Should Part P get scrapped?

[mattylad]

I guess that I'm on the wrong side of the law with regard to part P, if the cost of informing the appropriate council department was not so high I would be encouraged to do so, but since it is high I will not do so.

To replace a length of cable that has been put in wrongly I either have to pay a lot of money or DIY and not tell. I prefer to keep my hard earned money ta.

(Even involving my sparky brother in law is not good enough to comply with part p).

 

[JohnW2]

I guess that I'm on the wrong side of the law with regard to part P, if the cost of informing the appropriate council department was not so high I would be encouraged to do so, but since it is high I will not do so. To replace a length of cable that has been put in wrongly I either have to pay a lot of money or DIY and not tell. I prefer to keep my hard earned money ta.

It's worth remembering that when people like you (and I'm sure you're in the company of millions) talk about being on the wrong side of the law, in the great majority of cases, all they are talking/thinking about is the failure to notify notifiable work - which is, indeed, contrary to the law.

However, in terms of 'what really matters' about the law, I imagine that the great majority are actually abiding by the requirements of Part P ... which requires only that those undertaking electrical work make reasonable provisions in design and installation to protect persons from fire or injury.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ebee]

And you could decide not to take a driving test if you are a safe driver or even not bother with insurance or MOT if you not gonna crash and your car is roadworthy

 

[Electrifying]

I think most of the confusion and bickering would stop if people started to look at the whole thing from the correct perspective.

i.e. STOP referring to 'Part P' as some kind of entity in it's own right..........we've had the phrase used in a multitude of wrong ways and it must get on other peoples tits, as well as mine?

We've had:

"How do I become 'Part P'?

"I've got my 'Part P' exam next week, any advice?"

Then we have the comments about:

"It's not publicised enough"

"No-ones prosecuted"

"It costs too much"

PART P is, as the name implies, a part (or section), of the building regulations........that's it!

It's not an exam, it's not something you can 'be'......or 'have'........and it has nothing to do with the 'schemes' and the 'moneymaking', as such.

It is one part of the building regulations that anyone who undertakes building work has to comply with.

You can't scrap it.................otherwise, why not scrap 'Part M' while your at it........or maybe 'Part A'??

Electricians, just like builders, plumbers, gas fitters etc, have to comply with the Building Regulations.......not just 'Part P'

Some work covered by the Building Regulations is notifiable to Building Control.........not just electrical!

You don't hear 'Builders' bleating on about having to notify an extension they intend to build, and how awful the costs are.

At least with electrical work you have two choices of 'legal' route to take......unlike our 'builder' friend.

One, you notify building control of your intention to commence electrical building work.

Two, you join a self-certification scheme, which gives you the right to certify that the work that you have completed complies with the Building Regulations.

Dead simple, you take your pick!

If you decide that you don't want to pay to notify your electrical work, then so be it..........but then you might as well not pay to notify any work you have done..........so crack on with your 'extension' or whatever, and save yourself a fortune.

There are people who will always try to cut corners and save money......it's not a new thing.....it's happened all through time:

Road tax dodgers

Drivng without insurance

Working on the side

Dodgy MOTs

'Black Boxes' to turn electric meter backwards.

the list goes on and on.

My point is, no matter what legislation is brought in, there will always be someone who doesn't like it and thinks it doesn't apply to them - but thankfully, most of us do what's right.

 

[JohnW2]

And you could decide not to take a driving test if you are a safe driver ....

You could indeed, but I don't think it's all that good an analogy. The law requires that anyone driving a vehicle on public roads should have a valid licence so to do, the obtaining of which requires one to pass a driving test. Part P of the Building Regs could, similarly, require that anyone undertaking electrical work had to be a licensed/registered/whatever electrician - but they don't.

What worries me about the fact that so many people focus on the notification aspects, rather than Part P' itself, is that it undoubtedly makes some people (essentially 'DIYers') believe that 'Part P' does not apply to non-notifiable work, and therefore that they are automatically 'on the right side of the law' if they undertake non-notifiable DIY work. The truth, of course, is that they are only on the right side of the law if they comply with Part P of the Building Regs - but I could forgive many readers of some posts in forums such as this for not really realising/understanding that.

No-one could possibly argue with the requirement of Part P that electrical work should be undertaken with reasonable consideration being given to the avoidance of fire and injury - just as one can't argue with the requirement of the law that people drive safely, even if they have passed a driving test.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Johnmelad]

Part P is good. Part P must be followed by all including DIYers.

However, those parts that need to be notified should be free of charge, end of.

 

[Electrifying]

Part P is good. Part P must be followed by all including DIYers.

However, those parts that need to be notified should be free of charge, end of.

Lets assume for a minute that you are an electrician -

I suppose you won't object to being asked by your local 'Building Control' to 'Inspect & Test' a DIYers installation for them, (first and second fix), and confirm that it complies with the relevant legislation............free of charge, of course, because, now that they're no longer charging 'notification fees', they don't have the money to pay you.

 

[JohnW2]

Part P is good. Part P must be followed by all including DIYers.

Indeed, since it's nothing more than a very general statement about the most basic of electrical common sense - i.e. that reasonable provision be made to avoid risks of fire and personal injury. Anyone not complying with that certainly should not be undertaking electrical work.

However, those parts that need to be notified should be free of charge, end of.

In Utopia, perhaps, but that's not going to happen - nor would it really be fair. If notification of non-self-certified work is going to achieve anything, then the work is going to have to be inspected, at a cost - and it is fairer that such costs should be bourne by those undertaking such work than by Council Tax payers in general, isn't it? However, the charges should simply cover the true costs (of inspection and admin), and not make a 'profit'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

If notification of non-self-certified work is going to achieve anything, then the work is going to have to be inspected, at a cost - and it is fairer that such costs should be bourne by those undertaking such work than by Council Tax payers in general, isn't it? However, the charges should simply cover the true costs (of inspection and admin), and not make a 'profit'.

Turn the clock back a lot of years to the old Electricity Boards, that's what we used to do on receipt of a "Wiring Completion Certificate".
Well in reality a full megger test and a random inspection of fittings (In those days ELI was not bothered about by anyone!)

Who paid? Well as we inevitably made a loss and were government "owned", probably the tax payer!

 

[JohnW2]

Turn the clock back a lot of years to the old Electricity Boards, that's what we used to do on receipt of a "Wiring Completion Certificate". Well in reality a full megger test and a random inspection of fittings (In those days ELI was not bothered about by anyone!) Who paid? Well as we inevitably made a loss and were government "owned", probably the tax payer!

Indeed - and, although that was not completely fair, it probably wasn't too bad over a long period of years - since most tax payers had electricity supplies and most would, on average, require such 'inspections' at roughly the same intervals.

The iniquity which would arise if notification under Part P was made FOC arises from the fact that the cost to (Council) Tax payers would be minimal if work were undertaken by a self-certifying electrician but considerably more if a householder chose to undertake (and notify) the work on a DIY basis. That a'int fair

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattylad]

The charges for notification are excessive. They do not simply cover the cost of the paper shuffling that they entail. Although they should they do not cover the inspection costs either.

If I choose to do some notifiable works myself, following stds and have it tested myself by a competent yet not part p qualified electrician I still have to pay the council an excessive amount and get it tested by a part p qualified (or whatever you want to call it) person.

The requirements are good to keep those numpties who do not have a clue away from electricity, however some of us have got a clue and can find out the required information and do the work ourselves so I object to paying the council - I might as well pay someone else to do the work in that case and I object to that also.

The analogy of driving a car is a stupid one, I would hazard a guess that there are a lot more killed by cars each year than by DIY electrical work.

 

[JohnW2]

The charges for notification are excessive. They do not simply cover the cost of the paper shuffling that they entail. Although they should they do not cover the inspection costs either.

As I said, if we are to have this system, the charges should do no more than cover the cost of the admin and testing.

The requirements are good to keep those numpties who do not have a clue away from electricity,

I don't really agree, and that is perhaps the silliest part of all this. It obviously would be good to keep such numpties away from electricity, but I do not believe that Part P, as currently conceived and policed/enforced (or not) does much at all to keep them away from electricity. Indeed, I doubt whether many of them even know that Part P exists.

... however some of us have got a clue and can find out the required information and do the work ourselves so I object to paying the council - I might as well pay someone else to do the work in that case and I object to that also.

I totally sympathise, but cannot see a solution. Just like you may well feel, my temptation would be to say that all DIY electrical work should be banned, except for a few select exceptions like myself (and maybe you)! But how could the law define 'us'?

The analogy of driving a car is a stupid one, I would hazard a guess that there are a lot more killed by cars each year than by DIY electrical work.

I think you must be referring to ebee introducing the analogy of people deciding not to take driving tests because they knew they were good drivers. If you looked further back in the thread, you will see that I used that very comparison with road deaths to illustrate that there is really very little justification for the existance of Part P in terms of saving lives....

... as I wrote before, the guess you are hazarding is way way off the mark. Although the statistics are poor, it looks as if, pre-Part P, the number killed by dodgy electrical work (both DIY and professional) per year was roughly the same as the number killed on the roads per day. Whatever else Part P may think it's achieving, it cannot possibly be an appreciable reduction in the number of deaths due to 'didgy electrical work' - since there were seemingly so few prior to Part P.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

IIRC if you looked at the year-on-year figures they were so variable as to be statistically insignificant.

 

[JohnW2]

IIRC if you looked at the year-on-year figures they were so variable as to be statistically insignificant.

If you're talking about the figures for deaths due to 'dodgy electrical work', I don't doubt that they were very variable, pretty inaccurate and very small - so small that, in 'callous' but pragmatic terms, they were not really 'relevant' - and certainly not really large enough to justify legislation and a consequent 'bureacracy' in an attempt to reduce them.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

Can't help but think follow the money!
Who gains?

Local Authorities obviously

Registration bodies
Training organisations

Of course the latter two might just be represented on the groups that wrote the documents and are, after all, commercial organisations!