Underfloor heating in bathroom and Part P.

[eveares]

Do you not read the documentation that comes with the product

Yes I did, but I bet a lot of products say similar things.

Also while in the instructions it says the following.

EHC should be installed by a certified electrician and in accordance with the current IEE Regulations. EHC is not a ‘do it yourself’ product. It is most important that the installer completes the Installation Record Form that forms part of this booklet.

But the question is why is it not a DIY product?

Is it simply because most diy'ers would not complete the instillation to the regs (i.e. see here: http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/24/floor-heating.cfm?type=pdf) or for other reasons what you may be able to shed light on.

(yes I know the link I provided is old and from 2007)

Again, I quote: The guarantee covers...

Doh! Missed that bit. Well in that case, the 10 year grantee is not worth it for £61.20 the heating cable cost compared to the cost of repairing the floor.

 

[JohnW2]

... Also while in the instructions it says the following.

EHC should be installed by a certified electrician and in accordance with the current IEE Regulations. EHC is not a ‘do it yourself’ product. It is most important that the installer completes the Installation Record Form that forms part of this booklet.

But the question is why is it not a DIY product? ... Is it simply because most diy'ers would not complete the instillation to the regs (i.e. see here: http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/24/floor-heating.cfm?type=pdf) ...

Probably yes. However, I do sympathise with you here. The issue is not whether or not someone is a professional (or 'certified') electrician, but whether they are adequately knowledgeable, skilled, competent and equipped to do the work to an acceptable, and safe, standard.

Kind Regards, John

 

[eveares]

I also suppose not many diy'ers would be able to or know how to IR test it with 500v DC for example or not realize the braid has to be connected to earth for example.

Not to mention also that technical terms like "leakage capacitance", "residual operating current", "mega-ohm", "insulation resistance", etc... would likely confuse the average diy'er and thus one may ignore or miss interpret the importance of such things.

I can also imagine such a hypothetical situation occurring such as a diy'er installs it in a old house with no RCD protection and at the same time they do not realize their under floor heating is damaged (i.e. no IR test done) and leaking current through the earth braid to earth (and not enough to blow a fuse) thus causing the risk of an electric shock between the under floor heating's earth carrying the fault current and another earth at a lower potential such as a bonded radiator.)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Good on you sir, not one electrican can really support part P

Part P is a legal requirement to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

What kind of electricians do you associate with who cannot really support that?

it's a glorified tax and we all know it!

Please read the text of Part P above, and then present a reasoned, intelligent explanation of what the taxation element of it is.

(If a plumber (boiler wireing) or window fitter (solar PV)can get a small part of Part P it's a joke)

Please read the text of Part P above, and then present a reasoned, intelligent explanation of how someone could "get a small part of it", and in what way that makes it humorous.

If you feel confident doing the work then you can do it in your OWN home, if you are spuring off the ring and have worked out the full load correctly and have fused and switched it correctly, installed the right cable and it's RCD protected you are covering all the points

But what if someone feels confident, but is misguided because they don't actually know how to do it properly, and their ignorance is so profound that they don't even realise they don't know?

Remember, it is a criminal offence not to make reasonable provision in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury, so "feeling confident" is insufficient.

 

[ericmark]

For good reason there is not a single qualification which makes some one an electrician.

Before Part P it was hard to show some one had done work for which they were not qualified and kitchen fitters were well know for some very poor workmanship. Part P has made it easier to take people to court who do substandard work.

Working on your own house in the main mistakes are considered as accidents and most courts seem to take the attitude they have suffered enough without fines of custodial sentences as well.

We working on some one else house then it would seem they are for more willing to take people to court.

The whole word DIY is rather silly as if I do work in my own home of course it's DIY even if I have a list of qualifications to show I am able to do the work.

The being able to ensure the safety of yourself and others is the main point of course and if you are able to do that then by definition you are an electrician.

There was posted only a few days ago an installation certificate which had some very clear errors. I am sure the guy who filled in these forms thought he was doing it correctly.

I did work for my sister and I did not expect her to die and leave the house to a friend. Now the installation certificate I did could be scrutinised and used to try and get me to correct things where when making it out I thought it was just a favour for my sister.

I consider after 10 years or change of owner I'm clear for any mistakes should be highlighted in the EICR but that may be true for remedial work but not if some one is injured. My son had insurance but most people will not take out insurance for DIY so what you have to consider is in 5 years time what can come back to bite you.

Personally I would do the work but I have bits of paper to say I can. It may be prudent to have a EICR done after so shifting the blame should things go wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course I do, otherwise I would not do it. I have done many electrical related work in the past such as running SWA up to my shed, putting in drive way lights, adding a 2 way light switch in my living room, adding a porch light, etc...

