Hi
I intend to board the loft space, at the same time, change the wiring for
the upstairs lighting circuit.
I will run this along the top of the boards to a junction box where it will
meet the cable going down to the CU.
Not a big job, so does it fall under "notify council" "Part P" requirements?
TIA
--
Vass
'06 R1
www.doubleyolk.co.uk

Vass wrote:

I intend to board the loft space, at the same time, change the wiring for
the upstairs lighting circuit.
I will run this along the top of the boards to a junction box where it will
meet the cable going down to the CU.
Not a big job, so does it fall under "notify council" "Part P" requirements?

Alteration to an existing circuit, and not in a special location, so no
- it is not notifiable.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

wrote:

Alteration to an existing circuit, and not in a special location, so no
- it is not notifiable.

How does that differ from the ruling that replacing damaged cable must run
via the same route and be identical in rating to the original?

That is a different circumstance slightly - it is saying you can replace
a cable without at the same time adding a socket or lighting point etc.
and it not count as installing a new circuit (which would be notifiable)

(although "same current capacity" is open to interpretation - i.e. you
could argue a larger cable can carry the same current)

If I was replacing damaged cable, I would certainly consider why it was
damaged, and re-route accordingly, but then it seems to be notifiable.

Unless you extended the circuit in the process... ;-)

The general guidance (additional notes - page 8) is that:

"b. Replacement, repair and maintenance jobs are generally not
notifiable, even if carried out in a kitchen or special location or
associated with a special installation."

So for prat P compliance if the cable is damaged you have to replace in the
same route?

I would guess they are avoiding the possibility of you altering the
design parameters of a circuit - changing the route may also change the
thermal environment of the cable etc.

If you know what you are doing it all becomes a bit of a nonsense anyway.

Then you can alter the circuit to move tha cable to a different route.

Prat P is a load of B*******!

Yup, can't argue with that!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

Brian wrote:

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why

Yup, the way most would go I expect... especially as local authorities
don't seem to have got their act in order regarding signing off work set.

worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?

Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously,
and die as a direct result.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:

Brian wrote:

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why

Yup, the way most would go I expect... especially as local authorities
don't seem to have got their act in order regarding signing off work set.

worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?

Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously,
and die as a direct result.

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

In article ,
Terry Fields writes:

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

Yes, quite dramatically according to a Parliamentary answer.
It had been steadily falling for decades prior to that.

As a comparison, Australia and New Zealand had even more
strict regulations on wiring work. New Zealand scrapped its,
and has seen such incidents drop very significantly, whereas
Australia hasn't. This again backs up what I said during the
Part P consultation that the deaths are largely due to not
doing anything to wiring installations which really need work
doing on them, and not as claimed (but unsubstantiated) by
the Part P proposals due to DIY and unqualified tradesmen.
Part P inevitably encourages not doing anything, which is
the dangerous route.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Brian" wrote in message
...
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.


Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,

will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?

--
Vass

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Terry Fields writes:

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

Yes, quite dramatically according to a Parliamentary answer.
It had been steadily falling for decades prior to that.

Any more details on that?

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Terry Fields wrote:

The real danger with part P is that some people will take it seriously,
and die as a direct result.

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

It has - whether one can apportion blame or not is another question...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Vass wrote:

Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,

New colours were permitted before the introduction of part P and old
colours were still permitted after.

will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?

Unlikely in practice


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Jan 8, 9:18*am, "Vass" wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message

...

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?

Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,
will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?


You could do the work using 'old colours' wire which is still
available (on eBay for example).

Robert

In article ,
bof writes:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Terry Fields writes:

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

Yes, quite dramatically according to a Parliamentary answer.
It had been steadily falling for decades prior to that.

Any more details on that?

I talked about this in my response to the original Part P proposal:
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf

Of course, the increase happened after that was written and Part P
had come into effect, although I predicted in the document that
this would happen.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
bof writes:
In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
Terry Fields writes:

Hasn't the number of deaths from unsafe domestic installations gone up
since Prat P came in?

Yes, quite dramatically according to a Parliamentary answer.
It had been steadily falling for decades prior to that.

Any more details on that?

I talked about this in my response to the original Part P proposal:
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf

Andrew, many thanks for the reply, though I was actually looking to
track down the parliamentary answer.


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

RobertL wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:18 am, "Vass" wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message

...

Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
Should I come to sell the house though

New wires obvious due to colours,
will this not be queried upon inspection? HIP's? Survey?


You could do the work using 'old colours' wire which is still
available (on eBay for example).

Robert


The new colours were legal before Part P was introduced.

Andrew

Brian wrote:
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

Has anyone actually been prosecuted under Part P in the three years
which it has been in force? I don't mean prosecuted for putting in a
dangerous installation but prosecuted for putting in an installation
that fully complies with the wiring regulations but without filling in
the required paperwork?

Andrew

In article ,
bof writes:
Andrew, many thanks for the reply, though I was actually looking to
track down the parliamentary answer.

A google search on this NG might reveal the details -- it came up
here at the time. IIRC, the figures covered 2005. It might have been
early 2007, but only the 2005 figures were available at the time.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
bof writes:
Andrew, many thanks for the reply, though I was actually looking to
track down the parliamentary answer.

A google search on this NG might reveal the details -- it came up
here at the time.

Thanks, for those interested:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....d-i-y&q=The+cl
ear+success+of+Part+P&qt_g=Search+this+group

and

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2p999d

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , Owain
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Brian wrote:
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

That's not a problem, if the work was like-for-like replacement of
something installed before Part P.


Nice get out clause.


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

bof wrote:
In message , Owain
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Brian wrote:
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

That's not a problem, if the work was like-for-like replacement of
something installed before Part P.


Nice get out clause.

Unless you mean the date stamp on that nice shiny CU...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Jan 9, 2:27 pm, John Rumm wrote:
bof wrote:
In message , Owain
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Brian wrote:
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

That's not a problem, if the work was like-for-like replacement of
something installed before Part P.

Nice get out clause.

Unless you mean the date stamp on that nice shiny CU...

Which replaced the manky old CU....
--
Rob

Rob Hamadi wrote:
On Jan 9, 2:27 pm, John Rumm wrote:
bof wrote:
In message , Owain
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Brian wrote:
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

That's not a problem, if the work was like-for-like replacement of
something installed before Part P.

Nice get out clause.

Unless you mean the date stamp on that nice shiny CU...

Which replaced the manky old CU....

Which had somehow become "damaged"...

Oh look - there's a damaged cable too...


--
Ian White

On Jan 8, 3:04*pm, Andrew May wrote:
Brian wrote:
Well, I would just go ahead and do it as long as you know what you are
doing (for safety's sake). Since no-one will ever ask about it, why
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
If you want an example of how a government can really cock up
regulations, just look at part P. Now if they had spent the same time
promoting those lottle devices which find cables etc buried in walls,
they would have done far more good, and probably saved some lives too.

Has anyone actually been prosecuted under Part P in the three years
which it has been in force? I don't mean prosecuted for putting in a
dangerous installation but prosecuted for putting in an installation
that fully complies with the wiring regulations but without filling in
the required paperwork?

The "required paperwork" would be the Building Control paperwork I
suppose, if yo uwere doing the work without Part P. I did ask our
local BC about what to do if I wanted to do my own wiring and have
them inspect it. The fee was £100 for each inspection. He said that
they would do a continuity and insulation test at the meter to check
it.

presumably the 'offence' would be failing to notify BC of the work.
Is that a criminal offence? I guess not. Is it a tort?

Robert

In article ,
RobertL writes:
The "required paperwork" would be the Building Control paperwork I
suppose, if yo uwere doing the work without Part P. I did ask our
local BC about what to do if I wanted to do my own wiring and have
them inspect it. The fee was £100 for each inspection. He said that

They are not permitted to charge for the inspection,
nor can they require you to get it done at your expense.
This is now stated in Part P itself, although it has
always been the case. You already paid for it in the form
of the building notice fee.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Jan 10, 8:50*am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * RobertL writes:

The "required paperwork" would be the Building Control paperwork I
suppose, if yo uwere doing the work without Part P. * I did ask our
local BC about what to do if I wanted to do my own wiring and have
them inspect it. *The fee was £100 for each inspection. *He said that

They are not permitted to charge for the inspection,
nor can they require you to get it done at your expense.
This is now stated in Part P itself, although it has
always been the case. You already paid for it in the form
of the building notice fee.


Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. The building notice fee was
£100 which included the inspection. If you wnated to do a series of
small jobs (every few months say) but to reconnect the electrics in
between them then they each had to be a separate job requiring a
separate £100 notice fee for each job.

Robert

On 10 Jan 2008 08:50:14 GMT Andrew Gabriel wrote :
They are not permitted to charge for the inspection,
nor can they require you to get it done at your expense.
This is now stated in Part P itself, although it has
always been the case. You already paid for it in the form
of the building notice fee.

Not something that has registered with my LA, LB Richmond:

[if you are DIYings and so submitting a Building Notice]

"At commencement of works you should tell us in the normal way and
inspections of the installation will be carried out (if part of a
building scheme at the same time as other inspections). At
completion of works you will have to provide us with an Electrical
Installation Certificate signed by a competent person. Until this
certificate is received a Completion Certificate for the whole of
the works cannot be issued."

Building Notice charge (classed as works under £5000), £225.51 inc
VAT. And then they expect me to arrange an inspection and test.

I will be selling my place soon and it would do no harm to replace
the CU (1970s Wylex MCBs) - with a split one, £70 from Screwfix and
a morning's work. But with Part P I will leave well alone, as it's
just not worth the risk of getting into arguments with a buyer's
solicitor. Net result of Part P, a slightly less safe installation.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In article ,
Tony Bryer writes:
Net result of Part P, a slightly less safe installation.

Spot on. Predicted in advance, and borne out by subsequent figures.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Tony Bryer wrote:

Building Notice charge (classed as works under £5000), £225.51 inc
VAT. And then they expect me to arrange an inspection and test.

But Part P itself now explicitly says that they cannot do that. And all
local authorities were sent a letter from central government saying "you
should never have done that, and if you have been you'd better stop it
sharpish".

Pete

Ian White wrote:
Rob Hamadi wrote:
On Jan 9, 2:27 pm, John Rumm wrote:
bof wrote:
In message , Owain
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Brian wrote:
worry? If anyone does ask, well it was done years ago, wasn't it?
Just don't look too close at the date stamps ;-)

That's not a problem, if the work was like-for-like replacement of
something installed before Part P.

Nice get out clause.

Unless you mean the date stamp on that nice shiny CU...

Which replaced the manky old CU....

Which had somehow become "damaged"...

Alas like for like swaps of a CU are not exempt from notification.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Pete Verdon wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

Building Notice charge (classed as works under £5000), £225.51 inc
VAT. And then they expect me to arrange an inspection and test.

But Part P itself now explicitly says that they cannot do that. And all
local authorities were sent a letter from central government saying "you
should never have done that, and if you have been you'd better stop it
sharpish".

And yet some still ignore it...

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-... 6079f7a19eba0
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvjk4o

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:14:19 +0000 Pete Verdon wrote :
Well, I shall feel a lot happier about any Part-P-ignoring work I may do
in the future, and a hell of a lot less happy about the whole issue in
general. I'd previously assumed misguided good intentions; the above
looks a lot more like actual malice.

Since my earlier post I've decided to just get on and replace my CU. Use
the 10 ways to make the system much better and safer. But - with gritted
teeth - before I put my place on the market I may submit a regularisation
application for this and various other things that all will come within
the £5K value of work. It will cost around £300 for nothing really, but a
week's interest while solicitors argue is more than that. And the new CU
will be one less thing for a buyer to argue a price drop on.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Pete Verdon wrote:

Well, I shall feel a lot happier about any Part-P-ignoring work I may do
in the future, and a hell of a lot less happy about the whole issue in
general. I'd previously assumed misguided good intentions; the above
looks a lot more like actual malice.

To an extent I have some sympathy with the LAs here in that the daft
legislation really has put them between a rock and a hard place for the
reasons outlined in that link.

However I do believe that they should be forced to swallow it anyway
wherever possible, since it will create additional pressure to get it
removed.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:33:14 +0000, Tony Bryer wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:14:19 +0000 Pete Verdon wrote :
Well, I shall feel a lot happier about any Part-P-ignoring work I may
do in the future, and a hell of a lot less happy about the whole issue
in general. I'd previously assumed misguided good intentions; the above
looks a lot more like actual malice.

Since my earlier post I've decided to just get on and replace my CU. Use
the 10 ways to make the system much better and safer. But - with gritted
teeth - before I put my place on the market I may submit a
regularisation application for this and various other things that all
will come within the £5K value of work. It will cost around £300 for
nothing really, but a week's interest while solicitors argue is more
than that. And the new CU will be one less thing for a buyer to argue a
price drop on.

Won't you still have to also pay for the "Inspect and Test" certificate
as well as the £300 if your LA does not honour the Approved Doc?


--
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

Quoted from some other thread wrote:

Local Authorities are well aware of the Approved Documents. *However:
a) They aren't law.

No, but the Approved Document is simply pointing out that the
underlying law does not give LA's power to levy such charges, which
are therefore unlawful.

b) BCOs (mostly) have no more idea of electrical installations than
the average person; some more, some less. *To employ someone directly
or indirectly would cost money; to train the staff up even more.

Irrelevant

c) A Local Authority doesn't have to carry out the judgment of the
Ombudsman, so any appeal wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Wrong, toothless, remedy.

Similarly, an appeal for a determination to the Secretary of State
isn't possible due to the way the legislation's worded.

Wrong remedy

In my Authority, it's been decided at manager level that we ain't
testing, the punter has to get it tested, and no amount of waving
Approved Documents in the faces of the guys on site is going to change
that. *Tough titty, hard cheese, you ain't getting your Completion
Certificate until we have that bit of paper from you!

If I was in your Authority, your LA would be on the end of a judicial
review - if I could be arsed. That would sort your managers out.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Ed Sirett wrote :
Won't you still have to also pay for the "Inspect and Test"
certificate as well as the £300 if your LA does not honour
the Approved Doc?

Yes, in advance of going to the LA I will get a periodic inspection
test done by a local electrical firm and a Landlords safety
certificate for the gas boiler. Yes, it will cost me, but apart from
easing the sale (hopefully) I want to be sure that the work I have
done is safe - not, obviously that I have any reason to doubt it, but
equally don't have the equipment to confirm it.

5% on £400K is £400p.w. A lot of money to be losing if solicitors want
to be picky.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk