The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.
Naffer

On 1 July, 22:20, naffer wrote:
The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.
Naffer

I was ahead of you as soon as the idea of a cancelling bill was mooted
and already sent this in as a suggestion plus a copy to my MP.
Hopefully a lot more people will do the same

"naffer" wrote in message
...
The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.

Too true. Anyone else see 'Craig' on Rogue Traders last night. Absolutely
unbelievable. He tried to install an exterior 'porch' light by changing an
existing interior light switch into a double, and simply connecting the new
light into the new switch (no extension of lighting ring to power it). And
he twinned a kitchen socket, leaving the earth disconnected - didn't have
any proper test gear, so 'tested' it by plugging in a metal kettle and
checking that it worked.

Loved it when Matt greeted him with the hand buzzer!

On 1 July, 22:34, "John Whitworth"
wrote:
"naffer" wrote in message

...

The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.

Too true. Anyone else see 'Craig' on Rogue Traders last night. Absolutely
unbelievable. He tried to install an exterior 'porch' light by changing an
existing interior light switch into a double, and simply connecting the new
light into the new switch (no extension of lighting ring to power it). And
he twinned a kitchen socket, leaving the earth disconnected - didn't have
any proper test gear, so 'tested' it by plugging in a metal kettle and
checking that it worked.

Loved it when Matt greeted him with the hand buzzer!

I may be dropping myself in it, but what's wrong with wiring the porch
light into the house lighting circuit ? I did that exact same thing in
my last house.
(I know ideally it should be on its own circuit so some person
shorting out the outside light cannot affect interior lighting, and it
should have independent RCD protection.) Also, lighting doesn't use a
ring, its usually radial. You don't have to use loop-in, nothing wrong
with wiring a single light direct from the switch.
Simon.

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
On 1 July, 22:34, "John Whitworth"
wrote:
"naffer" wrote in message

...

The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.

Too true. Anyone else see 'Craig' on Rogue Traders last night. Absolutely
unbelievable. He tried to install an exterior 'porch' light by changing
an
existing interior light switch into a double, and simply connecting the
new
light into the new switch (no extension of lighting ring to power it).
And
he twinned a kitchen socket, leaving the earth disconnected - didn't have
any proper test gear, so 'tested' it by plugging in a metal kettle and
checking that it worked.

Loved it when Matt greeted him with the hand buzzer!

I may be dropping myself in it, but what's wrong with wiring the porch
light into the house lighting circuit ? I did that exact same thing in
my last house.
(I know ideally it should be on its own circuit so some person
shorting out the outside light cannot affect interior lighting, and it
should have independent RCD protection.) Also, lighting doesn't use a
ring, its usually radial. You don't have to use loop-in, nothing wrong
with wiring a single light direct from the switch.
Simon.

The point was that all he effectively had in the circuit was the switch (the
extra pole - not the pole replacing existing interior switch) and the light.
No connection to the mains via a ring or radial (and yes, you're totally
correct - lighting is radial - just a slip of the fingers there!)

On 1 July, 23:40, "John Whitworth"
wrote:
"sm_jamieson" wrote in message

...



On 1 July, 22:34, "John Whitworth"
wrote:
"naffer" wrote in message

...

The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.

Too true. Anyone else see 'Craig' on Rogue Traders last night. Absolutely
unbelievable. He tried to install an exterior 'porch' light by changing
an
existing interior light switch into a double, and simply connecting the
new
light into the new switch (no extension of lighting ring to power it).
And
he twinned a kitchen socket, leaving the earth disconnected - didn't have
any proper test gear, so 'tested' it by plugging in a metal kettle and
checking that it worked.

Loved it when Matt greeted him with the hand buzzer!

I may be dropping myself in it, but what's wrong with wiring the porch
light into the house lighting circuit ? I did that exact same thing in
my last house.
(I know ideally it should be on its own circuit so some person
shorting out the outside light cannot affect interior lighting, and it
should have independent RCD protection.) Also, lighting doesn't use a
ring, its usually radial. You don't have to use loop-in, nothing wrong
with wiring a single light direct from the switch.
Simon.

The point was that all he effectively had in the circuit was the switch (the
extra pole - not the pole replacing existing interior switch) and the light.
No connection to the mains via a ring or radial (and yes, you're totally
correct - lighting is radial - just a slip of the fingers there!)

Oh I see what you mean.
What a plonker !
Simon.

