Part P, The Aftermath

[dingbat]

Regardless of what may happen in some circumstances, since the introduction of PP all new electrical installations within domestic dwellings must conform to all parts of the building regs, parts A-P, although some of the regs only apply to new builds

That was, in fact, the case long before Part P. It's only since Jan 2005 that sparks have become aware of it.

All extant Building regulations have always applied to anybody carrying out any work in buildings within the scope of those regulations.

 

[dingbat]

What's your point? I still can't imagine, even after learning the basics in 5 days for the benefit of a test, electricians struggling with their own issues giving much thought to structural integrity or fireproofing in domestic environments.

The point is, regardless of what sparks think or don't think, care or don't care, all extant and relevant building regulations apply to all work carried out in any buildings within the scope of the regulations at the time the work was carried out. This has always been the case.

Whether you have the time, the intellect, or the training to contemplate the wider picture you are still performing within that wider picture, and, just as with the law in general, you don't have the right to choose which laws you obey and which you ignore for whatever reasons. As a professional within the construction trade you have an obligation to keep abreast of all changes which affect you.

 

[securespark]

I have spoken to a BCO in Hampshire. She's seen all sorts of shenanigans on forms that does not add up. These are submitted by 5 day wonders...

Now, that's very interesting. The so-called five-day wonders are scheme members, are they not? In which case, having been assessed and found competent, they have no contact with Building Control at all; this is done via the scheme operator. No EIC details are passed on except the address and a summary of the work.

On the other hand, some LABCs will accept an EIC from a qualifed electrician as proof of compliance (still charging the building notice fee, of course). So, if she's seen any actual certificates they will almost certainly have been from the very 'electricians' who complain about the five-day wonders! (People who have not, in fact, been assessed by anybody recently, if you think about it!)

I've seen plenty of good and bad on both sides of the registered fence.

Yeah, she has a spark in her office looking through all the paperwork, deciding whether it is credible or not. Hence she pulled up quite a few "mistakes"...

 

[dingbat]

Yeah, she has a spark in her office looking through all the paperwork, deciding whether it is credible or not. Hence she pulled up quite a few "mistakes"...

To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen a real certificate correctly completed.
Some have come close, but the same old errors crop up time and again. (And you can spot the ones done by the 'very long lead' method a mile off!)

 

[Pensdown]

Furthermore, given that only 10 people a year die from dodgy DIY electrics, this seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are so many other causes of death that should be tackled first, such as road deaths etc. More people probably die from food poisoning because of a badly cooked tea, yet we don't demand that you have to be a chef to cook it!

I've lost count of the number of many time I've heard that and it's still total rubbish. All of the building regs are there to preserve your investment and to protect the occupants etc. Most people know the consequences of building a patio above the damp course but how many know the consequences of braking the vapour seal above a kitchen in a new build? Years ago that problem didn't exist and you could just cut holes all over the place but now building methods have changed the vapour seal has a purpose.

Very few people die because their house falls down around their ears but loads of people loose thousands of pounds when they sell there house because their alterations have not been done is a safe manner so "getting away with it" can be very short sighted

 

[securespark]

However, I do think there's mileage in what has been said.

An Mp's daughter dies. Tragic. Any death is.

But why not invest the money in improving safety where more lives can be saved like the railways (only an example)?

As things are, the idea is good, the implementation bad. Lives will not be saved by this knee-jerk reaction.

Same as speed cams. The stats tell us accidents have risen.

 

[danlightbulb]

There seems to be 2 separate issues running through this thread under the Part P guise:

1. The standards
2. The certification

Personally I think the standards are very important and as other posters have said, more needs to be done in making these standards available to the general public. As a DIY'er I do make sure I research any work I intend to do, as it helps make an informed decision on whether I posess the skills to be able to do the job. If not, the research helps when getting a contractor in.

It is the certification aspect of the regs I don't like simply because it costs me more money as a DIY'er to have to get my own work, that I believe is safe, certified. Granted its not a common everyday thing and doesn't have a massive impact on my life.

However it is I suppose useful for pro's to certify, as it gives a householder an implied guarantee of quality (albeit that this can occasionally be misleading with cowboy contractors).

All in all I suppose that the essence of part P is a good thing, as with the other building reg parts, but the application of it could do with a bit of thought.

 

[CallEdsFirst]

What's your point? I still can't imagine, even after learning the basics in 5 days for the benefit of a test, electricians struggling with their own issues giving much thought to structural integrity or fireproofing in domestic environments.

The point is, regardless of what sparks think or don't think, care or don't care, all extant and relevant building regulations apply to all work carried out in any buildings within the scope of the regulations at the time the work was carried out. This has always been the case.

Whether you have the time, the intellect, or the training to contemplate the wider picture you are still performing within that wider picture, and, just as with the law in general, you don't have the right to choose which laws you obey and which you ignore for whatever reasons. As a professional within the construction trade you have an obligation to keep abreast of all changes which affect you.

I totally agree, so what difference is Part P making? Building Regs are not new, nor is the concept of adhering to them, nor good quality electrical work, tested and certified as such!

Are we therefore back the same issue. Just a lot of **** and wind to make John Prescott look busy? All he is saying is "Good guys, keep doing what your doing but write and pay more to do it, bad guys, we can't stop you but if we catch you..........." There were already laws under which to prosecute bad workmen. We don't need a scheme for people to hunt down electrical cowboys whose work has killed!

I really do not have a problem with Part P and if I appear to be moaning about it, then I'm not making myself clear, but what would you do to make it worthwhile?

 

[Colin_p]

In my opinion Part P should have far more in it than it does and this means if it goes up from 47 pages to 547 pages, so be it.

No, you're wrong again, Colin. How can I make this as simple as possible for you... ?

For all the physical things that affect a building there are regulations, approved practices, etc, which already exist.
These things are well researched by experts and are the subject of specialist areas of expertise. Let me list a few:

quote]

I totally agree.

However, if you look at the other sections of the regs, compliance is easily and readily achievable because the information is available for research.

The whole premise of the regulations is to ensure that works are carried out to a standard. All of the BS's ISO's, BRE's etc etc that are referred to are for guidance. They are not statutory and therefore people are free to build however they like so long as it can be demostrated that what is being built complies with the Building Regulations which are statutory.

Where part P falls down is it's total reliance on the IEE regs, they are not freely and readily available unless of course you cough up! To this end and as this information cannot be readily obtained people are more likely to ignor the requirements especially as they have to cough up to comply.

Surely as safety is the prime concern here, it would be far better if the information was available for research and decision making but punters as for every job that is correctly carried in accordance with part P, I'd suggest there are 50 that don't. Of those 50, which will always happen would it not be better that the people who carry them out have some kind of resource to use for information?

 

[dingbat]

Where part P falls down is it's total reliance on the IEE regs, they are not freely and readily available unless of course you cough up!

Or go to any public library.

But, in any case, you still fail to see the point. What else could Approved Document P (Not Part P) do, without reprinting the regs in their entirety?

Or, hey, maybe they should invent a whole new set of regulations to make obsolete the 125 years of work by the IEE and its forebears?

 

[Colin_p]

Where part P falls down is it's total reliance on the IEE regs, they are not freely and readily available unless of course you cough up!

Or go to any public library.

But, in any case, you still fail to see the point. What else could Approved Document P (Not Part P) do, without reprinting the regs in their entirety?

Or, hey, maybe they should invent a whole new set of regulations to make obsolete the 125 years of work by the IEE and its forebears?

No, I think you are missing the point.

With safety being what propogated Part P, why not actually have some useful information and guidance in it? At present there is none and as a result it is probably having the reverse effect to that intended.

In esscence all part P says is "If you need electrics doing, it is going to cost you a bloody fortune." and because of this, what are people going to do? They will ignor it just like the majority do when it comes to pointless law, like unrealistically low speed limits.

Part P needs changing to be more transparent with better information and advise if it is to achieve what it was originally intended to do.

 

[dingbat]

With safety being what propogated Part P, why not actually have some useful information and guidance in it? At present there is none and as a result it is probably having the reverse effect to that intended.

And your evidence for this is?

You see, there are DIY-ers like yourself who feel that somehow they have been disadvantaged. And there are 'proper electricians' who feel that their abilities are being unfairly questioned.

Both groups are desperately seeking validation of their concerns and grasp at any straws that suggest that they are correct and the law is wrong. Both groups are actually minorities.

Being in neither camp, I can only comment on my experience and my experience informs me thus:
1. Electrical installation (to the regulations) is actually beyond the abilities of most DIY-ers, despite what they fondly imagine.
2. Most traditionally qualified electricans do not fully understand the regulations and struggle to test and certify.
3. The average householder doesn't understand much about anything, really.
4. But the message is getting through and virtually all of my clients do know at least that something has changed. They trust me to be professional and solve their problems. Legally.
5. If you let the electricans decide policy then DIY electrics would most probably attract the death penalty.

Okay, the last was a flight of fancy (just).

But, look, You believe what you wish and do as you please, but don't imagine for a minute that because you hold the views you do, that the world will alter shape to fit.

As I said, I can only go by my experience and my experience is that Part P has already changed and will continue to change the domestic electrical installation sector for the better. Maybe I'm living life in a bubble, but it is a bubble that, almost certainly has a far clearer view of the real situation than you do... for which I sincerely apologise. Really, I do. I wish the shape of things could alter so that everybody could believe that their opinion matters, but the truth is that it doesn't.
Part P will not be going away any time soon, so get used to it. If you really want to do it yourself then you have to be informed, in which case £50 is a small price to pay. (And, whatever you want to believe, not all the information required to comply with all the other building regulations is free to all.)

 

[Colin_p]

Dear Dingbat,

You do indeed live in a bubble. For every installation you do, is done, within the regs I'd guess that there are 50 that are not. Of course I cannot support that claim but I am in a far better postion and have more clarity over this situation than yourself sitting within your bubble. You could be likened to the Queen, she only sees green cut grass, no litter and everything as it should be, you are the same as you only come into contact to people who to comply and want to comply with the regulations.

I am not saying that Part P should be abolished and fully support the principal and neccessity of the building regulations. I am trying to state, from a perspective outside of your bubble, that the way Part P has been implemented is wrong. I do sincerely sympathise that you cannot comprehend this fact, and to use your sentiments, I really do.





[/i]

 

[dingbat]

 

[FatGit]

Furthermore, given that only 10 people a year die from dodgy DIY electrics, this seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are so many other causes of death that should be tackled first, such as road deaths etc. More people probably die from food poisoning because of a badly cooked tea, yet we don't demand that you have to be a chef to cook it!

I've lost count of the number of many time I've heard that and it's still total rubbish. All of the building regs are there to preserve your investment and to protect the occupants etc. Most people know the consequences of building a patio above the damp course but how many know the consequences of braking the vapour seal above a kitchen in a new build? Years ago that problem didn't exist and you could just cut holes all over the place but now building methods have changed the vapour seal has a purpose.

Very few people die because their house falls down around their ears but loads of people loose thousands of pounds when they sell there house because their alterations have not been done is a safe manner so "getting away with it" can be very short sighted

But the point is that it is my house and my money. If I want to wreck the thing then it's up to me, not the nosy council. If I want to buy a Rolls Royce tommorow and smash it up for the hell of it, then that's my business.
It may well be short-sighted but that's my choice. Besides, I may not want to sell my house for 20 years.