Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current
edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. - Speaking this month at the NICEIC-hosted 'Green light for Part P seminar', Paul Everall, head of the ODPM's Building Division was unable to confirm an exact start date for the new legislation, but said "ministers were anxious to take Part P forward." - a [competent persons] scheme the NICEIC has applied to operate, alongside "one or two others which will have to be assessed" - Self-certification schemes that meet Government approval will be available by December or January. - Although the ODPM declined to commit to an exact date, Clark [NICEIC] was more forthcoming, claiming legislation would be introduced in February 2004 with a requirement to come into force by the summer. However, he said there is "talk of a two year window to get everyone on board." [1] Electrical review, Vol. 236, no. 15, October 2003. -- Andy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Andy Wade" wrote in message
... "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. - Speaking this month at the NICEIC-hosted 'Green light for Part P seminar', Paul Everall, head of the ODPM's Building Division was unable to confirm an exact start date for the new legislation, but said "ministers were anxious to take Part P forward." - a [competent persons] scheme the NICEIC has applied to operate, alongside "one or two others which will have to be assessed" - Self-certification schemes that meet Government approval will be available by December or January. - Although the ODPM declined to commit to an exact date, Clark [NICEIC] was more forthcoming, claiming legislation would be introduced in February 2004 with a requirement to come into force by the summer. However, he said there is "talk of a two year window to get everyone on board." [1] Electrical review, Vol. 236, no. 15, October 2003. -- Andy If this is introduced closer to the end of 2004 than the start then this will provide a useful disconnect between the old and new fixed wiring installation colours.... -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Andy Wade" wrote in message
... "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. Looks like I'll have to do my rewire next spring then. Has anyone been given any idea what the cost of getting a DIY installation inspected and signed off will be once the Part P is included? Will this cost be regulated at all? Al |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:01:35 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote: "Andy Wade" wrote in message ... "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. Looks like I'll have to do my rewire next spring then. Has anyone been given any idea what the cost of getting a DIY installation inspected and signed off will be once the Part P is included? Will this cost be regulated at all? Al This is a Competent Persons Self Certification Scheme, otherwise known as a Self Certification to Assist Moneymaking or SCAM for short. None of the other scams (sorry schemes) are regulated in the fee sense, so there is no reason to believe that this one will be either. There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established. I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:40:41 -0000, "Andy Wade"
wrote: "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. - Speaking this month at the NICEIC-hosted 'Green light for Part P seminar', Paul Everall, head of the ODPM's Building Division was unable to confirm an exact start date for the new legislation, but said "ministers were anxious to take Part P forward." - a [competent persons] scheme the NICEIC has applied to operate, alongside "one or two others which will have to be assessed" - Self-certification schemes that meet Government approval will be available by December or January. It will be interesting to see whether others than NICEIC will be allowed....... - Although the ODPM declined to commit to an exact date, Clark [NICEIC] was more forthcoming, claiming legislation would be introduced in February 2004 with a requirement to come into force by the summer. However, he said there is "talk of a two year window to get everyone on board." The smell of fudge cooking strengthens by the minute....... [1] Electrical review, Vol. 236, no. 15, October 2003. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
... There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established. I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval? Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before the new regs came in? Al |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Al Reynolds" wrote in message
... "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established. I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval? Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before the new regs came in? Al "Please remove that new fixed wiring installation and reinstate the previous rubber-insulated wire-fused bakelite-switched installation" :-) -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Al Reynolds" wrote in message ... "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established. I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval? Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before the new regs came in? Al I think it will mainly involve new installations in new builds, to begin with anyway, but as each property is sold and moves along the trail of new owners, the regulations will eventually catch up with everyone. These new requirements will mean that any house sold will have to have a certificate issued to the vendor before anyone will be allowed to pass the property on as being in a safe, as possible, condition when it was sold. So any additional work that you've carried out in the house will then be tested and documented and will show all the variations which you've carried out and are not documented on a previously issued certificate that was given to you when you bought the house. So the new scheme does have a good workable scheme in this sense and should eventually be able to show that the property has had changes done without permissions or proper testing certifications when it comes to time of sale. If you're living in it and it doesn't comply to these requirements, then I'd imagine you'd be severely dealt with if the new additions which are not covered by previous tests are found to be the cause of any loss or damage to other properties around yours. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:03:35 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote: "Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . There is already a common practice of electrical inspections being done for conveyancing purposes so the inspection only game is well established. I suspect that what will likely happen in practice, is that people will continue to DIY their electrical work as before and work will be inspected at conveyancing time just as it is today. Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval? I suppose that it could, but I was simply thinking about the practicalities. If wiring were being done as part of work that was otherwise being inspected for building regulations purposest then it would perhaps be noticed by the building inspector. Otherwise, how would building control departments ever know about it? The only scenarios I can think of are if they did spot inspections on people's property (not likely) or if a neighbourhood busybody cared to report something. However, an addition of a circuit or even a complete rewire is not going to be as externally visible as a new brick built extension. Will people just rely on the excuse that the work must have been done (a) by a previous owner or (b) before the new regs came in? Who knows? I was simply remarking on the (lack of) enforceability which makes the whole caper pointless anyway. Remember that the whole thing was not based on sound evidence in the first place and the RIA used information selectively to arrive at the desired political conclusion. Therefore, trying to apply logic to the situation is going to be difficult anyway. There are not that many scenarios: - The person who DIYs, doesn't have a clue, and makes a dangerous mess of the job. It's doubtful that he would take any notice of any new legislation, even if he became aware of it. This work would likely be picked up at conveyancing time in a survey and corrections, including ripping out and redoing the work requested by the buyer. It may even involve a regularisation application for building regulations purposes, but since a buyer might well specifiy that an approved contractor is used, then that becomes a non-issue. In the meantime, something bad could happen, resulting in loss of property or life. There is little or no evidence that this happens from fixed wiring issues, but from portable appliances. If it does, non-compliance with building regulations is going to rank rather lower in the person's problems than the other effects thereof. - The person who DIYs and does a competent and conscientious job. Three choices here. a) He submits a building notice, pays the charge and gets it inspected. b) He waits and goes for regularisation at some point in the future at virtually no extra cost. c) He waits until conveyancing time. - The person who employs a non-registered contractor to do the work. If said contractor wears spurs, then he is not likely to advertise to the customer that testing and certification is required. The householder is likely to be blissfully unaware anyway. - The person who employs the registered contractor and pays the unregulated stealth tax. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. .. "Please remove that new fixed wiring installation and reinstate the previous rubber-insulated wire-fused bakelite-switched installation" :-) Point taken! I know it's old-fashioned, but I try and avoid breaking the law when I'm doing my DIY. So assuming I don't want to just do the work and hope for the best when it comes to selling, I will need to take an alternative course of action. As I understand it, I will have three options: (1) pay an approved contractor to do all the work and they will then certify that it has been done, with certificates going to both me and the local BCO (2) do the work myself and have it inspected by a local authority building control department (3) do the work myself and pay an approved contractor to come and certify the work to the local BCO (and me). Option (1) is irrelevant if I'm still thinking about DIY Option (2) will apparently be prohibitively expensive according to page 29 para 45 of the proposed part P regs. See this page for the file: http://tinyurl.com/tlbf. Apparently the local authority BC departments will most likely be subcontracting the work to an approved agent anyway. Option (3) is also likely to be expensive, at least at first, since the demand for approved contractors will outstrip supply for some time and as such they will be able to charge whatever they like! Presumably, as a DIYer, option (3) should end up being cheaper than option (2), because otherwise I would just choose the more independent local authority inspection over the approved leccy. The question is - what do we think it's likely to end up costing? Let's say I replace a consumer unit, relocating all the old circuits on to the new unit, except that I completely rewire one ring circuit. How much are we talking for certification to the BCO that the work is to regs? £50? £150? £500? More? Does anyone have any idea? Al |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Andy Hall" wrote:
"Al Reynolds" wrote: Isn't the difference that this brings "ignoring the rules" into the realm of "ignoring building regulations", with the consequence that you may be asked to remove any work done if you haven't gained approval? I suppose that it could, but I was simply thinking about the practicalities. If wiring were being done as part of work that was otherwise being inspected for building regulations purposest then it would perhaps be noticed by the building inspector. Otherwise, how would building control departments ever know about it? The only scenarios I can think of are if they did spot inspections on people's property (not likely) or if a neighbourhood busybody cared to report something. However, an addition of a circuit or even a complete rewire is not going to be as externally visible as a new brick built extension. True. In fact the only thing that's likely to give it away is the new coloured cable, which will be hidden anyway. So if it was found later it would just need regularisation. Cheers, Al |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
BigWallop wrote:
These new requirements will mean that any house sold will have to have a certificate issued to the vendor before anyone will be allowed to pass the property on as being in a safe, as possible, condition when it was sold. So any additional work that you've carried out in the house will then be tested and documented and will show all the variations which you've carried out and are not documented on a previously issued certificate that was given to you when you bought the house. But the certificates I've seen don't detail the wiring in terms of a wiring diagram anyway so you can't tell whether anything has been added from the certificate. -- Chris Green ) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
wrote in message ... BigWallop wrote: These new requirements will mean that any house sold will have to have a certificate issued to the vendor before anyone will be allowed to pass the property on as being in a safe, as possible, condition when it was sold. So any additional work that you've carried out in the house will then be tested and documented and will show all the variations which you've carried out and are not documented on a previously issued certificate that was given to you when you bought the house. But the certificates I've seen don't detail the wiring in terms of a wiring diagram anyway so you can't tell whether anything has been added from the certificate. Chris Green ) But if a certificate is issued after the system is tested, then means your additions passed the test and comply with current standards. Different matter altogether if your additions don't pass the tests. --- www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 01/11/03 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
BigWallop wrote:
wrote in message ... BigWallop wrote: These new requirements will mean that any house sold will have to have a certificate issued to the vendor before anyone will be allowed to pass the property on as being in a safe, as possible, condition when it was sold. So any additional work that you've carried out in the house will then be tested and documented and will show all the variations which you've carried out and are not documented on a previously issued certificate that was given to you when you bought the house. But the certificates I've seen don't detail the wiring in terms of a wiring diagram anyway so you can't tell whether anything has been added from the certificate. Chris Green ) But if a certificate is issued after the system is tested, then means your additions passed the test and comply with current standards. Different matter altogether if your additions don't pass the tests. .... but (again!) you still can't really tell from the certificate what has been tested unless it's a very small addition/change. A certificate won't detail the position (or even number) of sockets, lights and other appliances which have been tested will it? -- Chris Green ) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:36:59 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote: I know it's old-fashioned, but I try and avoid breaking the law when I'm doing my DIY. So assuming I don't want to just do the work and hope for the best when it comes to selling, I will need to take an alternative course of action. As I understand it, I will have three options: You have a 4th option - to do the work yourself. Illegal possibly I suppose, but judges have never had a problem looking through the law to discover the intent of the law and apply that instead. And providing you've done the work to a reasonable standard and complied with the regs then who is to know you did it? The intent of the law being discussed is to ensure that lives are saved (I've got that in writing from the minister of state responsible for this daft legislation). So providing that you are using every means possible to ensure that lives are not at risk you'd most likely have little to fear unless you owned up to it. Seems like a bloody stupid target to me though. If you review the contents of the RoSPA web site then there are about 8 lives lost each year through electrical accident which this legislation applies to. If they spent half as much money on anti-smoking and anti-drunk-driving legislation they'd save hundreds of lives. I expect far more lives are lost each year with stress induced by government ministers who haven't got a clue what they are legislating about. PoP |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
wrote in message ... BigWallop wrote: wrote in message ... BigWallop wrote: These new requirements will mean that any house sold will have to have a certificate issued to the vendor before anyone will be allowed to pass the property on as being in a safe, as possible, condition when it was sold. So any additional work that you've carried out in the house will then be tested and documented and will show all the variations which you've carried out and are not documented on a previously issued certificate that was given to you when you bought the house. But the certificates I've seen don't detail the wiring in terms of a wiring diagram anyway so you can't tell whether anything has been added from the certificate. Chris Green ) But if a certificate is issued after the system is tested, then means your additions passed the test and comply with current standards. Different matter altogether if your additions don't pass the tests. ... but (again!) you still can't really tell from the certificate what has been tested unless it's a very small addition/change. A certificate won't detail the position (or even number) of sockets, lights and other appliances which have been tested will it? Exactly, potentially you (or Council, or purchaser) could get it tested whilst it was safe and then next day add new stuff and there's no way of knowing (AFAIK) whether the new stuff was included in the test. The paperwork would just state that on that date it was safe/okay. D |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. .. "Please remove that new fixed wiring installation and reinstate the previous rubber-insulated wire-fused bakelite-switched installation" :-) ROTFL |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:11:31 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote: But if a certificate is issued after the system is tested, then means your additions passed the test and comply with current standards. Different matter altogether if your additions don't pass the tests. And from what I recall, if you make any alterations to an existing circuit then you are required to ensure that the complete circuit is up to 16th edition regs even if it wasn't before. So you can't add a spur and just test the spur. PoP |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:03:03 +0000, PoP
wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:36:59 -0000, "Al Reynolds" wrote: I know it's old-fashioned, but I try and avoid breaking the law when I'm doing my DIY. So assuming I don't want to just do the work and hope for the best when it comes to selling, I will need to take an alternative course of action. As I understand it, I will have three options: You have a 4th option - to do the work yourself. Illegal possibly I suppose, but judges have never had a problem looking through the law to discover the intent of the law and apply that instead. And providing you've done the work to a reasonable standard and complied with the regs then who is to know you did it? You can anyway. There isn't a requirement about who *does* the work, only that it is inspected and certified or a building notice issued if anybody *except* a member of a SCAM organisation (who can self certify) does it. There's an exception for kitchens. From the report about the RIA: ********** To reduce the work load on BCBs, work undertaken by persons who have been assessed as competent through a scheme recognised by the Secretary of State, or minor work specified in Tables 1 and 2 in the Approved Document need not be notified. Work in kitchens and the special installations and locations given in Table 2 must be carried out by a competent person or notified to BCBs before work commences. DIY work on electrical installations will be a controlled service and those undertaking the work, even minor work, are reminded in the Approved Document that their work must comply with BS7671, including inspection testing and certification by a competent person. and Work carried out by DIY workers will be treated as work undertaken by persons not covered by a Competent Persons scheme. DIY installations are covered by BS7671 which requires the installation to be inspected and tested by a competent person in accordance with Part 7 of BS7671. Work other than that listed in Table 1 in the Approved Document must be notified to Building Control or undertaken by a member of an approved competent person scheme. ********* If you read through the rest of it, it becomes apparent that there will be difficulty in drafting legislation for a lot of the aspects. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:28:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote: You can anyway. There isn't a requirement about who *does* the work, only that it is inspected and certified or a building notice issued if anybody *except* a member of a SCAM organisation (who can self certify) does it. There's an exception for kitchens. Amazing isn't it? I have a job fitting a new cooker hood for someone later this week, and in doing so I won't be touching the electrical infrastructure of the house - just connecting up to the fused spur that is already in existence. This cooker hood could be in or out of the new legislation (arguments welcome), but from next April or whenever it seems certain that I'll have to turn away work that I could have done. Maybe it'll be time for me to start hammering on the door of the local job centre to collect my JSA. Reason: Can't work because of government initiated dogma. PoP |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:03:03 +0000, PoP wrote: You can anyway. There isn't a requirement about who *does* the work, only that it is inspected and certified or a building notice issued if anybody *except* a member of a SCAM organisation (who can self certify) does it. There's an exception for kitchens. Ah! So one legal option (assuming it is not a kitchen) is to do the work and then get a member of a SCAM organisation to certify it. Is there going to be any maximum time between doing the work and employing the SCAM member? If not we can legally have a large backlog of jobs to be inspected - and until we sell the house never get round to having it certified! James --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 30/09/2003 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:51:53 -0000, "James"
wrote: Ah! So one legal option (assuming it is not a kitchen) is to do the work and then get a member of a SCAM organisation to certify it. Is there going to be any maximum time between doing the work and employing the SCAM member? If not we can legally have a large backlog of jobs to be inspected - and until we sell the house never get round to having it certified! The possible issue with this arrangement would be that if there were an accident or fatality between the job being done and the house eventually being sold then the lack of certification could land the person who did the job in very hot water. PoP |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"PoP" wrote in message
... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:51:53 -0000, "James" wrote: Ah! So one legal option (assuming it is not a kitchen) is to do the work and then get a member of a SCAM organisation to certify it. Is there going to be any maximum time between doing the work and employing the SCAM member? If not we can legally have a large backlog of jobs to be inspected - and until we sell the house never get round to having it certified! The possible issue with this arrangement would be that if there were an accident or fatality between the job being done and the house eventually being sold then the lack of certification could land the person who did the job in very hot water. PoP Doubt it. Think you'd have to be pretty negligent in order to get people that actually know about this legislation involved. Richard -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"PoP" wrote
| Amazing isn't it? I have a job fitting a new cooker hood for someone | later this week, and in doing so I won't be touching the electrical | infrastructure of the house - just connecting up to the fused spur | that is already in existence. | This cooker hood could be in or out of the new legislation (arguments | welcome), but from next April or whenever it seems certain that I'll | have to turn away work that I could have done. The "correct" way will be to extend the flex to the cooker hood with some choccie block and tack it with bent-over half inch nails to the skirting board halfway round the room and under a couple of door thresholds before connecting it to a 13A fused plug (fused at 13A of course) and *plug it into a socket.* Extending an appliance flex is not fixed wiring and not within the regulations. Completely dangerous of course, but then these regulations aren't about safety. Owain |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:56:32 -0000, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid
wrote: Doubt it. So do I. But when stupidity is involved (at government level) someone else has to pay for it. Think you'd have to be pretty negligent in order to get people that actually know about this legislation involved. I don't doubt that. BUT...... In the event there was a fire then the local fire chief would be expected to do a post-mortem on the site of the blaze. I believe this is normal procedure, to ensure that causes of fire are understood. With these post mortems I'm sure there has to be an element of doubt in some cases. In so far that the PM will indicate whereabouts the fire started but might not be totally accurate with respect to the finite cause. And if the PM gave a hint that it might have been due to an electrical fault, just maybe the fire officer would trigger a process about whether the necessary certificates had been issued. Insurance companies like to do that sort of thing to stop their funds being paid out. I might also add that all those space probes are wrong, and that little green men do live on the surface of Mars PoP |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
PoP wrote in message . ..
The possible issue with this arrangement would be that if there were an accident or fatality between the job being done and the house eventually being sold then the lack of certification could land the person who did the job in very hot water. PoP fx: knocks on open door Of course, the consultation paper shows that the chances of an accident due to fixed wiring are slight - 576 injuries per year - and of a fatality, negligible (5 per year). This is in the context of 30-odd million domestic properties in the UK. I haven't seen any data about whether these accidents are caused by old wiring or during the DIY or professional installation of new wiring, or after new DIY or professional installations, so the figures we are really dealing with for non-fatal and fatal injries could quite easily be 0 per year and 0 per year respectively. Regards Neil |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
Al Reynolds wrote:
True. In fact the only thing that's likely to give it away is the new coloured cable, which will be hidden anyway. So if it was found later it would just need regularisation. Cheers, Al I'm sure the black market in traditionally coloured cable will help those not willing to be subject to the new diktats... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Paul C Lewis" wrote in message ... Al Reynolds wrote: True. In fact the only thing that's likely to give it away is the new coloured cable, which will be hidden anyway. So if it was found later it would just need regularisation. Cheers, Al I'm sure the black market in traditionally coloured cable will help those not willing to be subject to the new diktats... Is there an official designation for new cable? For example, I believe that the current standard for T&E is BS6004 - 6242Y. What are the equivalent numbers for the new stuff - so we can all make sure we stock up with the current stuff and don't buy the new stuff by accident? Roger |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Roger Mills" wrote in message ... Is there an official designation for new cable? For example, I believe that the current standard for T&E is BS6004 - 6242Y. What are the equivalent numbers for the new stuff - so we can all make sure we stock up with the current stuff and don't buy the new stuff by accident? Roger This could be double edged. You need the old colours if you wish to pass off new work as old work. However if you require building control regularisation at some point in the future, this could be difficult if it does not comply because the colours show (what may be then) non-compliant cable has been used. James --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 30/09/2003 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"James" wrote in message ... "Roger Mills" wrote in message ... Is there an official designation for new cable? For example, I believe that the current standard for T&E is BS6004 - 6242Y. What are the equivalent numbers for the new stuff - so we can all make sure we stock up with the current stuff and don't buy the new stuff by accident? Roger This could be double edged. You need the old colours if you wish to pass off new work as old work. However if you require building control regularisation at some point in the future, this could be difficult if it does not comply because the colours show (what may be then) non-compliant cable has been used. James Well ok, but presumably if you're successful in passing off new work as old work, it is deemed to be outside the scope of Building Control - so that regularisation doesn't come into it? Roger |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Roger Mills" wrote in message
... Well ok, but presumably if you're successful in passing off new work as old work, it is deemed to be outside the scope of Building Control - so that regularisation doesn't come into it? voice of small scouse boy in milk advert igs-ack-lee /voice off |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"Andy Wade" wrote in message ... "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. Expect to see a rush of new DIY books as well, full of disclaimers and warnings. I presume they will have to withdraw all the old ones from sale to avoid misleading the punters. Although if the direst predictions are correct then even changing a light fitting will require an inspection visit by a qualified electrician. Nah - never happen. Cheers Dave R P.S. how long does it take to train as an electrician (inspections only)? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message ... "Andy Wade" wrote in message ... "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. Expect to see a rush of new DIY books as well, full of disclaimers and warnings. I presume they will have to withdraw all the old ones from sale to avoid misleading the punters. Although if the direst predictions are correct then even changing a light fitting will require an inspection visit by a qualified electrician. Nah - never happen. Cheers Dave R P.S. how long does it take to train as an electrician (inspections only)? If they're working from instructions in a book with diagrams, then it would take about five minutes to show them what to look for on the meters they carry around with them. --- www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/03 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message ... "Andy Wade" wrote in message ... "Part P in force by 2004" - is the headline on the front page of the current edition [1] of 'Electrical review' news magazine. Some snippets, more or less verbatim: - Part P will be introduced into the Building Regulations "by the end of 2004", according to the [ODPM]. Expect to see a rush of new DIY books as well, full of disclaimers and warnings. I presume they will have to withdraw all the old ones from sale to avoid misleading the punters. Although if the direst predictions are correct then even changing a light fitting will require an inspection visit by a qualified electrician. Nah - never happen. Cheers Dave R Is it not the law in some countries that you have to be 'qualified' to fit a plug? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"gaz" wrote in message ... "David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message snip Nah - never happen. Cheers Dave R Is it not the law in some countries that you have to be 'qualified' to fit a plug? No - Qu'al el Fayed I think :-) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
"gaz" wrote in message ... Is it not the law in some countries that you have to be 'qualified' to fit a plug? Yep, Australia. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:30:53 -0000, "Al Reynolds"
wrote: Is it not the law in some countries that you have to be 'qualified' to fit a plug? Yep, Australia. That is true. When I did my C&G2381 early this year at college we had a guy who had just returned from Oz after spending time out there practicing in the gas and electric fields (he was qualified for both), and in the tea breaks he told us that there is no such thing as DIY for gas and electric, it is qualified tradespeople only. To some extent I would prefer that they adopted the same system over here. That way we don't have the nonsense of "if it's a kitchen then testing is required, but in the dining room it's okay", as Part P is going to enforce. Begs the question about fitting a new socket in a combined kitchen-diner..... If there were hard and fast rules about can and can't do then you know where the barrier is and can therefore seek to jump over it, instead of playing "once upon a time". PoP |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
PoP wrote:
And if the PM gave a hint that it might have been due to an electrical fault, just maybe the fire officer would trigger a process about whether the necessary certificates had been issued. Insurance companies like to do that sort of thing to stop their funds being paid out. .... but I still can't see how anyone will ever be able to tell whether a particular bit of wiring has a certificate or not. These certificates (as I understand it) won't be detailed enough to tell exactly which bits of wiring they refer to. -- Chris Green ) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Part P in force by 2004"
PoP wrote:
On 10 Nov 2003 21:43:22 GMT, wrote: ... but I still can't see how anyone will ever be able to tell whether a particular bit of wiring has a certificate or not. These certificates (as I understand it) won't be detailed enough to tell exactly which bits of wiring they refer to. As I understand it (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the tests that are undertaken could be fairly significant and involve the entire circuit - or installation - that the wiring change was introduced for. Thus assuming that it comes to the attention of the fire officer (or whoever) that some wiring work may have been carried out it is entirely possible that the certification might have to include the entire installation. That takes you back to the same question, how do you tell whether a certain bit (or any bit) of wiring was done before or after the certificate was issued? -- Chris Green ) |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Part L low energy fittings | UK diy | |||
Insulated roof as part of TV house refurbishment | UK diy | |||
Trying to track down a part for European light fitting. | UK diy | |||
Upgrading childs electric bike - part 2 | UK diy | |||
correct name of door-closing part needed | UK diy |