.... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6 deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33 of
the RIA.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
....
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain

Owain wrote:

... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6 deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33 of
the RIA.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
...
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain


I saw an item on yesterday's TV news in which a lady who had tragically
lost her daughter was used to support the new regs. There is no way
they would have helped her, as there is no retrospective testing. Also
she said the extra cost of £5 to £10 for the extra work involved was
well worth it. Who gave her the figures? I cannot believe them
accurate, while I have every sympathy with the lady I realy believe she
was being used for pure propaganda by cynical officials.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows
that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part
of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings
in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6
deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33
of
the RIA.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again
from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
...
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support
DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators
believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain



So are they going to drop part P.
well it was wishful thinking.

mind you it not often the government get misleading intelligence/information
is it.

I do agree that all trades people who carry out electrical work for money
should be fully qualified , like the Corgi gas people. How ever for DIYers
who are competent (what ever that means see the gas installation
conversations). I think DIY electrical work should be allowed, as long as
all standards are followed. Of course it would help if the government put
the standards on the internet for free even just the private house hold
sections.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows
that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part
of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings
in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6
deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33
of
the RIA.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again
from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
...
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support
DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators
believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain


It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.

snip
So are they going to drop part P.
well it was wishful thinking.

All they have to do is revise the definition of the word 'competent' - this would overcome most of
the objection to this nonsense.

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...
snip
So are they going to drop part P.
well it was wishful thinking.

All they have to do is revise the definition of the word 'competent' -
this would overcome most of
the objection to this nonsense.




But what are the chances the Part P regs will be changed to allow DIY
electrical (to standards of course) work again (with out the need for
building control or part p certified electrician??? or building control).


One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified electrician do
you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up costs over
a year) to work on homes ? If so what is the incentive to sign up,
industrial work is far more lucrative

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:54:48 -0000, "James"
strung together this:

One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified electrician do
you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up costs over
a year) to work on homes ?

Yes.

If so what is the incentive to sign up,

There isn't one, unless you really really want to be an electrician,
which I don't anymore so I'm not.

industrial work is far more lucrative

And, you still have to be registered for that don't you?
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

In article ,
Lurch writes:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:54:48 -0000, "James"
strung together this:

One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified electrician do
you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up costs over
a year) to work on homes ?

Yes.

If so what is the incentive to sign up,

There isn't one, unless you really really want to be an electrician,
which I don't anymore so I'm not.

Yes, if you read the trade press, lots of electricians are now
dropping out of the industry, particularly if they were near
retirement age anyway. Apparently, almost none have signed up
for any of the Part P schemes. Expect a massive shortage of
electricians to undertake domestic work, even on the black
market. There was already a shortage before all this happened.

industrial work is far more lucrative

And, you still have to be registered for that don't you?

No. It is the responsibility of any company using your services
to be satisfied that you are competent. Some do this by requiring
NICEIC only (more fool them), others use other criteria. At a
former employer, after some poor work from NICEIC contractors,
the requirements were changed to require qualified electricians
only on-site (C&G certificates had to be presented on first
arriving on site by each person). That actually ruled out all the
NICEIC contractors we had been using, and most work was then done
by one-man-bands, from whom we got a much better quality of work.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On 3 Jan 2005 19:34:22 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) strung together this:

Yes, if you read the trade press, lots of electricians are now
dropping out of the industry, particularly if they were near
retirement age anyway. Apparently, almost none have signed up
for any of the Part P schemes. Expect a massive shortage of
electricians to undertake domestic work, even on the black
market. There was already a shortage before all this happened.

I'm nowhere near retirement age though, I'm 26. I just don't want to
be associated with an industry that's fallen to pieces. I do data,
telecoms and security now, which I always preferred but stuck to
mainly doing electrical work as that was what I wanted to be from an
early age and it's what I am qualified to do. Unfortunately I'm now
not 'competent'.

industrial work is far more lucrative

And, you still have to be registered for that don't you?

No. It is the responsibility of any company using your services
to be satisfied that you are competent. Some do this by requiring
NICEIC only (more fool them), others use other criteria. At a
former employer, after some poor work from NICEIC contractors,
the requirements were changed to require qualified electricians
only on-site (C&G certificates had to be presented on first
arriving on site by each person). That actually ruled out all the
NICEIC contractors we had been using, and most work was then done
by one-man-bands, from whom we got a much better quality of work.

Ah, well I might carry on doing industrial work then, although there
are still plenty of rougharse electricians work on industrial
installations so I can't see the point. It's even more of a shambles
than I thought.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

James wrote:

But what are the chances the Part P regs will be changed [...]

I've only noticed today that the ODPM has already issued what they are
calling "corrections" to Approved Document P - see
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...reg_033693.pdf

This contains a clarification on what constitutes a kitchen for the
purpose of the Act:

"Kitchen is defined in the Building Regulations as 'a room or part of a
room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities'.

"As a guide only, in open plan areas the zone of a kitchen may be
considered to extend from the edge of the sink to a distance of 3m or to
a nearer dividing wall."

And also the statement that:

"Work not in a special location on: Telephone or extra-low voltage
wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
technology, signalling, control and similar purposes"

need not be notified.

