Todays Newspaper

[EFLImpudence]

Schedule 4 (list of work where NO notice has to be given) has had the electrical references omitted and
replaced with THIS which is a list of work which has to be notified.


Let us hope the writers know the actual definition of a circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

Schedule 4 (list of work where NO notice has to be given) has had the electrical references omitted and
replaced with THIS which is a list of work which has to be notified. ... Let us hope the writers know the actual definition of a circuit.

Indeed - and it would also be nice if we were made aware of their understanding of 'a circuit', too

One has to wonder why (with the possible exception of 'special locations'), they've bothered to retain any notification requirements at all. If one is, for example, going to be allowed, without notification, to tinker about within a CU, perhaps changing the wiring and the contained devices, to one's heart's content, it's difficult to see that it makes much sense to require notification for 'replacing a CU'. Similarly if one can 'extend/modify' an existing circuit out of all recognition without notification, then requiring notification for 'new circuits' seems a little daft. Are we perhaps going to see people asking electricians to fully populate new CUs and connect all the currently 'not-required' MCBs to 'circuits' consisting of a few inches of cable and a JB?

Given that when people talk of 'Part P', they are most commonly referring to the notification requirements (rather than simply doing the work competently/safely), these imminent changes will seem to them to be very close to 'abolishing Part P'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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)?

Well - basically my failure to think properly.

Using a 3rd-party inspector has always been possible (see Building Regulation #19) - I guess that until now there were no bodies who the Secretary of State designated as able to approve 3rd-party inspectors for electrical work.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2215/part/2/made

So the law was always in place, and it is right and proper that the Approved Document should be amended to guide people in the use of this newly possible alternative to LABC notification. Of course it remains to be seen how many electricians will want to become approved inspectors (more fees to NICEIC/NAPIT/ELECSA/UTCAA), and how much they will charge.

And sadly for you John, the question you hate me asking won't go away, just get reworded, and people who intend to appoint a 3rd-party inspector would be well advised to do that and find out what their policies and procedures are before getting other people to do design work etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

No I'm not.

I replied on the basis that you meant what you wrote, not that you meant something which you did not write.

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?

Of course I do - there were never any such reasons for any of the extensions of the Building Regulations to cover electrical work, the whole thing was always entirely based on the economic interests of electricians and their trade associations.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are these inspectors expected to be different people than those (me) who are allowed to do the work themselves and self-certify and therefore supervise a labourer who is doing the 'donkey work'?

In other words, will these inspectors include staff of the LA but who now will have to be approved?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are these inspectors expected to be different people than those (me) who are allowed to do the work themselves and self-certify and therefore supervise a labourer who is doing the 'donkey work'?

Could be different people, or the same - you'll be able to buy another hat from your scheme organiser.

I imagine that as far as the Building Regulations are concerned you, and the approving bodies, will be governed by The Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010.

Section 47 of the Building Act 1984 (c.55) (“the Act”) provides that the responsibility for inspecting plans and building work for compliance with building regulations may, at the option of the person intending to carry out the work, be given to an approved inspector instead of to the local authority.

In other words, will these inspectors include staff of the LA but who now will have to be approved?

No.

 

[EFLImpudence]

you'll be able to buy another hat from your scheme organiser.

I expect they'll throw in another hat for free.

 

[JohnW2]

Well - basically my failure to think properly. ... Using a 3rd-party inspector has always been possible (see Building Regulation #19) - I guess that until now there were no bodies who the Secretary of State designated as able to approve 3rd-party inspectors for electrical work. ... So the law was always in place, and it is right and proper that the Approved Document should be amended to guide people in the use of this newly possible alternative to LABC notification.

That all makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

And sadly for you John, the question you hate me asking won't go away, just get reworded, and people who intend to appoint a 3rd-party inspector would be well advised to do that and find out what their policies and procedures are before getting other people to do design work etc.

I wouldn't have expected any less from you! However, you will then be in the position of talking about what they are 'well advised' to do, which is somewhat weaker than in the present situation. More to the point, with appreciably less work notifiable, there will presumably be fewer occasions on which you will need to ask people about matters relating only to notifiable work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

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?

Of course I do - there were never any such reasons for any of the extensions of the Building Regulations to cover electrical work, the whole thing was always entirely based on the economic interests of electricians and their trade associations.

Hmmm - although I accept that as a view which you're totally entitled to hold, it doesn't really help me with the question I was asking. Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations. My suggestion was that there probably never was much of a specific evidence-based reason to think that kitchen work fell into that category (certainly not kitchen ceiling lights!). ... but you knew that's what I meant, anyway.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations.

No, they decided what should be notifiable on the basis of economics - where was work being lost to other tradesmen? Bathrooms, kitchens, gardens..

All the places people tend to have makeovers done.

If there had been any rationality in the choice of locations then utility rooms would have been up there with kitchens, but utility rooms are a relative rarity so there wasn't much need to try and reserve them for electricians.

 

[westie101]

I can't help but think that administrating this all was a burden on the councils, in these times of reducing costs I wonder if that was one of the triggers for the changes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - they were allowed, compelled even, to recover their costs.

 

[JohnW2]

Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations.

No, they decided what should be notifiable on the basis of economics - where was work being lost to other tradesmen? Bathrooms, kitchens, gardens.. All the places people tend to have makeovers done.

OK - I give up. Your views are incompatible with the issue I was attempting to discuss.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Whatever the underlying motivations, it is surely apparent that, in deciding what works should be notifiable, they selected what they felt to be 'higher risk' works/situations.

No, they decided what should be notifiable on the basis of economics - where was work being lost to other tradesmen? Bathrooms, kitchens, gardens.

Perhaps as well as that, if so, it was a way to get these other trades to 'train' and register - and pay.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes - funny how, as soon as they had got what they wanted after years and years of badgering the Govt about the dangers of electrical work done by people other than proper electricians, they invented a way to re-brand people other than proper electricians as "domestic installers" and take money from them.