I've heard two people mention to me now that from April 2005 all
electrical accessories sold will be date stamped, to give some form of
traceability for electrical installation work ?

True or urban myth ?

If so start getting your orders in with screwfix.

Well, if its cable then perhaps. Nothing to stop you changing all your
socket outlets, ceiling connectors etc.
In fact its a good idea to renew ceiling rose connectors and cable. Heat
from the bulbs does degrade the PVC.

From a safety point of view I would certainly consider renewal of socket
outlets and other accessories after 10 years or so.

Restriction do apply to bathroome, kitchens etc. Contact building control
for what is allowed without notification.

Even if Part P was not going to come into force I would still get a
qualified elecrican to check and certify any major work.
Its common sense to ensure that the work carried out is safe, its going to
be there for a long time!





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

"John Borman" wrote in message
...
If so start getting your orders in with screwfix.



For an angle grinder perhaps !

Pete

In article ,
Mark Carver writes:
I've heard two people mention to me now that from April 2005 all
electrical accessories sold will be date stamped, to give some form of
traceability for electrical installation work ?

True or urban myth ?

I think it's been true since before Part P was mooted.
Probably everything I've bought in the last ~3 years is
date stamped.

Yesterday, I fitted a replacement consumer unit. The MCB's I
just bought to go in it had various dates in 2003 and 2004
on them, but some I bought in 1999 for something else and
didn't use until just now have no date stamp on them.

Looking at various cable reel ends, Pirrelli seems to have
been date stamping since at least 2002. Rumaging in a box
of faceplates and junction boxes, Wickes seem to have been
date stamping their faceplaces and junction boxes since
at least 2002. In both cases this might have started much
earlier, but I have no older samples with dates.

I doubt this has anything to do with Part P.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Mark Carver writes:

I've heard two people mention to me now that from April 2005 all
electrical accessories sold will be date stamped,
I doubt this has anything to do with Part P.

And if it did, it could not prove anything anyway. All a later
date-stamp proves is that someone has done something to the circuit
after the date-stamp. Thar doesn't mean to say it wasn't a minor, or a
series of minor changes that are OK under part P. Isn't replacing a
socket an example of something too minor to be covered? If one is, then
they all are. It can't prove that the work was done after P_day. Unless
they start date stamping the wire.

"Bolted" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Mark Carver writes:

I've heard two people mention to me now that from April 2005 all
electrical accessories sold will be date stamped,
I doubt this has anything to do with Part P.

And if it did, it could not prove anything anyway. All a later date-stamp
proves is that someone has done something to the circuit after the
date-stamp. Thar doesn't mean to say it wasn't a minor, or a series of
minor changes that are OK under part P. Isn't replacing a socket an
example of something too minor to be covered? If one is, then they all
are. It can't prove that the work was done after P_day. Unless they start
date stamping the wire.

I have some T&E cable which the date *is* stamped along the length at
regular intervals, along with the BS codes and manufacturer's details. Old
colours though - but I expect new colour cable to be stamped in the same
way.

Alan.

"Bolted" wrote in message
...

And if it did, it could not prove anything anyway. All a later date-stamp
proves is that someone has done something to the circuit after the
date-stamp. Thar doesn't mean to say it wasn't a minor, or a series of
minor changes that are OK under part P. Isn't replacing a socket an
example of something too minor to be covered? If one is, then they all
are. It can't prove that the work was done after P_day. Unless they start
date stamping the wire.


Has it not already been explained in another thread here that the colour
coding of the wire is also to change ?
A dead giveaway that the work has been done after a certain date, hence
previous suggestion that everybody stocks up with "old type" cable a.s.a.p.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:09:49 UTC, "Peter Stockdale"
wrote:

Has it not already been explained in another thread here that the colour
coding of the wire is also to change ?
A dead giveaway that the work has been done after a certain date, hence
previous suggestion that everybody stocks up with "old type" cable a.s.a.p.

Not, it's not. The new colours are already available, so it could still
be argued that the work preceded Jan 1 2005.
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:11:29 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:

I've heard two people mention to me now that from April 2005 all
electrical accessories sold will be date stamped, to give some form of
traceability for electrical installation work ?

True or urban myth ?

Sounds like a myth to me - how would this be implemented ? Makers would only do it if they were
legally compelled to as it costs money.
I think it would probably take an EU directive to force makers to do this, as part of CE marking
requirements. An attempt by the UK to do it alone would probably contravene single-market rules.
And anyway, most marks could be removed prety easily if necessary....

In article , Mike
Harrison wrote:
Sounds like a myth to me - how would this be implemented ?
Makers would only do it if they were legally compelled to as
it costs money.