John Whitworth wrote:


"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...
On 1 July, 22:34, "John Whitworth"
wrote:
"naffer" wrote in message

...


The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.

Too true. Anyone else see 'Craig' on Rogue Traders last night.
Absolutely
unbelievable. He tried to install an exterior 'porch' light by
changing an
existing interior light switch into a double, and simply connecting
the new
light into the new switch (no extension of lighting ring to power
it). And
he twinned a kitchen socket, leaving the earth disconnected - didn't
have
any proper test gear, so 'tested' it by plugging in a metal kettle and
checking that it worked.

Loved it when Matt greeted him with the hand buzzer!

I may be dropping myself in it, but what's wrong with wiring the porch
light into the house lighting circuit ? I did that exact same thing in
my last house.
(I know ideally it should be on its own circuit so some person
shorting out the outside light cannot affect interior lighting, and it
should have independent RCD protection.) Also, lighting doesn't use a
ring, its usually radial. You don't have to use loop-in, nothing wrong
with wiring a single light direct from the switch.
Simon.

The point was that all he effectively had in the circuit was the switch
(the extra pole - not the pole replacing existing interior switch) and
the light. No connection to the mains via a ring or radial (and yes,
you're totally correct - lighting is radial - just a slip of the fingers
there!)
Ah. I see.

I couldn't figure out the problem.

Yaesr ago som,e bloke I worked with asked me to look at his cortina
Battery kep t going flat 'ever since I fitted the new horn'

Well I looked, and the had the horn push in series with a relay going to
the horn. The relay coil was wired across the unswitched battery, so it
was always on..draining e battery.

He hadn't a clue "I just swapped wires till it worked"

:-)

"naffer" wrote in message
...
The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.
Naffer

Part P is necessary.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Doctor Drivel"
saying something like:

Part P is necessary.

And with that one post... that single line... that brief sentence, you
utterly discredit yourself. Not that you had any to start with.

And increased the value of pre-harmonised colour coded cable.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 02/07/2010 01:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"naffer" wrote in message
...
The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.
Naffer

Part P is necessary.

For what exactly?

Like HIPs it should be tightened up not abandoned.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Part P is necessary.

Really!!!? Something's necessary, I think, but not Part P - repeal
already suggested here http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Repeal_Bill
(Civic Deregulation no. 52), by the way.

My suggestion is to make electrical work subject to similar regulations
to gas, i.e.

- repeal Part P of the building regs;

- replace with a set of regulations like the electrical equivalent of
the Gas Safety (installation and use) regulations and/or a domestic
version of the Electricity at Work regulations. I'm not sure what
primary legislation these new regs would come under, but surely that
could be resolved;

- said new regulations impose a legal requirement for competence (as for
gas), but not for specific memberships etc. for DIYers (as for gas);

- anyone doing electrical installation (and maintenance?) work for gain
must be qualified (supervised while training) and be a member of a body
approved by the HSE. The Part P schemes could then convert to
'competent electrician registers' similar to Corgi/GasSafe, but
hopefully without the monopoly of the gas scheme. Advantage that the
HSE is well clued up in matters of electrical safety, unlike the
building control bodies.

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Part P is necessary.

Really!!!? Something's necessary, I think, but not Part P - repeal
already suggested here
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Great_Repeal_Bill (Civic Deregulation
no. 52), by the way.
My suggestion is to make electrical work subject to similar
regulations to gas, i.e.

- repeal Part P of the building regs;

- replace with a set of regulations like the electrical equivalent of
the Gas Safety (installation and use) regulations and/or a domestic
version of the Electricity at Work regulations. I'm not sure what
primary legislation these new regs would come under, but surely that
could be resolved;

- said new regulations impose a legal requirement for competence (as
for gas), but not for specific memberships etc. for DIYers (as for
gas);
- anyone doing electrical installation (and maintenance?) work for
gain must be qualified (supervised while training) and be a member of
a body approved by the HSE. The Part P schemes could then convert to
'competent electrician registers' similar to Corgi/GasSafe, but
hopefully without the monopoly of the gas scheme. Advantage that the
HSE is well clued up in matters of electrical safety, unlike the
building control bodies.

I admit to being biased - but.

Problem there is that you would make small jobs impossible to get done.

Part of my niche market is simple & small plumbing jobs like changing a set
of taps or repairing a toilet. Plumbers just don't want to know about small
jobs like those IME. Same with simple electrics - electricians aren't
generally interested in changing a light fitting.

