There is to be a review of Part P, see:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/public...gregsnextsteps

time for uk.d-i-y representations?

maybe the govt will see the light & reduce regulatory burden.

IMHO public knowledge and awareness of simple electrical safety has
sadly much decreased since Part P arrived.

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

On Jul 25, 12:11*pm, jim wrote:
There is to be a review of Part P, see:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/public...uilding/buildi...

time for uk.d-i-y representations?

maybe the govt will see the light & reduce regulatory burden.

IMHO public knowledge and awareness of simple electrical safety has
sadly much decreased since Part P arrived.

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

Sadly I expect d-i-y will become even more restricted if the various
trade bodies get their way (and they probably will).

Philip

On Jul 25, 1:11*pm, jim wrote:

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to replace
it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There are
unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless you do
some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

[1] I discovered a few dangerous faults in my house (moved in last
year) when I replaced the socket and switch faceplates. Fortunately
they could be made safe without the need for Part P. If, OTOH, a
qualified electrician was required, it might have been a while before
I'd got round to having them fixed, as arranging to stay at home mid-
week for a day for a tradesman's visit is far more hassle than a few
hours with a screwdriver at the weekend.

Neil

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 1:11 pm, jim wrote:

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to replace
it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There are
unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless you do
some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

[1] I discovered a few dangerous faults in my house (moved in last
year) when I replaced the socket and switch faceplates. Fortunately
they could be made safe without the need for Part P. If, OTOH, a
qualified electrician was required, it might have been a while before
I'd got round to having them fixed, as arranging to stay at home mid-
week for a day for a tradesman's visit is far more hassle than a few
hours with a screwdriver at the weekend.

Neil

And what about all us poor sods who can't afford to have electricians coming
in and doing work, because we are on Benefits of some description.

Don't give me thee old blarney that someone gave me recently, that anyone on
benefits should not be allowed to own their own home.

Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:11 pm, jim wrote:

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to replace
it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There are
unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless you do
some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably be
extended to 15 years.

--
Adam

On Jul 26, 11:20*am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably be
extended to 15 years.

A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?

A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of the
electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it more
worthwhile, perhaps?

Neil

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 11:20 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably be
extended to 15 years.

A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?

A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of the
electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it more
worthwhile, perhaps?

Worthwhile for whom?
Its almost certainly not worthwhile for most homeowners.

Having an inspection before you sell a house so that the seller can pay to
put it right might be an idea, but anything else is just lining the
inspectors pockets.


Neil

dennis@home wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 11:20 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably
be extended to 15 years.

A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?

A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of
the electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it more
worthwhile, perhaps?

Worthwhile for whom?
Its almost certainly not worthwhile for most homeowners.

Having an inspection before you sell a house so that the seller can
pay to put it right might be an idea, but anything else is just
lining the inspectors pockets.

Too many sellers in there. The onus is on the buyer to have a inspection
done if they are wary of the electrics.



--
Adam

In article ,
Neil Williams writes:
On Jul 26, 11:20*am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably be
extended to 15 years.
A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?
A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of the
electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it more
worthwhile, perhaps?

For what point?
The whole purpose of the government review is to get rid of red tape
and costs. You are proposing more, and without any justification.

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

Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 26, 11:20 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

There is currently a 10 year recommendation and that could probably
be extended to 15 years.

A recommendation, yes, but how many people actually do?

Very few.

A lower period and a legal requirement (perhaps enforced by way of the
electricity supplier requiring a certificate) might make it more
worthwhile, perhaps?

I doubt it would make it more worthwhile. It would just be a variation on
Part P and one that now includes people who have not had any electrical work
done.

--
Adam

In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to replace
it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There are
unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless you do
some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and don't
see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this. If you feel
the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would also give carte
blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off - exactly like car MOTs.

When a property changes hands it's up to the new owner to have such things
checked.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There
are unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless
you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.


What's the alternative to the MOT?

--
Adam

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There
are unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless
you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.


What's the alternative to the MOT?

There's not. It might be an answer to the dishonest ones by conducting
more trial tests with heavy penalties for the rogues.

The most vulnerable don't usually have cars. But everyone needs somewhere
to live.

A dangerous car could cause havoc on the roads. Houses rarely. ;-)

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

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

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2011-07-27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

A dangerous car could cause havoc on the roads. Houses rarely. ;-)

Don't houses kill more people than cars?

I'd guess more people die in houses, yes. But I'll bet more die due to
road accidents than through electrical faults in the home. How many of
those road accident caused by the sort of things an MOT is designed to
stop, who knows?

The problem with a house electrics MOT is a potential fault would likely
not be revealed by any sensible inspection and testing. A cable drilled
through while concealed in a wall, for example.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There
are unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless
you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.


What's the alternative to the MOT?

buy a new car.

On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of electrical
installations in domestic property to ensure they are safe. There
are unsafe electrical installations all over the place, and unless
you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer than
any MOT test.

Fredxx wrote:
On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of
electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are
safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the
place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily
find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer
than any MOT test.

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some surveys)
would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

--
Adam

On 25/07/2011 12:11, jim wrote:
There is to be a review of Part P, see:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/public...gregsnextsteps

time for uk.d-i-y representations?

Nice idea, but possibly a bit late, they have the results of the first
stage of the consultation he

http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...df/1800841.pdf

Some interesting bits:

2.9 - More "jobs for the boys" suggestions from vested interests.

2.39 - one can see building regs mandated wheely bin houses here!

Part P specific comments:

"2.57 There were 18 responses submitted directly to the Department.
There was some specific support for the Part P, in particular how it had
improved the quality of electrical work in the home and as a result
reduced the number of deaths and injuries. There was a similar number
that suggested that the approach in Part P was unnecessary and/or should
be replaced by a requirement that electrical work should be carried out
by a suitably-qualified and registered/competent person (with the
comparison with gas safety often being made)."


Interesting they have not understood the requirements of the gas
regulations!

"2.58 However, Part P was by far the most commented on aspect of the
Building Regulations on the Your Freedom website. While a minority of
the comments on that site supported the existing provision and worried
that deregulation could impact on health and safety in homes, these
views were outnumbered by those that supported revision of the existing
provisions.

2.59 Various reasons were cited for the need to review Part P. However,
in summary they related to the cost associated with demonstrating
compliance with the provisions rather than costs imposed by the way the
work itself had to be carried out, that is either the payment of a
building control fee for the work or payment of an annual fee to belong
to a Competent Person Scheme to be able to self-certify the work. It was
often stated that such costs impacted particularly on small firms.
Furthermore, by falling only on those people that actually sought to
comply with the regime it was said this was both unfair and failed to do
anything to tackle those people who were most likely to be responsible
for unsafe work.

2.60 The provisions were first introduced in 2005 and we believe it is
now time to evaluate their contribution to the safety outcomes they were
intended to support. We will therefore undertake a review of the
requirements, their implementation and the associated compliance
mechanisms to determine whether there is any case for change."


2.60 is interesting, but not sure how one contributes to that process.

On the "Next Steps" section:

"3.2 First, the programme will contain a significant deregulatory
workstream. In particular this will include considering the scope for
reducing the burden of Parts P, K, M and N as well as the building
control system as a whole. We will also explore what other more minor
changes might deliver additional reduced burdens – particularly whether
there is any scope for reducing regulation through Part D or through the
specific provisions at H6 and E4."




--
Cheers,

John.

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

Nice idea, but possibly a bit late, they have the results of the first
stage of the consultation he

snip

Yep - and AIUI DCLG have since then been gathering further evidence from
(not to say getting their ears bent by) bodies such as the Electrical
Safety Council (who in turn have been spoon fed by NICEIC and NAPIT).
So by the time they publish later this year the con. doc. with their
proposals to make changes to the Building Regulations it'll be too late
to achieve anything significantly different from whatever they have
concluded.

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

John Rumm wrote:
that suggested that the approach in Part P was unnecessary and/or should
be replaced by a requirement that electrical work should be carried out
by a suitably-qualified and registered/competent person

which would be covered by yer standard Contract Law when done for
benefit.

(at least it was when I was doing my C&Gs mumble years ago)

JGH

On Jul 25, 12:55*pm, John Rumm wrote:
"2.57 There were 18 responses submitted directly to the Department.
There was some specific support for the Part P, in particular how it had
improved the quality of electrical work in the home and as a result
reduced the number of deaths and injuries.

It is more likely to have improved the quantity of unnecessary work.

It has not reduced the number of deaths & injuries - unless ESC have
put forward fake statistics (which is rather likely).

I would prefer a separation of the charitable bodies from their
commercial interests, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to explain
why the conflict of interest remains - along with junk statistics like
"200,000 admissions to hospital for electrocution". I strongly suspect
NICEIC as SI2004 have a network of civil servants in their control,
rubber stamping what vested commercial interests write as long as
there is a whitewash paper justifying with fake statistics if the
media ask.

In NZ the equivalent of Part P increased deaths, its repeal decreased
deaths.

Cowboys & bad DIYers will continue to do bad work. Competent can
simply rely on the simple phrase "maintenance operations are permitted
in any location" under SI2006 - usually fixing that totally ****ed up
by a previous chimp sub-contracted by a spark who "supervised" the
handing of cash over.

js.b1 wrote:
"200,000 admissions to hospital for electrocution".

If you've been electrocuted, you don't go to hospital, you go to the
morgue.

JGH

"jim" wrote in message
...

There is to be a review of Part P, see:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/public...gregsnextsteps

time for uk.d-i-y representations?

maybe the govt will see the light & reduce regulatory burden.

IMHO public knowledge and awareness of simple electrical safety has
sadly much decreased since Part P arrived.

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

------------------------------------

What really annoys me about Part P is that it gives no protection from
self-certifying cowboy electricians. My wife insisted that our new kitchen
be fitted by the "professionals", not because I would mess it up - simply
that the kitchen would have been out of commission for longer. The
electrical contractors supplied the new fridge from a spur off a socket,
stuck the new socket to the top of the fridge cabinet (over 6' high!) with
clear silicone, then took another spur from that socket to feed the
dishwasher. No 13A fuse inserted in the line anywhere. They also installed a
new socket on top of the wall cabinets to feed the extractor and simply left
it lying loose on the end of about a foot of twin cables. On the same
cabinet, the cable to supply the under-cabinet lights was too long, so they
simply folded it up, taped it together and left the cable and junction box
lying loose (on the same cabinet). What bothers me is that was just the
stuff I can see. Just because these people have been on a course doesn't
mean they're going to do a good job - I know it was rubbish, but how many
unknowing customers get stuck with this sort of crap installation?

On 25/07/2011 12:11, jim wrote:

Time to scrap it - as half promised by the current administration in
opposition.

I don't recall this, can you provide any links?