More than a few firms do it for QA reasons. I've come across PVC
cable recently that has the year embossed in the sheath.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:11:29 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

I think it would probably take an EU directive to force makers to do this,
as part of CE marking
requirements.

OK now! This is my stupid question time :-)

How does an EU directive become entrenched in English law?

I never had a chance to elect an MP on the back of it.
I never had a say in its composition and as far as I can remember, I never
let go of any ability to allow the EU to legislate this way.

As I say, a stupid question, but...


Dave

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:25:59 +0000 (UTC), "Dave"
wrote:


"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:11:29 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

I think it would probably take an EU directive to force makers to do this,
as part of CE marking
requirements.

OK now! This is my stupid question time :-)

How does an EU directive become entrenched in English law?

I never had a chance to elect an MP on the back of it.
I never had a say in its composition and as far as I can remember, I never
let go of any ability to allow the EU to legislate this way.

As I say, a stupid question, but...


Because the majority of the electorate gave the government what the
government believe[s|d] [is|was] a mandate to do so. THe same as for
part P......





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Dave wrote:
OK now! This is my stupid question time :-)

How does an EU directive become entrenched in English law?

I never had a chance to elect an MP on the back of it. I never had a say
in its composition and as far as I can remember, I never let go of any
ability to allow the EU to legislate this way.

As I say, a stupid question, but...

When did you ever have an input into UK law either?

Apart from some of the 'something must be done' gut reaction 'laws' of
late which are invariably poor ones and badly thought through.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave wrote:

OK now! This is my stupid question time :-)

How does an EU directive become entrenched in English law?

Nothing stupid about it. Legally, the UK parliament continues to be
sovereign, and the only source of law. Every country which joins the EU,
as we have done, takes on a treaty obligation - "club rules" - to
transpose EU-agreed directives into its own national law.

Directives vary in how much flexibility they leave to member states -
some don't leave much room for variation, others have a fair bit of room
for differing mechanisms to achieve a stated goal, and the more recent
trend is along the lines of stating goals and suggesting mechanisms
rather than trying to "legislate" to the last dotted-i and crossed-t.

In practice in the UK, the "transposition" process is relatively direct
and mechanical, done mainly by civil servants in the lead department for
a given Directive, with relatively little debate in t'Chamber. But there
are notable exceptions to that usual technocratic picture, where some
directive affects a Cherished Aspect Of National Life and an MP or party
thinks it can get some populist headlines by Taking A Stand.

The much more effective time to influence EU policy is not at the far
end of the process where directives are being implemented, but in the
early policy-formulation debates in the Commission and when the
Commission proposals are going through the European Parliament. The UK
government/administration is (these days) fairly clued up about how that
game is played; it's full of horse-trading, shifting allegiances,
fashions, meetings in corridors and restaurants - all the usual business
of politics. Some Westminster MPs (either as backbenchers or as part of
their ministerial responsibilities) get usefuly engaged in that process,
and if you want to exert influence it's worth keeping an eye on the
relevant "consultation" exercises, and/or working through whatever UK
interest group (whether it's the Federation of Small Businesses or
Greenpeace) shares your interests. Because of the horse-trading way that
things are done, though, some of the most effective interventions are
ones you can't then shout about...

uk? well, this is about the uk. d-i-y? well, "getting involved" is d-int
it y-self, right? ;-)

I wrote:


In practice in the UK, the "transposition" process is relatively direct
and mechanical, done mainly by civil servants in the lead department for
a given Directive, with relatively little debate in t'Chamber. But there
are notable exceptions to that usual technocratic picture, where some
directive affects a Cherished Aspect Of National Life and an MP or party
thinks it can get some populist headlines by Taking A Stand.

In case anyone's still awake... the UK doesn't in all cases pass Brand
New Laws in order to transpose EU-agreed directives; as often as not,
there's already "primary" legislation in place regulating some area or
other, and the transposition/enactment requires only changes to
secondary regulations which go through Parliament on the nod (i.e.
unless some MP bothers to object), or by a regulatory body or industry
association changing its code of conduct or similar semi-legislative action.

More turkey-puff-pastry-pie, more brandy, and more sleep...

In article , Andy Hall wrote:
Because the majority of the electorate gave the government what
the government believe[s|d] [is|was] a mandate to do so. THe
same as for part P......

In our local newspaper today

"Dr Tonge [LibDem MP Richmond Park] said she discovered that the new
regulations come into force on January 1: "They have asked me to head
up the campaign to make all consumers aware of the new regulations.
Having been involved so directly in such a terrible tragedy, I
strongly support any initiative which might reduce the number of
deaths, injuries and fires caused by unsafe electrical wiring.""