Yesterday afternoon for exaple. Changed two double socket outlets that were
faulty & repaired a leak on a toilet inlet pipe (washer had gone).

Nothing technical, nothing dangerous. I charged £75 inc parts. Lady was
very happy.

Calling out a sparks & a plumber would have cost her 2 or 3 times that - if
she could have found any willing to do the jobs.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Problem there is that you would make small jobs impossible to get done.
[...]
Yesterday afternoon for exaple. Changed two double socket outlets that were
faulty & repaired a leak on a toilet inlet pipe (washer had gone).

Well I did put a question mark against 'maintenance', and that does
argue in favour of excluding such work.

What happens now though with similar small gas jobs? Do they get done
illegally, or are registered gas people more willing to turn out?

--
Andy

John Rumm wrote:
On 02/07/2010 01:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"naffer" wrote in message
...
The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a
particular MP's relation having been killed by electric shock
arising from a faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give
grief to competent DiY ers.
Naffer

Part P is necessary.

For what exactly?

It has failed to achieve its stated purpose - in fact fatalities have
risen since its introduction (as predicted by many of us here).

Indeed they have.

Its failed in it real but unstated purpose (to make a section of the
black economy traceable).

Black economy? Whats that?

Its put a responsibility onto LA BC departments that they don't want,
and are ill equipped to support.

Like much idiot Guvmint legislation

Its wasted loads of money for householders, and increased paper work
at many stages of running a project or selling a house.

True

Most consumers have never heard of it.

Interesting point. I'd say slightly over half of the people I deal with
have heard that 'the law has changed'. They don't have any further
knowledge or details. Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a
guess.

Most cowboys have not heard of it or ignore it.

I'm very concious of it because of the possible repercussions, so I'm
careful not to do anything covered by part P. Part P & CORGI have actually
done me a favour because most of the registered sparks & plumbers don't seem
to have time for the small simple jobs I do.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

John Rumm wrote:
On 02/07/2010 06:11, 1501 wrote:

And increased the value of pre-harmonised colour coded cable.

Indeed, although I have never understood why, since old colours were
still allowable after part P and new colours were allowable before it!
Hence the colours don't make any definitive statement about when a job
was done.

Quite - although the year of manufacture now marked on the sheath of
most T&E might give you away.

And will the easements that might be coming with Amendment 1 to the 17th
ed. create a market in future-dated cable :-)

--
Andy

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
news:7LiXn.110824$_F1.42532@hurricane...

Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a guess.

I could never understand that. They spend all that time hammering CORGI
CORGI down your throat, then change the blinkin' name!

On 2 July, 11:39, John Rumm wrote:


SNIP



- replace with a set of regulations like the electrical equivalent of
the Gas Safety (installation and use) regulations and/or a domestic
version of the Electricity at Work regulations. I'm not sure what
primary legislation these new regs would come under, but surely that
could be resolved;

I think that is probably going too far.

Perhaps making a full PIR part of the property conveyancing process
would be desirable, so that inspections do get carried out from time to
time.

--
Cheers,

John.

I copy here a post to the IET forum which relates to a PIR carried out
on a village hall installation. Obviously the producer was incompetent
but not necessarily unqualified. The use of PIRs as a safety net seems
dubious based on this particular one.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi, I've been asked to price for some work generated by a PIR, all of
these were 'category one'.

Three fuseboards are BS3036, which require upgrading.
Two fuses have more than one circuit on them, these must be split.
No rcd protection for some sockets, and water heater.
No 10mm earth to any fuseboards.
No local isolators for IR heater.

And the customer says he wasn't given any schedule of test results for
any of the five fuseboards.

What does the panel think?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Food for thought eh?

"sm_jamieson" wrote in message
...

The point was that all he effectively had in the circuit was the switch
(the
extra pole - not the pole replacing existing interior switch) and the
light.
No connection to the mains via a ring or radial (and yes, you're totally
correct - lighting is radial - just a slip of the fingers there!)

Oh I see what you mean.
What a plonker !
Simon.

And of course, I actually meant 'gang' not 'pole'. D'oh.

Still, the guy on Rogue Traders called the light switch a plug! :-)

Part P turned qualified electricians into cowboys.
#1 work need not be to BS7671 just a reasonable standard
#2 so permitting any regulation to be made up on a whim to work up the
hours with yes NICEIC in particular when challenged by solicitors
boasting "we are a charity, you can not sue us, we can do what we
want". Fortunately the solicitor is the son of an MP and the truth
dawned on the whole idiotic "parliament writes SI 1-line, private
sector vested interests write the profit plan".

