Volunteers and Part P

[Softus]

Part P requires that those doing electrical work are now restricted to what they can do without charge.

No it doesn't - you've soundly misunderstood the purpose and the provisions of Part P.

Some may decide to finance the required "certification" for themselves while others will have to rely finding the inspection fees.

A further indication of your misunderstanding.

There's a spectacularly good summary of all things Part P in the Wiki section. You would learn a lot if you read it.

An example of the work was running a feed to a garage for a socket to re-charge the batteries on an electric scooter, lights and electric door opener. About an hour and a half for the sparks and his son ( materials donated ) followed by a hefty inspection charge.

In that case just notify the LABC beforehand and let them inspect it.

I do accept that there is a need for something like Part P to remove some of the dangers resulting from ignorance and stupidity of some DIY people. Though Part P doesn't actually work because those ignorant of Part P will go ahead and do their work anyway unaware it has to be inspected.

It works for the increasing number of people who are aware of it and abide by it.

 

[Softus]

I do understand this can be learnt without becoming a spark, however the technical knowledge and experience of a spark pays dividends when fault finding, undestanding how electricity actually works and how a sparky may have wired something is as important as knowing how to wire it.

Knowledge? Understanding? Really? "Full load current"?

The Building Regs are LAW, they are an Act of Parliament

They are law, but they're a Statutory Instrument, not a Act of Parliament.

...so to breach them, under an section, is an ARRESTABLE Offence, as breaching any section CAN incur a custodial sentence.. How they actually word the offence I am not sure.

Breaching the BRs is not an arrestable offence per se. How can you persistently fail to understand such a simple issue?

If I were to re-wire my house and then contact the council re inspection - is that legal? if not - why not?

That is a thorny one, in theory at least, you would be commiting an offence as your not a Part P scheme registered installer...

JHC.

There's nothing thorny about this - unless you're suitably registered any notifiable electrical work you do has to be notified in advance (and a fee paid).

...however as this is your personal property, common law, one would assume, and Human Rights legislation, would mean that you can do what you like with regards the electrical installation in your property.

If you don't know what you're talking about then why do you post this nonsense? You can't do what you like - some things are against the law.

Whether the council would be prepared to undertake the inspection and issue a certificate is another matter that I certainly would not attempt to guess at.

They might drag their heels, but once notified correctly it's their duty to test, inspect and certify.

 

[ricicle]

aaaarrrggghhhhhhh...............

 

[Softus]

Is that the sound of ricicle being buried by Coco Pops?

 

[ricicle]

Is that the sound of ricicle being buried by Coco Pops?

Lets say yes it is (so I don't have to mention the impending Softus/Big_Spark debate)

 

[Softus]

I understand your angst. No, really, I do.

However, would you prefer the alternative, which is to allow misinformation to be posted and left unchallenged, and for some people to think that they're breaking the law when they're not, and for some other people to think that they're not breaking the law when they are?

 

[ricicle]

I understand your angst. No, really, I do.

However, would you prefer the alternative, which is to allow misinformation to be posted and left unchallenged, and for some people to think that they're breaking the law when they're not, and for some other people to think that they're not breaking the law when they are?

The problems that can occur with forums like this is that it is only the typed word and although someone might have the correct interpretation of something they then have to try and show their understanding or opinion of it, which could be mis-read or mis-understood by a.n.other (although I grant you it happens in face to face dialogue also).I know we've had a difference of opinion in the past.
From my experience of working with skilled craftsmen, engineers and the like it takes a good man to admit when he's wrong (or even not quite right)
A difference of opinion between two 'professionals' (not Bodie and Doyle) on here could leave anyone who is a bit 'green' even more confused than when they first enquired (unless of course there is a majority agreement when someone is wrong)
Anyway time for bed I think.........

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus, without wishing to get into a debate with you on this, to clarify what is an Act of Parliament and what is a Regulateion et etc etc, I have dug this lot out of the Lord Chancellors website, as I think we will ALL find it informative..

• 
  Q: What is an Act of Parliament?
  
  A: A bill that has passed three readings in each House of Parliament, received Royal Assent and become law. An Act comes into force either on a specified date, on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation, or, where no date is specified, 28 days after it receives assent.
  
  Q: Is there a difference between an Act and a Regulation?
  
  A: No, some Bills are called Acts in their title, some are called Regulations, but if they have been passed into law, then they are all Acts of Parliament and have been written into the statute
  
  Q: What is the difference between an Act of Parliament and a Statutory Paper?
  
  A: The difference between an Act of Parliament and a Statutory Paper is that the Act must recieve three readings in each House and Royal Assent, a Statutory Paper is usually an Ammendment to existing Legislation and only needs a single round of agreement in each house. Further it does not require Royal Assent.
  

So I think what this is telling us is that if something has recieved three readings and Royal Assent then it is an Act of Parliament whether it is called an Act or a Regulation, so therefore the Building Regulations are an ACT of Parliament, and by definition they are also a statutory instrument as they have entered the Statute...

Breaching the Building Regs is, in theory at least, arrestable, however I would certainly be surprised if someone were, as far as I am aware the only people ever prosecuted under Building Regs violations have been arrested for other offences, usually HSE breaches or actual criminal offences, such as fraud etc. However local authorities can have a person arrested for such a breach.

Regarding your comments about the working in your own home..It is a little thorny as the Regulations do not bar DIY work, and the local Authorities have no Powers to force the inspection of your home, so unless someone actually tells them they are doing the work, they would never know. Further, should it ever go to court, I would think that Human Rights legislation would act as a defence to a prosecution as you own the property. To me this is similar to the situation of being legally allowed to change the brake discs/Pads on your own car. You can do it, but if you stuff up and someone is hurt/killed as a rsult of your actions, then you can be prosecuted using other legislation. I think any local authority would be very hard pressed to prosecute a DIY'er for doing work their own home as this is not what Part P was designed to control.

Regarding your very childish comment about Full Load current..

http://www.memonline.com/ams_4.html

http://www.cmecinc.com/current.htm

http://www.klocknermoeller.com/klockner.moeller/hp2.htm

http://www.circuitbreakersales.com/txtables.htm

http://www.abb.com/cawp/abbzh271/19a804d87d4dca3dc2256a690023a87a.aspx

You will see that despite your continued sillyness about the term, it is correct, it is used and it does exist....granted in the manner I used it in the post sometime ago, as I acknowledged, it was misleading and not helpful, but to use your comment in the your post above

If you don't know what you're talking about then why do you post this nonsense?

Now perhaps you will leave that matter alone and stop keep banging on about a debate that occured many months ago and concentrate on the one at hand...I think in general we have, in other threads, generally agreed on the Part P debate..so there is absolutely no need to rehash it in this thread. I think our differences on it are simply down to semantics.

 

[ebee]

So we all now agree that Part p is just and proper then I take it?

 

[Softus]

So I think what this is telling us is that if something has recieved three readings and Royal Assent then it is an Act of Parliament whether it is called an Act or a Regulation, so therefore the Building Regulations are an ACT of Parliament, and by definition they are also a statutory instrument as they have entered the Statute.

You might well think it, but it's still an imaginary reality.

How you can put so much effort into understanding something, and then still fail to grasp it, is beyond me.

Breaching the Building Regs is, in theory at least, arrestable...

No. It. Isn't. You. Are. Wrong.

However local authorities can have a person arrested for such a breach.

No. They. Can't.

Regarding your comments about the working in your own home..It is a little thorny as the Regulations do not bar DIY work...

Yes they do, if that work is classed as notifiable.

...and the local Authorities have no Powers to force the inspection of your home

Yes they do, if there's a reasonable suspicion that you've broken the law.

Further, should it ever go to court, I would think that Human Rights legislation would act as a defence to a prosecution as you own the property.

I would pay a lot of money to spectate at a hearing in which that was your defence.

To me this is similar to the situation of being legally allowed to change the brake discs/Pads on your own car.

Well then you're nuts, because working on car brakes is neither regulated nor notifiable.

You can do it, but if you stuff up and someone is hurt/killed as a rsult of your actions, then you can be prosecuted using other legislation.

Correct, but this is counter to your other points, because it would be an offence under "Construction and Use" legislation.

I think any local authority would be very hard pressed to prosecute a DIY'er for doing work their own home as this is not what Part P was designed to control.

Yes it was - it was designed to control all unqualified work above a particular threshold of risk.

Regarding your very childish comment about Full Load current...

I never disagreed that the term exists in the context of motors, and that is has a particular use in the a three-phase context, but you were using it in the context of receiving a shock by becoming part of a neutral path in a single-phase domestic circuit. You even argued that the shock would be "worse" than one received in the phase path.

You later conceded that you were talking b*llocks, so it's a bit odd that you're now, once again, defending your use of the term.

If you don't know what you're talking about then why do you post this nonsense?

Now perhaps you will leave that matter alone and stop keep banging on about a debate that occured many months ago and concentrate on the one at hand.

The worrying thing is your propensity to talk nonsense about your specialism, or 'trade', and the way that you don't doubt that you're wrong, right up until the moment that you have to admit that you're wrong, despite the growing number of instances of you being wrong.

I happen to think that someone is so wrong, so often, needs to be reminded of that each time they are wrong and claim in capital letters that they are right. As I've said before, if you don't like it, then don't be wrong. It's easy to be right - just double check your facts; triple check 'em if necessary (and believe me - in your case it is).

I think in general we have, in other threads, generally agreed on the Part P debate.

Oh yeah right - it's one of the least argued about topics on the forum.

...so there is absolutely no need to rehash it in this thread. I think our differences on it are simply down to semantics.

In that case, please stop using semantics that are misleading to people who aren't professional electricians.

 

[Big_Spark]

Softus, your a ****...end of post.

 

[ebee]

Right so we`re all in agreement then.
Part P is here to stay.
Good

 

[Softus]

Softus, your a ****.

Better to be a **** who's right than a **** who's wrong.

 

[bernardgreen]

I wrote

An example of the work was running a feed to a garage for a socket to re-charge the batteries on an electric scooter, lights and electric door opener. About an hour and a half for the sparks and his son ( materials donated ) followed by a hefty inspection charge.

Softus replied

In that case just notify the LABC beforehand and let them inspect it.

And the LABC was looking a charge of £200 for the inspection process.
As it happens they waived it in this case but others may not so the Good Neighbour schemes and other extremely necessary services are faced with finding these fees or spending £2000 plus to became qualified to self certify. And some of the requirements of dis-abled or handicapped people can only be met by non standard but still safe configurations.

 

[Softus]

I understand your problem - I'm on a committee that is trying to fund the construction of an access for disabled people to a local amenity. But the way forward is raising funds, not having the work done illegally.

IMO the aims of Part P were laudible, but the implementation was poorly thought out, because of situations like yours. WIBNI there was a fund equivalent of that for legal aid work, so that the work would be done safely and the experts would still get paid?