Plenty of people do things like that because they feel confident, but when such confidence is misplaced.

 

[eveares]

Yes, but one reason I have so much confidence is because I likley know things what the average diyer does not.

I.E how many diyers would know the difference between tn-s and tn-c-s earthing systems for example, that brown,black and grey are 1st,2nd,3rd line conductors respectively in *aka* 3 phase systems, that cable current carrying capacity gets derated with insulation, that earthed and bonded items can be at different potentials from one and other, that the live conductor is technically known as the line conducted, LV vs ELV, etc...

Going back to my original point, it is stupid that one can fit a suitable socket outside or install 230v drive way lights but not install an eletric shower without notification. Both involve 230v appliances/items where water is regularly present!

 

[JohnW2]

For good reason there is not a single qualification which makes some one an electrician.

Indeed, and for much the same good reason, is is not necessary for someone to 'be an electrician', or to have any formal qualifications at all, in order to be able to undertake electrical work which is compliant Part P. If that were not the case, then all 'DIY' electrical work would be illegal, and this forum probably would not exist!

Before Part P it was hard to show some one had done work for which they were not qualified and kitchen fitters were well know for some very poor workmanship. Part P has made it easier to take people to court who do substandard work.

I'm not sure I understand that. As you know, 'Part P' is just one sentence which essentially just says that all domestic electrical work must be undertaken safely. I'm not really sure how that makes it any easier to take people to court.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

We all know that when people call something 'Part P this or that' they are mistakenly referring to the notification of electrical work process and the registering of electricians and ancillary trades to self-certify the said notifiable work.
This is not helped by the schemes and training organisations doing the same.

We also know that the notification process is, as eaveares has noted, a joke and, since kitchens were removed from the list thus removing the need for kitchen fitters (which I believed was the primary purpose) to register, fundamentally flawed and no longer required.

 

[JohnW2]

We all know that when people call something 'Part P this or that' they are mistakenly referring to the notification of electrical work process and the registering of electricians and ancillary trades to self-certify the said notifiable work.

Indeed - and, as we know, eric is a very frequent culprit. However,on this occasion, I don't think it's relevant since, despite what eric suggested, I can't really see that the appearance either Part P or notification made it significantly "easier to take people to court". In theory, they could now be taken to court for non-notification but, as we know, that doesn't happen. One is only likely to end up in court if something pretty catastrophic has happened, and that was equally true long before either Part P or notification existed.

We also know that the notification process is, as eaveares has noted, a joke and, since kitchens were removed from the list thus removing the need for kitchen fitters (which I believed was the primary purpose) to register, fundamentally flawed and no longer required.

Indeed. ... and even if there were far more wide-ranging notification requirements, it would mean (and achieve) little unless it were properly regulated/policed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I wasn't commenting on Eric's posts but backing up eveares.

 

[JohnW2]

I wasn't commenting on Eric's posts but backing up eveares.

Oh, I see. Your post followed mine so, in the absence of any quotes, I presumed it related to my response to eric's posts. Quotes can sometimes be useful

We have both supported eveares.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However,on this occasion, I don't think it's relevant since, despite what eric suggested, I can't really see that the appearance either Part P or notification made it significantly "easier to take people to court". In theory, they could now be taken to court for non-notification but, as we know, that doesn't happen. One is only likely to end up in court if something pretty catastrophic has happened, and that was equally true long before either Part P or notification existed.

Actually Part P has made a difference, in theory.

Now, if there's a will, someone could be prosecuted for failing to make reasonable provision etc without the need to wait for a catastrophe to occur. Testimony from an expert witness, especially if the defence could not produce their own dissenting expert, would be sufficient. For example, a circuit which could easily start a fire, or cause an electric shock, would clearly contravene Part P, it wouldn't be necessary for there to have been a fire or a shock for a prosecution to succeed.

In practice, sadly, there isn't the will, and detection is unlikely. A pity, because I think it would be very much in the public interest for LABCs to bring prosecutions - b****r the softly-softly approach of quietly getting bad work put right - let's have some well publicised instances of people being fined and/or imprisoned.

 

[JohnW2]

Actually Part P has made a difference, in theory. ... Now, if there's a will, someone could be prosecuted for failing to make reasonable provision etc without the need to wait for a catastrophe to occur.

It is true that that could, in theory, happen - but as you also say, it certainly doesn't happen and, even if it did, it could end up, except in extreme cases, as an argument between expert witnesses with differing opinions.

I don't know enough about the law to know if it really is 'a difference'. I would have imagined that, even before Part P existed, there would have legislation that would have enabled prosecution of people who had created obvious risks to life and limb (or property) - whether by virtue of electrical work or anything else.

Kind Regards, John