The Part P scam

[ban-all-sheds]

Pg 290, readers digest DIY manual, I would be interested in your critique of the text. I am particularly fond of the diagram showing 1 cable running from the CU, through a control unit to the back of the Oven/Cooker. But my favourite has to be the box "Understading an electric cooker circuit". Good thing I went to University, those comprehensive skills sure come in handy.

I don't have that book. I do actually have an old RD DIY manual but the cooker stuff isn't on p290.

I don't know if they have changed anything other than the layout, but if not then my critique would be that I'm concerned about:

• Nothing about the issues of diversity calculations with induction hobs
• Nothing about the effect that installation methods have on cable current carrying capacity
• Nothing about the need to de-rate cables when BS 3036 fuses are used
• Nothing about the tests which should be carried out on the circuit before putting it into service.

However if he doesn't think that people will "just put a plug on it and plug it in" to avoid having to notify and readily accepts this is a safe practice, well, that's just dandy.

People do all sorts of loony things, for all sorts of reasons.

If they are unsafe I don't accept them as safe practice, whatever the reasons.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Wouldnt the local council have to do ALL of the above, even if there was no work to do? It surely cannot cost an extra 100 and odd quid to process each job. Thats quite a few hours work for a council employee, unless they are on BIG wages..

But if there was no work to do they wouldn't employ the people who do it.

OK - getting rid of 1 or 2 BCOs won't mean a smaller office building etc, but that's not the way it works. People doing work which is charged out do have overheads, and if you ran a business and only looked at their salaries you'd go bust in a short space of time. It isn't that hard, in departments where fee-earning services are provided, to look at the % of building floor space the dept occupies, the number of non-fee-earners associated with it (e.g. admin), and work out what it costs to run the fee-earners per hour or per day. If that's, say, £50/hour, and on average they do 25 hours per week that can be charged for, but you're paying them for 40 hours you get to a figure of £80 per hour. If the small jobs, on average, take the guys 3 hours to do then that's £240 that you need to charge. Charging only what you have to pay them for 3 hours work will lead you to ruin.

 

[Gees]

If it were a private business then I agree with you. But it isnt !! Its a government department, and they will allways be there, charging more money for less services. As they have always done..

BTW my 1977 readers digest has a good tip for testing earths..


View media item 20550

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it where a private business then I agree with you. But it isnt !! Its a government department, and they will allways be there, charging more money for less services. As they have always done..

So you think that when it comes to things like Building Control they should not charge people what it actually costs them, and instead should charge less, making up the shortfall by increasing council tax or cutting other services?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The former.

In that case it could well be reasonable, and reducing it would end up making council tax even more regressive than it already is.

Although seeing as the stated aim of Part P was to improve electrical safety and after 5 years there is no evidence to suggest that any such improvement has occurred, is it reasonable for Part P to continue to exist?

It was never reasonable for it to be introduced in the first place.

And paying £190 to the council to have your £20 job inspected is fair? There are numerous aspects of local councils which could be argued to be unfair. For council tax you could start, for example, with the very basic issue of asking why somebody who has worked hard to live in a £300,000 house has to pay considerably more than somebody living in a £70,000 house when he's getting exactly the same services (or lack of) for his money.

So shall we make everyone pay for Building Control services even though they don't have building work done? Many recipients of BCO inspections etc are commercial money-making concerns who may not even be based in the area where the LABC is, and so are contributing absolutely nothing in the way of Council Tax or business rates.

I was just pointing out that the huge increase in council tax over recent years is not exactly making people feel kindly toward then being told they need to pay more extortionate amounts for other things. They are all related.

I keep asking, and people keep ignoring, how much would an electrician charge to check, inspect, test and certify the work?

 

[Paul_C]

Again you need to make a distinction between whether £190 is a reasonable amount to charge for the activities of a Building Control dept (I think it probably is) and whether the whole idea is reasonable given the small cost of the job actually being done. The two are very different things.

Leaving aside whether the local authority should be regulating such minor things in the first place as a basic principle, if they can't do it for such small jobs without the amount charged becoming completely disproportionate as it clearly is for many small electrical works, then it becomes unreasonable anyway.

And as I said - if you asked an electrician to come along, check your design calculations, check where and how you had installed the cables, run tests on the circuit and produce a report to say that it was OK, how much do you think you'd have to pay?

It doesn't matter, since I'm not being told that I am required by law to do that. If I don't like his quote, I'm free to go elsewhere; people don't have that choice with the LABC.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't turn the lights off, of course they should, and of course lots of small savings can add up, but really - do you honestly think that turning them off would bring about any reduction in your council tax, let alone a significant one?

Individually no, but as I said, we're talking about accumulative waste by local councils in many different fields, and it all adds up. And yes, they have to provide many services, but haven't you noticed that the basic services they are supposed to provide have been deteriorating badly in recent years? Roads are falling apart, street cleaning and general maintenance is practically non-existent in many areas now, refuse collection is now typically once every two weeks (not to mention all the petty rules they try to impose on it), and so on. If it's not inefficiency, waste, and overburdensome regulations for everything, why has council tax skyrocketed while the most basic services have gone down the tubes?

Couldn't be all the worthless and extremely highly paid non-jobs like "diversity awareness coordinator" could it?

Office furniture and similar should be purchased for value and function, not for fancy design,

You'll find it is.

You want to see my local district council office then.

and offices shouldn't automatically be refurbished at great expense after only 3 or 4 years when there was absolutely nothing wrong with the existing furniture.

You'll find that they are not.

Ditto.

I think that what really goes on is your dislike of the whole idea of there being governments at all, be they local or national. I think you're a bit like those American nutcases who see the frightful "dead hand of big government" everywhere they look, or those wallies in the Taxpayers Alliance.

I'm beginning to think that you actually work for a local authority, or some other branch of government. If you can't see how overburdensome the taxes and regulations are becoming, then you must either be part of the corrupt system or you are a socialist who sees nothing wrong with the government regulating every last detail of people's lives and taking huge amounts of money from them in the process.

At the rate the restrictions have been growing over the years, what do you think it will be like if that continues for another 20 or 30 years? Will you still be happy when you're being told you need to pay £500 to LABC just to change a wall switch (all for your own safety, of course), or that you're not allowed to so much as change a light fitting without getting the new one approved (in order to "save the planet," naturally) first?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Leaving aside whether the local authority should be regulating such minor things in the first place as a basic principle,

OK - we'll leave that to one side.

if they can't do it for such small jobs without the amount charged becoming completely disproportionate as it clearly is for many small electrical works, then it becomes unreasonable anyway.

So having left it to one side, we can only proceed on the basis that they are going to be doing the regulation, and all that's left to discuss is what the charges should be.

It costs the same to send someone out to travel somewhere, do some I&T, travel back, document his visit, claim his expenses etc for a £20 spurred socket in a kitchen as it does for a larger and more expensive job.

If the fees charged were what in your opinion would be commensurate, who do you suggest should pay for the shortfall between the fee and the actual costs to the council, and how should that be collected?

It doesn't matter, since I'm not being told that I am required by law to do that. If I don't like his quote, I'm free to go elsewhere; people don't have that choice with the LABC.

It does mater, because I said IF you wanted an electrician to do that.

Remember we are no longer discussing whether the Building Regulations regime should be there in the first place, we've left that issue and are discussing the only one left - what should the charge be. You think that £190 is too high. So what do you think an electrician would charge?

Individually no, but as I said, we're talking about accumulative waste by local councils in many different fields, and it all adds up. And yes, they have to provide many services, but haven't you noticed that the basic services they are supposed to provide have been deteriorating badly in recent years? Roads are falling apart, street cleaning and general maintenance is practically non-existent in many areas now, refuse collection is now typically once every two weeks (not to mention all the petty rules they try to impose on it), and so on. If it's not inefficiency, waste, and overburdensome regulations for everything, why has council tax skyrocketed while the most basic services have gone down the tubes?

Why on earth aren't you in politics?

You clearly know that there is a simple reason for the problems you see, and that there is a quick and easy fix. As you would be able, because of your deep understanding and knowledge, to dramatically reduce spending, and make great improvements to the services provided you'd be a shoo-in, and then when you delivered on those promises you'd be elected over and over again. The benefits to society and the economy would be so great that it really is your civic duty to go into government, and you should hang your head in shame for every day which goes by where you refuse to make everybody's life measurably better because you prefer to sit on the sidelines carping on.

Couldn't be all the worthless and extremely highly paid non-jobs like "diversity awareness coordinator" could it?

I don't know, but as you have the figures at your fingertips of how many worthless jobs there are, how extremely highly paid they are, and how significant their total costs are then I would be grateful if you would tell me, so that I may know.

I'm beginning to think that you actually work for a local authority, or some other branch of government. If you can't see how overburdensome the taxes and regulations are becoming, then you must either be part of the corrupt system or you are a socialist who sees nothing wrong with the government regulating every last detail of people's lives and taking huge amounts of money from them in the process.

Ah - the "s" word.

Actually I'm none of those things, but then neither am I someone who bleats about government finances and waste, in ignorance of the facts, simply because he just doesn't want government.

 

[Cremeegg]

If you think £190 is too high try the £350 quoted by my brothers Council in outer London.

 

[securespark]

Yes, the work I am doing is notifiable as it is in the kitchen - it's adding a spur off the CU for the oven/gas hob ignition.

That's not a spur, it's a new circuit.

Not if it's a spur off a ring final MCB it's not!

 

[Paul_C]

So having left it to one side, we can only proceed on the basis that they are going to be doing the regulation, and all that's left to discuss is what the charges should be.

It costs the same to send someone out to travel somewhere, do some I&T, travel back, document his visit, claim his expenses etc for a £20 spurred socket in a kitchen as it does for a larger and more expensive job.

If the fees charged were what in your opinion would be commensurate, who do you suggest should pay for the shortfall between the fee and the actual costs to the council, and how should that be collected?

That why I said that even if we set aside the basic principle at the start, the fact that the fees charged will then be grossly disproportionate to the job being done would make the whole thing unreasonable anyway.

So what do you think an electrician would charge?

It doesn't matter if he wants to charge £10 or £500, since I am not forced to avail myself of his services, can tell him that his fee is much too high, and not have any possible legal ramifications from doing so.

It was never reasonable for it to be introduced in the first place.

So you're saying it was never reasonable for it to be introduced at all, but at the same time you then think it's reasonable to try and force people to pay £190 in official fees for a £20 job?

Even if the true total cost of such a trivial inspection were £190, that can't make it reasonable if the original premises for mandating such an inspection were completely unreasonable in the first place.

So shall we make everyone pay for Building Control services even though they don't have building work done?

I'm not arguing that such a system would necessarily be fair, but a very large proportion of government taxation already works that way anyway.

Some people never set foot in a public library, but they are paying for those library services in their taxes. Some people never have children to send to school, but they have to pay for schools through their taxes. It becomes even more unfair when we get down to "PC" things which local councils these days are funding and which are used or wanted by only a very tiny minority of people, like printing leaflets in a dozen different languages, and funding such things as homosexual "pride" parades. You can extend this to national taxes: With the way the NHS works, for example, non-smokers are contributing to the thousands it costs to provide treatment for smoking-related diseases, and those who indulge in dangerous sports which result in frequent hospitalization are similarly being subsidized by those who don't.

So if somebody getting work done on his premises should pay the full true costs (whatever that may be) for the bureaucracy involved, shouldn't the entire taxation system be reformed to make it similarly fair in all other respects to everybody else?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That why I said that even if we set aside the basic principle at the start, the fact that the fees charged will then be grossly disproportionate to the job being done would make the whole thing unreasonable anyway.

I missed the implied "even" - it seemed that what you were saying was to ignore whether they should be doing it and just look at whether the charges were reasonable.

If you are not to to consider whether it should or should not be done then all that's left to consider are the charges.

£20 would be unreasonable, as that would mean subsidising it from taxpayer money.

£2000 would be unreasonable as that would mean it was a source of profit for the council.

£190 is probably reasonable as it is probably the true break-even cost.

It doesn't matter if he wants to charge £10 or £500, since I am not forced to avail myself of his services, can tell him that his fee is much too high, and not have any possible legal ramifications from doing so.

Ditto - ignoring considerations of whether it should be done, (which you are not actually ignoring, as you are still talking about the fact that it is the law), it does matter greatly what it would cost outside of LABC, as that is very relevant to whether LABC charges are reasonable.

So you're saying it was never reasonable for it to be introduced at all, but at the same time you then think it's reasonable to try and force people to pay £190 in official fees for a £20 job?

No, I'm saying that it was never reasonable for it to be introduced in the first place but £190 is a reasonable sum to charge for the service provided.

Even if the true total cost of such a trivial inspection were £190, that can't make it reasonable if the original premises for mandating such an inspection were completely unreasonable in the first place.

Nonsense - if the true total cost of the inspection is £190 then that is a reasonable price to put on it.

I'm not arguing that such a system would necessarily be fair, but a very large proportion of government taxation already works that way anyway.

Some people never set foot in a public library, but they are paying for those library services in their taxes. Some people never have children to send to school, but they have to pay for schools through their taxes.

So is it that you think that's a good thing, and it should be extended by making everyone pay for Building Control costs, or is it that you think that's a bad thing and it should be made worse by making everyone pay for Building Control costs?

It becomes even more unfair when we get down to "PC" things which local councils these days are funding and which are used or wanted by only a very tiny minority of people, like printing leaflets in a dozen different languages, and funding such things as homosexual "pride" parades.

For pity's sake will you PLEASE take your utterly off-topic and nasty little right-wing bigoted objections to what local government does off to the dribbling neanderthals on the General Discussion forum or to the letter pages of The Daily Mail or to the blogs on taxpayersalliance.com where you'll find equally nasty little right-wing bigots who will enjoy some mutual whinging. They do not belong here.

You can extend this to national taxes: With the way the NHS works, for example, non-smokers are contributing to the thousands it costs to provide treatment for smoking-related diseases,

OTOH, the government collects £10 billion pa in taxes on tobacco sales, and if smokers die earlier there's a pension saving..

and those who indulge in dangerous sports which result in frequent hospitalization are similarly being subsidized by those who don't.

Where do you draw the line on what are considered dangerous sports, and by whom?

If "dangerous" sports lead to people getting more exercise then maybe the percentage that don't get injured, and have better overall health outweighs the ones who do get injured?

Perhaps there should be more government regulation, with permission needed to engage in dangerous sports. This would allow the authorities to inspect the facilities providing access to dangerous sports, and the expertise of those running them.

Of course that would have to be paid for by someone, but hey - if it stops people doing what the hell they like to their own bodies then that can only be a good thing.

Should we make dangerous sports practitioners pay for it themselves, through some kind of application fee, or should we make all taxpayers pay for it?

 

[zacha4]

This Part P is a total scam to make money, it has nothing to do about making the industry safer.

I am a time served apprentice of over 25 years experience in electrics, I have 17th edition reg qualifications and can do any wiring at all where I work on a industrial complex, I have wired up complete buildings but I am not allowed to do wiring at home.

However I can change the brakes on my car without any qualifications - Now I am sure more people have been killed from doing dodgy DIY repairs on their cars than doing dodgy wiring at home, so why the difference.

A snotty nosed kid just from school however with a very basic training and zero experience is allowed to if he has passed the part P standard and can then self certify. I am sure I know who I would trust on my electrics and it isnt him.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This Part P is a total scam to make money, it has nothing to do about making the industry safer.

Partly money, but more about control, I think, of the electrical installation market by NICEIC and the ECA.

 

[frendzarin]

seeing that the ridiculous PartP scam is now well into year 5 (I think),it would not surprise me one little bit if these pompous under informed beaurocratic twits dreamed up another ludicrous scheme such as part x,y,z, or whatever for D.I.Y. carpentery,painting ,or even pointing your own brickwork,so that the home owner safeguards himself from the disasters of his own claw hammer.The way it seems to be going in the U.K. with this crazy gang govt.is you`ll soon have to sign off more H&S forms ,Part P b****x forms,hot work certificates etc ,etc ,etc,than working on a Petro -chemical plant or gas or oil rig. I myself now do honestly believe that they have lost the whole common sense plot regarding the ordinary joe D.I.Y. man ,some may I add who are as good if not better than some so called "tradesmen",thank God I`m nearly due for retirement,the only worry there is by the time I retire these govt court jesters will have probably brought in a part R or whatever self certified retirement scheme so I would have to carry on working till I drop dead on the job ,happy days eh!.

 

[ricicle]

Why drag up an old post ?