I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into the
kitchen.

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved" to
the kitchen ???)

I was going to put in a separate ring for the new area (and removing the old
sockets out of downstairs ring) as the CU is on the other side of the
ex-study wall, so not exactly going to be a long/large ring, but this seem
awfully steep (£300 Part P test) just for say 3 sets of double sockets.

Bit of a pain......comments please....

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:37:56 -0000, Ian_m wrote:

Bit of a pain......comments please....

You sound like you know what you are doing, buy some Red/Black T&E,
and go for it.

Fcuking Nanny State!

--
Nigel M

Ian_m wrote:
I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into the
kitchen.

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved" to
the kitchen ???)

I was going to put in a separate ring for the new area (and removing the old
sockets out of downstairs ring) as the CU is on the other side of the
ex-study wall, so not exactly going to be a long/large ring, but this seem
awfully steep (£300 Part P test) just for say 3 sets of double sockets.

Bit of a pain......comments please....

My goodness me. Who is going to know? Just do it!

Ian_m wrote:
I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into the
kitchen.

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved" to
the kitchen ???)
snip
Bit of a pain......comments please....

Move the cooker and fridge into the garage, and start cooking there.
Hang a sign saying "Alien Autopsy Room"
Now, do the work, and move it back.

On 07 Feb 2006 15:51:41 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:

Move the cooker and fridge into the garage, and start cooking there.
Hang a sign saying "Alien Autopsy Room"
Now, do the work, and move it back.

ROFL!

--
Nigel M

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:
I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on
the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into
the
kitchen.

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved"
to
the kitchen ???)
snip
Bit of a pain......comments please....

Move the cooker and fridge into the garage, and start cooking there.
Hang a sign saying "Alien Autopsy Room"
Now, do the work, and move it back.
Doesn't work, Prat P talks about being within 3m of sink, so putting sink in
garage is a lot harder....

"Nigel Molesworth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:37:56 -0000, Ian_m wrote:

Bit of a pain......comments please....

You sound like you know what you are doing, buy some Red/Black T&E,
and go for it.

Very handily I have most of 50m reel of 2.5mm2 T&E dated 2001, from one of
my DIY projects where I estimated the amount of cable needed incorrectly.

Do it and dont worry. Pick up some red & black T&E on ebay and off you go.
No-one will ever know!

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:32:35 -0000, Ian_m wrote:

Very handily I have most of 50m reel of 2.5mm2 T&E dated 2001

In which case, Robert is your father's brother.

--
Nigel M

In message , Ian_m
writes
I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into the
kitchen.

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved" to
the kitchen ???)

Well you had to move the sockets when it was study, so they were
accessible above desk height. Didn't you???

--
steve

Ian_m wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:
I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on
the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into
the
kitchen.

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved"
to
the kitchen ???)
snip
Bit of a pain......comments please....

Move the cooker and fridge into the garage, and start cooking there.
Hang a sign saying "Alien Autopsy Room"
Now, do the work, and move it back.
Doesn't work, Prat P talks about being within 3m of sink, so putting sink in
garage is a lot harder....

Plant a small banana plant in what used to be the sink.
Gotta have the right environment for the autopsies.

I expect you started thinking about it before last April, too? (or whenever
the cutoff date was)

Ian_m wrote:

I have removed a partition stud wall between my kitchen and (ex)study to
make a bigger kitchen. Now there are two power points in the study (on the
downstairs ring as opposed to kitchen ring) that have now "moved" into the
kitchen.

If you had done it before taking down the wall you would be fine. So do
it that way! ;-)

(red/black or brown/blue etc does not matter since both have been
available and legit to use before and after prat pee).

Do I need to raise a Part P to move them upto work top height as they are
now in a Part P zone ? (maybe I should have done it before they "moved" to
the kitchen ???)

Spose so...

I was going to put in a separate ring for the new area (and removing the old
sockets out of downstairs ring) as the CU is on the other side of the
ex-study wall, so not exactly going to be a long/large ring, but this seem
awfully steep (ï½£300 Part P test) just for say 3 sets of double sockets.

Woa, where do you get the £300 from? A building notice for a small job
like that ought to cost under £100. If you council is suggesting that
you ought to pay for the inspection then I would suggest pointing them
at the memo from the orifice of the deputy prime minister that says they
ain't allowed to charge extra for that bit.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:


Woa, where do you get the £300 from? A building notice for a small job
like that ought to cost under £100. If you council is suggesting that
you ought to pay for the inspection then I would suggest pointing them
at the memo from the orifice of the deputy prime minister that says they
ain't allowed to charge extra for that bit.


Indeed. Or if they're going to get funny, make the BNA up for a full rewire
(if you think you might in the next 20 years), replacing every window,
external door that you might, new boiler, new HW cylinder etc etc - or at
least as many things as you can get for the 100+VAT charge.

Once you start work, there's no statutory time limit on completing - you
have open ended carte blanche to do all your Part-P/L/whatever jobs.

I'm not sure what the fee is to amend a BNA (eg: decided not to do *that*
window after all, now please come and sign this lot off).

Only flaw in that plan is the regs probably will all change in 20 years,
so you have to anticipate doing things a little beyond current regs.

Or see this post of mine and worry less ;-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....25?dmode=print

Cheers

Tim

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:

snio
Woa, where do you get the £300 from? A building notice for a small job
like that ought to cost under £100. If you council is suggesting that you
ought to pay for the inspection then I would suggest pointing them at the
memo from the orifice of the deputy prime minister that says they ain't
allowed to charge extra for that bit.

Got charges here.
http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159

Also spoke to a nice bloke (who said don't shoot the messanger I am just
enforcing the regulations) who said 3 ways to proceed:

1. Get a self certifying electrician to do the job, they will "bulk" inform
the council at the end of the month of all the Part P jobs they have done.
2. Get a qualified electrician to do the job, who then issues a test
certificate to the council and pays £60.
3. DIY or non qualified electrician then get an independant check (or
council provide) to issue test certificate and pay £290.

He forgot no 4, just do it.

Actually all this fuss about you won't be able to sell your house etc in not
true. Speaking to a mate in the pub last night, just sold his mother-in-laws
house with electrical work done in kitchen (tumble drier spur of cooker
point, by a neighbour) and no part P. He declared this on the sellers info,
buyers solictor asked for Part P form, he said if the buyer wants one he can
pay for it (£360 seller was quoted). Buyer still bought the house, actually
the asbestos artex was more of an issue than Part P.

Ian_m wrote:


Actually all this fuss about you won't be able to sell your house etc in
not true. Speaking to a mate in the pub last night, just sold his
mother-in-laws house with electrical work done in kitchen (tumble drier
spur of cooker point, by a neighbour) and no part P. He declared this on
the sellers info, buyers solictor asked for Part P form, he said if the
buyer wants one he can pay for it (£360 seller was quoted). Buyer still
bought the house, actually the asbestos artex was more of an issue than
Part P.

Ah, the honest and direct approach. That is exactly what I thought would be
the case.

Tim

John Rumm wrote:

Woa, where do you get the £300 from? A building notice for a small job
like that ought to cost under £100. If you council is suggesting that
you ought to pay for the inspection then I would suggest pointing them
at the memo from the orifice of the deputy prime minister that says they
ain't allowed to charge extra for that bit.


I tried this approach a couple of months ago. The fee in my case was
quoted at £200 for the building notice (not the lowest level as it
included other work) and then an additional £170 for the electrical
inspection, if I chose to DIY.
I pointed out the relevent bit of the odpm site about charging extra,
and they told me that they were restructuring their charges to take that
into account. Fast forward to now, and they have indeed restructured
their charges!
Whereas before they could not alter the charge of a building regs
application once it had been agreed, they have simply updated their
forms to say Part P inspection work is charged at £170 extra.
So _technically_ they are complying with the odpm memo by not charging
extra, as the charge is specified in advance, although the way I read
the memo it suggested that the extra cost of inspection should not be
passed onto the client....


Ben.

Re;
Woa, where do you get the £300 from? A building notice for a small job
like that ought to cost under £100. If you council is suggesting that you
ought to pay for the inspection then I would suggest pointing them at the
memo from the orifice of the deputy prime minister that says they ain't
allowed to charge extra for that bit.


ODPM wouldn't be anything without double standards (or double Jags)

True, they sent a memo stating LA's had to do the test if not done by a Part
P person, and the cost was included in the general B Regs fees, you couldn't
charge extra, as some LA's continue to do. (the one sent to us quoted the
letter I sent to the kitchen installation company which caused a stink over
this)

However, on every other query put to the ODPM, say on Part M issues, they
will give their advice, but then say it is up to the LA as they are the B
Reg enforcers for the area, ie they bunk out of making a decision.

It is on that basis that several Authorities have ignored the memo you refer
to.

Don't forget, you don't have to go to a LA to get B Regs approval. Try your
local AI (Approved Inspector, ie private building control) and see what they
would charge!

Why should LA's be made to accept a fee so low it costs them to run the
service?

IanC

Ian_m wrote:

Actually all this fuss about you won't be able to sell your house etc in not
true. Speaking to a mate in the pub last night, just sold his mother-in-laws
house with electrical work done in kitchen (tumble drier spur of cooker
point, by a neighbour) and no part P. He declared this on the sellers info,
buyers solictor asked for Part P form, he said if the buyer wants one he can
pay for it (£360 seller was quoted). Buyer still bought the house, actually
the asbestos artex was more of an issue than Part P.

A substantial proportion of houses sold havhe had work done of one sort
or another that has not been notified. IT is common and normal. In 99%
of cases it has no real effect on sales. From the buyers POV, when
buying an old house they can expect most every old house to have more
real issues than whether a bit of paperwork was filled in, so although
a first time buyer looking at their first house might be scared off,
people quickly wise up and stop messing about.

Of course not all work can be described this way: add an unauthorised 3
storey extension and you will have problems!


NT

Ian_m wrote:
"Nigel Molesworth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:37:56 -0000, Ian_m wrote:

Bit of a pain......comments please....
You sound like you know what you are doing, buy some Red/Black T&E,
and go for it.

Very handily I have most of 50m reel of 2.5mm2 T&E dated 2001, from one of
my DIY projects where I estimated the amount of cable needed incorrectly.

No you didn't - you needed that bit to raise the sockets, which you did
at the same time as the other work

Can you explain why you think the cost of the electrical inspection
shouldn't be passed onto the client? Would you do work which cost you
money?

IanC




" the memo it suggested that the extra cost of inspection should not be
passed onto the client....


Ben.

"River Tramp" wrote in message
...
Can you explain why you think the cost of the electrical inspection
shouldn't be passed onto the client? Would you do work which cost you
money?

IanC

Clearly if the work has to be done, it has to be paid for, and if it costs
the council X to do it, they can charge the client X, get X from Gordon
Brown or put up the rates by the amount required to recoup X.

In this case I think many people's complaint is that ODPM suggested that the
council wouldn't charge the client directly, presumably assuming that
council's would absorb the cost and no one would notice (although presumably
govt will be soon making huge savings by shutting down the fire stations and
hospitals that used to be used for the victims of all those pre part P DIY
electrical disasters, so it should work out OK in the end) .

Andy

River Tramp wrote:
Can you explain why you think the cost of the electrical inspection
shouldn't be passed onto the client? Would you do work which cost you
money?

I was referring specifically to the part of the odpm memo that states:

"We would encourage all local authorities to make sufficient resources
available to allow them to carry out their statutory functions in
respect of Part P, perhaps by considering reinvestment of some or all of
any surplus arising from building control charges received."


Ben.

Ian_m wrote:


Got charges here.
http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159


Didn't the ODPM's Regulatory Impact Assessment mention of figure of
£35? If so, how can they justify charging £290? Surely ODPM didn't
pick £35 just to make their figures tally.

Andrew

Thats exactly correct. All these people who a fully competent with what they are doin, are flapping about part pee when it ultimately means bugger all in the long run. No one checks, no one gets prosecuted unless you stupidly own up to your capers (highly unlikely), you can moved without too much fuss (if there is you throw it straight back at the purchaser by getting them to pay for the checks).

So, nothing has changed with the intro of the pee code. DIY is, and will continue to be, the cheapest and most productive way of getting what you want exactly how you want it if you are competent enough. Those qualified tradesmen can rant all they want about the regs, and it is only because they have a vested interest in protecting their income, and for no other reason. They can't seriously be concerned over the safety of persons they dont even know carrying out supposedly 'unauthorised' work, even though they claim to be.

Save you money and do it yourself, but ONLY if you are competent

A man after me own heart!

Poke your Part P up ur ass!!

River Tramp wrote:

Can you explain why you think the cost of the electrical inspection
shouldn't be passed onto the client? Would you do work which cost you
money?

IanC



Hi

Two things he

1) I would object less if the LBA tried to bring the necessary skills
to inspect Part P work in house. Most have just copped out and employ
external electricians which is bound to cost more as the external firm
needs to make a profit. The external firm is also likely to PIR every
dwelling it inspects fully, to cover themselves, whereas a suitably skilled
BCO is more likely to inspect only the work that has been done
which is fundamentally more efficient. Consider how a BCO operates when
Part A work is done compared to Part P.

2) I don't realistically expect it to be free but given that I personally
didn't want this crap foisted on me, I expect it to be done at cost, not
at profit, which is automatically the case once external agents are
involved.

Cheers

Tim

The way LA Building Control works is residential extensions and alterations
are done at a loss, and are cross subsidised by commercial work. However
AI's are taking larger and larger %'s of the market. Rumours are the fees
for domestic work could triple so we can break even. (no profit, just break
even).

IanC



"Tim S" wrote in message
...
River Tramp wrote:

Can you explain why you think the cost of the electrical inspection
shouldn't be passed onto the client? Would you do work which cost you
money?

IanC



Hi

Two things he

1) I would object less if the LBA tried to bring the necessary skills
to inspect Part P work in house. Most have just copped out and employ
external electricians which is bound to cost more as the external firm
needs to make a profit. The external firm is also likely to PIR every
dwelling it inspects fully, to cover themselves, whereas a suitably
skilled
BCO is more likely to inspect only the work that has been done
which is fundamentally more efficient. Consider how a BCO operates when
Part A work is done compared to Part P.

2) I don't realistically expect it to be free but given that I personally
didn't want this crap foisted on me, I expect it to be done at cost, not
at profit, which is automatically the case once external agents are
involved.

Cheers

Tim

Andy McKenzie wrote:

In this case I think many people's complaint is that ODPM suggested that the
council wouldn't charge the client directly, presumably assuming that
council's would absorb the cost and no one would notice (although presumably

I also expect that they grossly underestimated the cost of doing these
inspections. Most things that BCOs need to inspect they can do
themselves simply by looking. Full on electrical testing is a whole new
ball game though.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"River Tramp" wrote in message
...

Why should LA's be made to accept a fee so low it costs them to run the
service?


I guess the answer to this depends upon whether the population of the
country regards extending building regulations into such peripheral areas a
service. Unfortunately the electoral system doesn't really seem to give us
a choice.

James

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:18:46 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I also expect that they grossly underestimated the cost of doing
these inspections. Most things that BCOs need to inspect they can
do themselves simply by looking. Full on electrical testing is a
whole new ball game though.

If the RIA put the cost of compliance at £35 and the actual cost is
several times that, then some MP really ought to ask for the
regulations to be rescinded on the grounds that the cost/benefit
equation no longer makes sense. But then ten other MPs will jump up
and say that you can't put a price on human life, conveniently
forgetting that politicians do so every day.

--
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
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:58:52 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:18:46 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I also expect that they grossly underestimated the cost of doing
these inspections. Most things that BCOs need to inspect they can
do themselves simply by looking. Full on electrical testing is a
whole new ball game though.

If the RIA put the cost of compliance at £35 and the actual cost is
several times that, then some MP really ought to ask for the
regulations to be rescinded on the grounds that the cost/benefit
equation no longer makes sense. But then ten other MPs will jump up
and say that you can't put a price on human life, conveniently
forgetting that politicians do so every day.


Good idea. I'll drop mine a line.


I suspect that the reality is that they expected that most of the
activity would be through self certification with the costs of that
hidden in the bill to the customer for the overall job.

However, if there's a way to cause embarassment for the ODPM, I am all
for it.


--

..andy

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:30:46 -0000, "James"
wrote:


"River Tramp" wrote in message
...

Why should LA's be made to accept a fee so low it costs them to run the
service?


I guess the answer to this depends upon whether the population of the
country regards extending building regulations into such peripheral areas a
service. Unfortunately the electoral system doesn't really seem to give us
a choice.

James

It does. Don't vote for anybody with a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:


However, if there's a way to cause embarassment for the ODPM, I am all
for it.

Now this is one aspect of democracy that I can not understand.

If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who
presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not
think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has
not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie the
whips are strapped down and blindfolded?

Mind you, as we have a presidential PM I can understand. :-(

I'll stop now, before I get my soap box out :-)

Dave

There is a long and hard knocking on my door, I might be gone for some time.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:56:14 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
It does. Don't vote for anybody with a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.

I guess that means giving up voting then. Look at planning: when JP
says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are
outraged. A true deregulating party would want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.

--
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
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Dave wrote :
If we live in what we used know as a democracy, how come TFB who
presides at the odpm (I can't possibly capitalise that, as I do not
think it should exist in the first place) can issue a decree that has
not been discussed in parliament and voted on, on a free basis, ie
the whips are strapped down and blindfolded?

Because the underlying Act - and there are probably thousands like it -
says that the Minister is empowered to do so.

"The Building Act 1984 is the enabling Act under which the Building
Regulations are made and empowers the Secretary of State to make
regulations for the purpose of
* Securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or
about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or
matters connected with buildings;
* Furthering the conservation of fuel and power;
* Preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of
water"

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/environm...onsandotherleg
is.html

IIRC such regulations have to be laid before Parliament before coming
into effect, thus giving MP's a theoretical right to object but if one
does the reply is probably that all interested parties have been
consulted and the responses to the consultation have been taken into
account.

--
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
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:07:43 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:56:14 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
It does. Don't vote for anybody with a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.

I guess that means giving up voting then.

Sadly I think it does.

Look at planning: when JP
says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are
outraged. A true deregulating party would want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.

I haven't found any who have a clear position on this.

--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:07:43 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:


On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:56:14 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :

It does. Don't vote for anybody with a regulating as opposed to a
deregulating agenda.

I guess that means giving up voting then.


Sadly I think it does.


Look at planning: when JP
says that he is going to allow more housing the Conservatives are
outraged. A true deregulating party would want to know why he had such
powers in the first place.


I haven't found any who have a clear position on this.


Really? Surely everyone who goes into politics does so in order to
legally rob and bully other people. How many politicians, of any party,
would actually want to see a reduction in regulation?

Won't happen this side of the revolution.

Still, now the police won't get out of bed for less than £75 (Google
gordon wallis 75 if you don't know) it can't be too long before they
won't bother enforcing building regulations.

Joe wrote:

Still, now the police won't get out of bed for less than £75 (Google
gordon wallis 75 if you don't know) it can't be too long before they
won't bother enforcing building regulations.

I expect we are there now. The scope of work that is expected of
building control has grown so fast that there seems little chance of
them keeping on top of it all, and more importantly, of even the
builders / tradesmen / diy folk even remaining aware of what is actually
required. How many "ordinary people" have heard about Part P or L for
example?

The same situation has been reached with business regulation -
legislation pertaining to running a business is currently expanding by
more than 1000 new pages per year. So it is no longer possible for any
except the largest firms (who can afford to employ dedicated compliance
officers to manage the task) to keep on top of all the requirements.
Nett result being that most firms will be guilty of inadvertently
breaking some regulation or other simply through ignorance.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:30:22 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Joe wrote:

Still, now the police won't get out of bed for less than £75 (Google
gordon wallis 75 if you don't know) it can't be too long before they
won't bother enforcing building regulations.

I expect we are there now. The scope of work that is expected of
building control has grown so fast that there seems little chance of
them keeping on top of it all, and more importantly, of even the
builders / tradesmen / diy folk even remaining aware of what is actually
required. How many "ordinary people" have heard about Part P or L for
example?

And the April they are adding Part G and F the precise details I am not
yet aware of.

It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course this
week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but everything to do
with shutting down small businesses (making the environment uneconomic for
them to operate in).

If safety/quality was an issue.

1) Make all standards clear simple and available free of charge. Currently
the required 'how-to' docs are spread throughout a range of documents some
free and some prohibitively expensive.

2) Apply resources to track down bad practice rather than regulate those
doing best practice.

3) Punish bad practice with compulsory training and then apply sanctions
if they still don't "get the plot".




--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html