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtime...h_campaign.php

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:18:11 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:


http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtime...h_campaign.php

According to the above, 110 people die each year from faulty
electrical installations.

However, the Times says that 10 people die of the same causes.


Who are we to believe?
--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
I strongly support any initiative which might reduce the number of
deaths, injuries and fires caused by unsafe electrical wiring.""

The slight snag is that if it puts people off from having extra sockets
installed through cost - or DIYing it - there are likely to be *more*
fires through overloaded extension leads or adaptors, etc. And more
injuries caused by people tripping over such things.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:18:11 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:


http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtime...h_campaign.php


According to the above, 110 people die each year from faulty
electrical installations.

However, the Times says that 10 people die of the same causes.


Who are we to believe?

The relevant numbers are (unsurprisingly) much closer to the
Thunderer's, than the local rag's reprinting of a half-digested
inaccurate press release from a clueless MP whose generically half-arsed
approach to thinking is further coloured by involvment in a (more or
less freak) family tragedy relevant to electrical safety.

In RoSPA's own pro-regulatory statement, now at
http://www.rospa.org.uk/productsafet...electrical.htm
we read as follows:

"There was an increase in electrical injuries in the home involving
fixed appliances, particularly portable equipment between 1990 and 1998,
but the ownership of such appliances also rose considerably during the
period."

There's a highly relevant and fundamental confusion here between "fixed
appliances" and "portable equipment". These are mutually exclusive
categories - so how can portable equipment be a "particular" sub-case of
"fixed appliances"? They probably mean "electrical appliances", of which
portable equipment is indeed a sub-case - and which account for the
majority of deaths, as we read in the rest of the paragraph:

"Fixed electrical installations were involved in around 5 fatalities and
576 non-fatal injuries each year in England and Wales between 1990 and
1998. Non-portable and portable equipment were involved in 14 fatalities
and 1,700 non-fatal injuries during the same period."

So far, then, we're talking about less than 20 deaths a year. Only a
quarter of these are relevant to Part P issues - product safety is what
determines the safety-of-construction for appliances, whether fixed or
portable; while what actually causes the deaths and injuries is (however
incorrect it is to say so) idiocy on the part of ordinary people doing
extraordinarily daft things.

Well, 5-deaths-a-year is a bit too low to get a major campaign going. So
what else can RoSPA add to the mix? Ahh - let's reach across to fires
where electrical faults appear to be the cause. Let's not worry too much
about the difference between "appear to be" and "have been established
to be beyond reasonable doubt" - most fire-investigator types are pretty
thorough and don't tend to incant "oh it must've been electrical"
without at least some decent evidence of a major contribution from
something electrical. So we read further:

"around 25 die and 590 are injured as a result of fires caused by faulty
electrical equipment and wiring each year in England and Wales in the
12,500 fires each year reported as having an electrical source of ignition."

That's useful - if we can suggest there are more deaths and
lots-and-lots of fires caused by Electrical Stuff, then the argument for
Doing Something is strengthened.

But what's missing from the figures on fires? Well, there's no breakdown
for fixed-wiring-faults - as addressed by Part P - compared to
use-of-appliance faults. And as far as I understand it, those fires
"reported as having an electrical source of ignition" includes the
common idiocy of covering up electrical heaters with clothes (to dry
them) to the point where the heater ignites the clothes. And they'd
include overloading sockets, using poorly-fitting mains extensions, and
quite possibly kitchen fires (chip pans and the like) where the cooking
appliance is electrical. And lint catching fire in tumble dryers.

So, we have 5 fatalities a year caused by fixed-wiring faults, plus an
unknown proportion of 25 fire-related ones. If it's as much as half of
the latter (quite unlikely IMHO), that's 20 deaths - double the Times
figure. If it's one-in-5, then we get the Times figure of 10 in total.

Even at 20, that's two day's worth of road fatalities. Can you say
"disproportionate"? Can you see there just might be another motive for
this regulatory move, to do with reducing the amount of tax-avoiding
cash-in-hand electrical work, which the giz-a-sub trade bodies are more
than happy to line up behind?

Stefek

In article , Stefek Zaba wrote:
Can you see there just might be another motive for this regulatory
move, to do with reducing the amount of tax-avoiding
cash-in-hand electrical work, which the giz-a-sub trade bodies are
more than happy to line up behind?

No, that would smack of joined-up government, something which is as
yet an unproved concept, and if that was the driver much better to go
for plumbers with all those back-syphonage problems liable to spread
disease throughout the neighbourhood.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm