'the law' simply punishes the ignorant, otherwise law-abiding majority, whilst failing to do anything to curb the activities of those who blatantly flout those laws.

Bring back hanging, I say!

 

[Stoday]

It would seem that Dingbat's issue is being recognised:

2.69 There were 113 responses that contained comments and suggestions on system-related issues. A key theme running through a significant number of responses was the need to raise the levels of compliance and for better evidence of compliance, including a suggestion for random post-completion testing. Allied to this was a strong call for increased legal enforcement including an increase in the range of powers available (such as the introduction of stop notices), the level of impact they have (such as an increase in the level of fines) and measures to encourage local authorities to take more legal action (for example, by allowing them to keep the fines if successful).

 

[ricicle]

I am in favour of the regulatory scheme but object to the costings involved especially when the notification cost is many times more than the cost of the job in certain circumstances eg the addition of a double socket in a kitchen. This is particularly true for non - registered Electricians like myself (maintenance Electrician).
So to put a socket in my kitchen £25 approx, cost of notification £250 !

 

[joinerjohn]

Time that everyone realised these schemes are first and foremost, a cash raising system for whoever. Safety comes a far distant second, when as said, it costs £25 to put a double socket in a kitchen, then costs £250 for the notification.
Even those electricians who have registered as a domestic installer, so they can self certify, have to spend thousands each year. When the Part P regs were introduced, did all those electricians up and down the country, suddenly forget all they had learnt? No, but they had to join a scheme just to say they were competent.

How far are regulations going to go in the future? The way things are going, we're going to have to be registered to change the batteries in the remote for the TV.
For us joiners, we'll probably have to sign up for Part X,Y and Z before we can cut a length of 4"by 2" in half.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even those electricians who have registered as a domestic installer, so they can self certify, have to spend thousands each year.

Can you substantiate that claim, e.g. by providing a breakdown of the figure?

 

[bernardgreen]

Time that everyone realised these schemes are first and foremost, a cash raising system for whoever. Safety comes a far distant second, when as said, it costs £25 to put a double socket in a kitchen, then costs £250 for the notification.

I have always seen the reason for the building regulations as a way to try to ensure that new buildings are built to be safe and sound for purpose. Part P was added with the same intent but was not properly thought out in respect of the fact that electrics are frequently changed in a house without any other structural changes being made. They have used the same process for electrics as they use for structural changes.

My reading of it ( having self built a house ) is that the majority of design is by an architect who specifies the structure ( beam and joist sizes etc etc ) and his calculations are checked by the BCO as a paper exercise.

But for some reason that approach of checking a submitted design was not used in the management of Part P ts for small additions or changes to the electrics of an existing house.

For us joiners, we'll probably have to sign up for Part X,Y and Z before we can cut a length of 4"by 2" in half.

Not to mention having calibrated moisture meters to ensure the moisture content of the timber complies with BS 666 and BS 999999.987654321

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Actually I wouldn't mind a BS for timber which specified a minimum of 8 growth rings per cm.

And the introduction of a law which allowed for the manager of any outlet selling twisted/warped/cupped/bowed timber to be summarily burnt in the car park on a pyre made from his own c**p product.

 

[STI]

I agree Part P in itself is not a bad thing, it is as others have said in response to this post the fact you have to pay a significant amount to comply whether thats to another body each year to self certify or the local authority to sign off.

It is my belief that when they go to consultation on these points and all the others raised they will ask the LA, who i must say do tend to be willing to change rules if a due process is followed, they just then put what ever they are into practice without any room for compromise

The certifying bodies, well turkeys voting for christmas comes to mind.

Large Electrical firms or building contractors whose relative costs in regard to competent person schemes and compliance is small and large building consultancy firms where their interest is new build or complete renovation rather than small domestic work.

The people who wont be listened to, unless we write in ourselves are the small one man bands who may not even be VAT registered and for whom paying out lets say on average £4000 on initial training because they do want to do it right , is a very large amount, paying £500-1000 pounds on testing equipment is a lot, for who £600 per year to join a schems is a lot, for who £1000 pounds per year on update training, documentation and general awareness activities is a lot for who 120 -150 a year for calibration is a significant amount for who the average job is probably less than £100 but does involve putting lights in a bathroom/kitchen/out house and does involve adding an extra socket to an existing ring or may even be a new socket on a new circuit.

I hope everyone, whatever their opinion writes in especially the small and i do mean small business man who is trying to earn a living and not live off the state.

 

[1john]

As a full scope contractor (NICEIE approved contractor) it costs about £500 a year (cant remember the exact figure off the top of my head) for the membership and £1.50 + vat to submit notification, hardly throusands. Even with doing 3 notifiable jobs a week that is still less than £15 a week.

 

[bernardgreen]

As a full scope contractor (NICEIE approved contractor) it costs about £500 a year (cant remember the exact figure off the top of my head)

And what does that £500 provide for you ?. ( other than discounted rates at the Local Authority )

Or more precise how much does it cost NICEIE to have you as a member ?

Do NICEIE make any profit from your membership ? And if so is it a fair profit for the work they do supporting you as member ?.

It interests me as an aquaintance pays £175 +vat for membership of his professional organisation and that includes a professional indemity insurance with £ 1 million cover. They also support him in legal actions.

 

[1john]

Firstly, pardon my spelling error (NICEIC). Initially being a member, pre part P, allowed the undertaking of alot of grant work fron the local authority, infact anything the council were involved with electrically required work to be carried out by either a member of the NICEIC or the ECA. I am not promoting the NICEIC, I am just pointing out that it doesn't cost thousands a year. I hope they make a profit, businesses that run at a loss dont stick around too long, although they are registered as a charity. They have also been around for 50+ years so the public may be familiar with them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And what does that £500 provide for you ?

Much the same as wetting himself wearing a pair of black trousers?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree Part P in itself is not a bad thing, it is as others have said in response to this post the fact you have to pay a significant amount to comply whether thats to another body each year to self certify or the local authority to sign off.

Do you?


The people who wont be listened to, unless we write in ourselves are the small one man bands who may not even be VAT registered and for whom paying out lets say on average £4000 on initial training because they do want to do it right , is a very large amount,[/quote]
And nothing to do with registration - it's the cost of becoming competent because, as you say, they want to do it right.

paying £500-1000 pounds on testing equipment is a lot,

But they need to do that anyway, whether they register or not, because, as you say, they want to do it right.

for who £600 per year to join a schems is a lot,

That is an extra cost. About the same as 5-6 fags a day.

for who £1000 pounds per year on update training, documentation and general awareness activities is a lot

But they need to do that anyway, whether they register or not, because, as you say, they want to do it right.

for who 120 -150 a year for calibration is a significant amount

But they need to do that anyway, whether they register or not, because, as you say, they want to do it right.

for who the average job is probably less than £100 but does involve putting lights in a bathroom/kitchen/out house and does involve adding an extra socket to an existing ring or may even be a new socket on a new circuit.

So the cost of registering, and of notifying the job, adds what % to that £100?