I am not surprised by the "PIR".
Two circuits into a CPD, so must be split. How much longer is this
idiocy going to go on? NO!, if it is a ring fix, if it is a radial
label; a radial can have any topology from the CPD down and indeed a
ring can be a radial from the CPD to a ring later (lollipop like).

Test results for EFLI are highly subjective depending on the
instrument, hence LT7 are still popular and very easy to pass/fail as
you desire.

It is like billing 4hrs for covering a cupboard under the stairs in
badly fitted trunking "because all cable must be in trunking". FTE is
medium impact rated or AG2, domestic environment is light severity or
AG1, so that nice little earner is out the window. Same with one
isolator for a whole install, the classic Peak+E7, no each may be
treated as an installation with main switch (which they are and better
to comply with 314.1!). The ESC had both these examples on the
website.

I am very pleased to say that a plumber-electrician that got called
out in 2010 to shut off the electricity due to a plumbing leak (loft
CW with insulation under it) then ran the job up into ripping apart CU
& decoration to provide a "mandatory" single isolator for Peak+E7,
which was duly turned off, got his bill *reduced* by the insurers when
the CW supply burst due to E7 now ALSO being turned off by the single
isolator. Yes the damn fool was a DI and the damn fool insurer was
Zurich.

We really need a electrical code for domestic, that way people are
protected from "do not have to comply with anything" and reduce
traffic on the IET to actual commercial rather than what-we-can-argue-
the-job-up-to. Yes that de-skills electricians, but what exactly is a
5-day course compared to C&G 2382 2392?! It is just ********. Domestic
work is not equal to Industrial work in any way, 5 days compared to 3
years, sums it up really - despite the nonsense of £100/yr domestic
and many an industrial spark struggling to get £10/hr and get paid in
the same financial year.

Doctor Drivel
wibbled on Friday 02 July 2010 09:28


it should be tightened up not abandoned.

The same could be said about your straitjacket!

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

On Jul 1, 10:20*pm, naffer wrote:
The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?
How about lost of people suggesting Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.
But as we all no, the regs. won't stop the cowboys but will give grief
to competent DiY ers.
Naffer

I dont have time to go through numeruos files & put a letter together.
How about we here do one? Maybe more people will send it then.


NT

On Jul 2, 1:08*pm, NT wrote:
It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.

Which was most likely professionally done

AND

Which would have been prevented by RCD 17th

BUT

17th Reg Amendment w.r.t. RCD protection now REMOVES.


Is that a back door attempt for the IEE/IET/CSE crowd post dust
settling to take back control? :-)

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Problem there is that you would make small jobs impossible to get done.
[...]
Yesterday afternoon for exaple. Changed two double socket outlets that
were faulty & repaired a leak on a toilet inlet pipe (washer had gone).

Well I did put a question mark against 'maintenance', and that does argue
in favour of excluding such work.

What happens now though with similar small gas jobs? Do they get done
illegally, or are registered gas people more willing to turn out?

Its not illegal for someone to DIY gas.
Its not illegal to charge someone for being taught how to DIY.
Opps! that looks like a loop hole.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:58:24 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Its failed in it real but unstated purpose (to make a section of
the
black economy traceable).

Black economy? Whats that?

Similar to the black market. Bits of the economy that are above board
but don't leave an offical audit trail of who did what and when,
which when linked with other records could produce for how much as
well.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:39:52 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


Perhaps making a full PIR part of the property conveyancing process
would be desirable, so that inspections do get carried out from time to
time.

It doesn't really matter that they are not carried out. Moreover,
such a requirement would undoubtedly spawn a horde of "inspectors"
charging £500 per inspection or a number of tradesmen holding sellers
hostage by condemning perfectly reasonable installations until they
are given the job of replacing the consumer unit or something equally
unnecessary.

A PIR today costs between £150-£400 for a 3 bedroom house depending
upon location, if it was made mandatory for each sale that sum would
at least double.

On 2 July, 13:21, "js.b1" wrote:
On Jul 2, 1:08*pm, NT wrote:

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.

Which was most likely professionally done

AND

Which would have been prevented by RCD 17th

BUT

17th Reg Amendment w.r.t. RCD protection now REMOVES.

Assuming I'm not missing a joke, can someone explain this ammendment
in more detail please ?
Simon.

John Rumm wrote:

= Given the scope of the problem (i.e. accidents and fatalities resulting
from fixed wiring faults), a very valid option is to do nothing. As was
the case for many years before the government got themselves confused
with appliance related accidents, and pressure from interested parties.

I can't see simple revocation of Part P passing the 'art of the
possible' test. It would be seen as retrograde and a "licence for
cowboys", etc. (Cue Daily Mail headlines.) Reform is much more likely
to be possible.

Given the amount of dubious electrical work still being done kitchen
fitters, plumbers, builders and, dare I say it, handymen (casting no
aspersions on anyone here...) etc. it doesn't seem that unreasonable to
regulate those doing it for a living.

I have an expectation that the majority of injury from foxed wiring is
from old, and/or poorly maintained, and/or not to current standard
installations.

Less bad wiring would be 'slightly foxed' I presume :~)

Perhaps making a full PIR part of the property conveyancing process
would be desirable, so that inspections do get carried out from time to
time.

I can't see that getting very far, now that HIPs and HCRs have gone.
The fact that the insurance industry doesn't usually insist on PIRs for
owner-occupied premises supports your view that there isn't that much of
a general problem, I suppose.

Talking of PIRs, have you noticed the proposed radical reform of the
process in the draft 1st Amendment? The PIR is to be replaced by the
EICR - electrical installation condition report - with significant
change to the standard coding system and forms.

--
Andy

On Jul 2, 2:17*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
A PIR today costs between £150-£400 for a 3 bedroom house depending
upon location, if it was made mandatory for each sale that sum would
at least double.

No, it would be 10x greater :-)

Those doing the PIR would want to do the work.
Those doing the work would want to do the PIR to string it out.

We need a Commons Committee with every little sack of sh!t of the
electrical industry dragged in front of it to justify their lobbying
under the previous government, from false statistics re classifying
portable appliance deaths with fixing wiring, to blatant regulation
inflation, expansion & wallet stuffing. You could do that across the
whole building regulations.

Unfortunately, until that happens we will not get a cost-benefit-
analysis driven system - from HSE, RoSPA loonies right through to
Parliament. The silver lining is we might get a serious rethink in the
end because the gravy is running out faster than even the current
gov't think, both USA & UK will become junk rated mid-term because
they can not get sufficient GDP and keep interest rates down.

On Jul 2, 2:34*pm, sm_jamieson wrote:
On 2 July, 13:21, "js.b1" wrote:
On Jul 2, 1:08*pm, NT wrote:
It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.

Which was most likely professionally done
AND
Which would have been prevented by RCD 17th
BUT
17th Reg Amendment w.r.t. RCD protection now REMOVES.

Assuming I'm not missing a joke, can someone explain this ammendment
in more detail please ?

As I recall:
Under 17th amendment 1 you can take the position that retrofitting an
RCD is not required if there is no significant risk from the circuit.

Obviously for an outdoor socket an RCD *IS* required.

The MPs daughter was killed by someone fitting a spice rack where a
screw penetrated a cable which was (IIRC) slightly out of zone (it
might have been within the 3.5-degrees of vertical limit). An RCD
would have prevented the death. There was no comment as to whether the
install was professional or DIY, it is most likely professional which
makes the Part P attack on DIY even more contemptible because out of
many DIYers I know ranging from physicists, physiologists to even
lawyers they all fitted RCD long ago - themselves. It is not
particularly difficult to those with a physics O level & A level
background. It is incorrect to assume that everyone needs nanny state
to wipe their backside, particularly when some spend their living
wiping nanny state's.

sm_jamieson wrote:

17th Reg Amendment w.r.t. RCD protection now REMOVES.

Assuming I'm not missing a joke, can someone explain this ammendment
in more detail please ?

It is a draft amendment, not yet in force - and may change or be deleted
before it comes into force. If this does go through it would take
effect from 1st Jan 2012.

The proposal is to allow an exception from the rule requiring 30 mA RCD
protection of cables buried in walls in the particular case of a minor
works alteration (i.e. small addition to, or alteration of, an existing
final circuit) where "the designer is satisfied that there would be
minimal increased risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration
by screws, nails and the like". The design decision is to be recorded
on the minor works certificate.

--
Andy

On Jul 2, 3:43*pm, Andy Wade wrote:
The proposal is to allow an exception from the rule requiring 30 mA RCD
protection of cables buried in walls in the particular case of a minor
works alteration (i.e. small addition to, or alteration of, an existing
final circuit) where "the designer is satisfied that there would be
minimal increased risk of damage to the circuit cable due to penetration
by screws, nails and the like". *The design decision is to be recorded
on the minor works certificate.

Does a cowboy leave a MWC ? :-)
17th at least required them to walk with RCD'd spurs on their boots,
now they just need have spurs on their boots :-)

Andy Wade wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Problem there is that you would make small jobs impossible to get
done. [...]
Yesterday afternoon for exaple. Changed two double socket outlets
that were faulty & repaired a leak on a toilet inlet pipe (washer
had gone).

Well I did put a question mark against 'maintenance', and that does
argue in favour of excluding such work.

What happens now though with similar small gas jobs? Do they get done
illegally, or are registered gas people more willing to turn out?

I certainly won't touch gas, don't know enough about it. I have a mate who
is registered so I pass it to him.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"John Whitworth" wrote in message
...


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message news:7LiXn.110824$_F1.42532@hurricane...

Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a guess.

I could never understand that. They spend all that time hammering CORGI
CORGI down your throat, then change the blinkin' name!
That's because when the government changed the supplier (can't remember who
though!) they found that they didn't own the name CORGI and that has been
retained by the first supplier. 'GasSafe' is, so I'm told, now definitely
owned by the government!!!

Peter

Peter Andrews wrote:
"John Whitworth" wrote in message
...


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message news:7LiXn.110824$_F1.42532@hurricane...

Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a guess.

I could never understand that. They spend all that time hammering
CORGI CORGI down your throat, then change the blinkin' name!
That's because when the government changed the supplier (can't
remember who though!) they found that they didn't own the name CORGI
and that has been retained by the first supplier. 'GasSafe' is, so
I'm told, now definitely owned by the government!!!

And operated by Capita.

"Peter Andrews" wrote in message
...

"John Whitworth" wrote in message
...


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message news:7LiXn.110824$_F1.42532@hurricane...

Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a guess.

I could never understand that. They spend all that time hammering CORGI
CORGI down your throat, then change the blinkin' name!
That's because when the government changed the supplier (can't remember
who though!) they found that they didn't own the name CORGI

I'm sure that I could have guessed that :-)

But what possible value is it to the company that do own it, if the
government decline to buy if off them at their asking price?

tim

On 2 July, 13:01, Tim Watts wrote:
Doctor Drivel
* wibbled on Friday 02 July 2010 09:28

it should be tightened up not abandoned.

The same could be said about your straitjacket!

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Come on Tim - what better reccomendation to abandon part P than for it
to be a good thing in drivels eyes?

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel
wibbled on Friday 02 July 2010 09:28


it should be tightened up not abandoned.

The same could be said about your straitjacket!

My jacket well cut not straight. I have style. How is Little Middle England

[Default] On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:20:24 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, naffer , randomly hit the keyboard
and wrote:

The new Government has asked for suggestions as to which laws it
should repeal so as to clear up the previous Govt's love of law-
making.
How about Part-P?

It came out of a piece of misguided law-making, driven by a particular
MP's relation having been killed by electric shock arising from a
faulty installation.

Kill off Part P, please. While we're at it, get rid of the requirement
for replacement windows and the renovation of thermal elements to be
notifiable work.

But can we please stop this myth that it was as a direct result of the
death of Mary Wherry, daughter of MP Jenny Tonge. Part P had been
contemplated and kicked into the long grass for years before, and
(IIRC) it was being introduced before the death of Mary Wherry. Even
if not, the guidance and procedure was certainly fleshed out ready for
introduction. Whether her death gave it one last push I'm not sure.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

In article EloXn.110865$_F1.57737@hurricane, Clot
writes
Peter Andrews wrote:
"John Whitworth" wrote in
message
...


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message news:7LiXn.110824$_F1.42532@hurricane...

Around 80% have heard of CORGI (but not GasSafe) at a guess.

I could never understand that. They spend all that time hammering
CORGI CORGI down your throat, then change the blinkin' name!
That's because when the government changed the supplier (can't
remember who though!) they found that they didn't own the name CORGI
and that has been retained by the first supplier. 'GasSafe' is, so
I'm told, now definitely owned by the government!!!

And operated by Capita.

Aka Data Miners PLC
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********