Todays Newspaper

[JohnW2]

It is interesting to note all the comments on this topic but I would consider that DIY work carried out by persons who contribute to websites such as this one and ask advice is the least of the problems.

Whilst it's essentially impossible to find any hard facts, I think that is almost certainly the case. I think it highly likely that the great majority of deaths and serious injuries due to 'faulty electrical installations' (and we don't really know how many of them there are) have nothing to do with DIY work at all.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It all kind of pales into insignificance when you consider that, in 2011 alone, there were 1900 fatalities and 23000 serious injuries caused by (presumably licensed) drivers on British roads. Statutory obligations because the occasional person gets electrocuted but a total blind eye to other means of death.

Very much so. If the sole interest were a reduction in the number of accidental deaths and serious injuries in the UK, then just a tiny increase in the vigilence with which existing motoring laws were policed/enforced (new laws wouldn't be needed) would almost certainly achieve more than any amount of regulation of electrical work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

[At this moment in time as far as I am aware, the document is still at it's draft stages and it has not been implicated that this draft is going to become law, as there could still be alteration made to the draft. Unless you know otherwise?

Whilst what you say is, theoretically, literally true the chances of this 'draft' changing before April is close to zero. They have effectively put this one to bed and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they are already working on the next revision to Part P.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed - and, as I recently said, I do seriously doubt that there was ever any evidence-based reason for making such activity notifiable in kitchens when it wasn't notifiable in most other rooms.

Of course there was. There was considerable evidence that traditional electricians were losing work which they felt was rightfully theirs to kitchen fitters, which is why kitchens got added to the list of things where obstacles would be placed in the way of people who were not electricians.

If that's the only possible evidence-based reason you can think of, I reckon you have confirmed my point!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've not confirmed your point, I have negated it.

You said you doubted that there was ever any evidence-based reason for making such activity notifiable in kitchens when it wasn't notifiable in most other rooms.

But there was plenty of evidence-based reason, that of electricians economic interests.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

At this moment in time as far as I am aware, the document is still at it's draft stages and it has not been implicated that this draft is going to become law, as there could still be alteration made to the draft.
Unless you know otherwise?

It's no longer a draft:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_P_2013.pdf


The SI amending the Building Regulations has been laid before Parliament:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3119/contents/made



And (why should we be surprised ) there is nothing whatsoever in the amended Building Regulations which permits the use of registered 3rd party inspectors as an alternative to notifying the council - it's pure fabrication.

 

[maltaron]

BAS said "And (why should we be surprised ) there is nothing whatsoever in the amended Building Regulations which permits the use of registered 3rd party inspectors as an alternative to notifying the council - it's pure fabrication."

Its on the first page.

 

[JohnW2]

It's no longer a draft: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_P_2013.pdf[/QUOTE]
Indeed - as I recently indicated in the other thread.

The SI amending the Building Regulations has been laid before Parliament: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3119/contents/made[/QUOTE].
Thanks. I somehow missed that.

And (why should we be surprised ) there is nothing whatsoever in the amended Building Regulations which permits the use of registered 3rd party inspectors as an alternative to notifying the council - it's pure fabrication.

Hmmm- interesting. Although we are aware of apparent inconsistencies of detail between App Doc P and the legislation, that degree of inconsistency would make no sense - so I think we must be missing something. Maybe there's no need for a change in the legisltaion - perhaps merely a slight change of wording in the self-certification paperwork (which does not exist in the SI)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I've not confirmed your point, I have negated it. You said you doubted that there was ever any evidence-based reason for making such activity notifiable in kitchens when it wasn't notifiable in most other rooms. But there was plenty of evidence-based reason, that of electricians economic interests.

You know exactly what I meant.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

In other Parts of the Building Regulations third party inspectors seem to work well with the building control officers. As an example a structural engineer is being used as third party inspector in the structural re-inforcement of a 300 year thatched roof. As I understand it the BCOs do not have the knowledge / experience to calculate the design of the re-inforcements. It seems much of the design has tbe done as the work exposes the degree of re-inforcement needed. Specialist repairers seem able to do this evolving design without difficulty. The structural engineers knowledge is able to verify the final design and the BCOs will accept his verification.

This may be the aim of the changes to Part P regulations.

It has always concerned me that some aspects of building work can be self certified. No protection against bodged work being self certified by the bodger who did it. Third party inspections would ( should ) reduce the amount of bodged work that is self certified.

 

[JohnW2]

BAS said "And (why should we be surprised ) there is nothing whatsoever in the amended Building Regulations which permits the use of registered 3rd party inspectors as an alternative to notifying the council - it's pure fabrication." .... Its on the first page.

No-one is denying that it's on the first page of Approved Document P (which is not 'the law') - but it does not appear to be mentioned in the amended Building Regs (which are 'the law') - which is why BAS feels that what the Approved Document says is "pure fabrication".

However, as I've just replied to him, this makes no sense - it's virtually inconceivable that the Approved Doxcument could be totally wrong about such a fundamental concept. As I wrote to him, maybe a change in the law is not actually required.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Although listed under 'Changes'


As that process (third party certification) is possible at the moment by supervision throughout the work, it is obviously not a 'change'.

If, as I have read elsewhere, it means an EICR after completion of the work and not an EIC some change in the law would seem to be necessary.
Although if not notified that is all that can be done now for LABC satisfaction.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Its on the first page.

I posted the link to the SI which amends the Building Regulations.

Please click it, read the SI, and then return here to tell us where it includes an amendment which permits the use of 3rd-party inspectors as an alternative to notification.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've not confirmed your point, I have negated it. You said you doubted that there was ever any evidence-based reason for making such activity notifiable in kitchens when it wasn't notifiable in most other rooms. But there was plenty of evidence-based reason, that of electricians economic interests.

You know exactly what I meant.

I thought you meant what you wrote.

IHNI in playing games based on you not meaning what you wrote.

 

[JohnW2]

You know exactly what I meant.

I thought you meant what you wrote.
IHNI in playing games based on you not meaning what you wrote.

Maybe you don't, but since you clearly do know exactly what I meant, it is you who is really playing a game.

If you're capable of being sensible for a moment, do you agree with me that there probably never was an electrical/safety-evidence-based reason for making work which would not be notifiable elsewhere notifiable because it was in a kitchen?

Kind Regards, John