(So a building notice is still required if you want to install a phone
socket or coaxial aerial socket in the kitchen!)

[...] to allow DIY electrical (to standards of course) work again
(with out the need for building control or part p certified
electrician??? or building control).

Approximately zero.

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:

"Kitchen is defined in the Building Regulations as 'a room or part of a
room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities'.

So if I temporarily relocate the toaster I'm allowed to replace sockets
in the kit^H^H^Hroom next to the dining room to my heart's content?

Personally I would be happy to take a test/exam to prove I am sufficiently
knowledgeable and "competent".

The trouble is, apart from costing a small fortune, you appear to have to be
employed in order to do this. This is clearly something that has been
cynically pushed by contractors/employers to further their own selfish cause
under the disguise of "safety".




"Owain" wrote in message
...
... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows
that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part
of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings
in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6
deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33
of
the RIA.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again
from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
...
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support
DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators
believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain

Andy Wade wrote:

So a building notice is still required if you want to install a phone
socket or coaxial aerial socket in the kitchen!

No, seems that telephone/elv work doesn't apply to kitchens, only to
special locations (which are bath, shower, pool or sauna)

Also the rule that repacing a single fire/rodent/impact damaged cable
cable is not notifiable, doesn't stipulate that it has to be accidental
damage, maybe I could hire out rats particularly partial to PVC.

"Lurch" wrote
| Ah, well I might carry on doing industrial work then, although
| there are still plenty of rougharse electricians work on industrial
| installations so I can't see the point. It's even more of a shambles
| than I thought.

It's really only an issue where there is no other notifiable work being
carried out, i.e. minor works and rewires. For extensions, new builds,
kitchens where there is a new connection to a sewer, or other notifiable
work, then the electrical work can simply be added to the building regs
application.

I expect most of the electricians on new build housing schemes are pretty
rougharse too though.

Owain

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
James wrote:

But what are the chances the Part P regs will be changed [...]

I've only noticed today that the ODPM has already issued what they are
calling "corrections" to Approved Document P - see

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_033693.pdf

This contains a clarification on what constitutes a kitchen for the
purpose of the Act:

"Kitchen is defined in the Building Regulations as 'a room or part of a
room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities'.

Great - that brings my garage and possibly the covered BBQ area under BC as
well then !!!!

Andy Burns wrote:

Andy Wade wrote:

So a building notice is still required if you want to install a phone
socket or coaxial aerial socket in the kitchen!

No, seems that telephone/elv work doesn't apply to kitchens, only to
special locations (which are bath, shower, pool or sauna)

Bzzt. Yes you're quite right of course & I stand corrected.

--
Andy

In article , Bruce Tanner
wrote:

Personally I would be happy to take a test/exam to prove I am sufficiently
knowledgeable and "competent".

But *are* you? http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:13:52 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

It's really only an issue where there is no other notifiable work being
carried out, i.e. minor works and rewires. For extensions, new builds,
kitchens where there is a new connection to a sewer, or other notifiable
work, then the electrical work can simply be added to the building regs
application.

Can someone explain this "kitchens" bit to me. I have two double
sockets and a light fitting in rooms outside my kitchen but closer to my
kitchen sink (and to all other sources of water etc in my kitchen) than
the lights at the other end of the room (the lights I installed myself a
few years ago, the rest was there before).

Access to the lights is through the floor of the room above.

Why is changing one of those light fittings in any possible, plausible
or credible way more dangerous, or leads to greater risk, than the
sockets outside the room?

Plus the fact that well before I moved in the kitchen was a kitchen a
dining room and the previous owner removed hte partition wall. Can I
put it back up, change the light fittings and then take it down again?
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:

It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.

Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?

--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

Nick Atty wrote:

Can I
put it back up, change the light fittings and then take it down again?

Why bother changing walls ... since the corrections define a kitchen as
"a room or part of a room which contains a sink and food preparation
facilities"

Remove either the sink, or the food preparation facilities, do the
non-notifiable work, then replace ;-)

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

But *are* you? http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

Whooosh?

"Nick Atty" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:

It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our
illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.

Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?

Do you really think any of these departments are ready for part P at all?
I gather many of their staff have the same view of it as us.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 23:57:04 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Nick Atty" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:

It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our
illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.

Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?

Do you really think any of these departments are ready for part P at all?
I gather many of their staff have the same view of it as us.

Has anyone tried to notify them of work yet...?
My reading of the regs is that your only obligation was to notify them - didn't say anything about
paying fees, co-operating, or even saying what was to be done.....

Is it legally possible for BCOs to just say ' OK, fine' without actually doing anything...?

In message , Nick Atty
writes
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
wrote:

It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.

Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?

Didn't you mean April 1st ?

--
geoff

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...
It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our
illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them
know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.

Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the
inspectors?

Do you really think any of these departments are ready for part P at all?
I gather many of their staff have the same view of it as us.

Has anyone tried to notify them of work yet...?
My reading of the regs is that your only obligation was to notify them -
didn't say anything about
paying fees, co-operating, or even saying what was to be done.....

Notifying them involves a fee unforunately and they will ask "for plans of
what you are doing". Presumably that means some form of diagram.


Is it legally possible for BCOs to just say ' OK, fine' without actually
doing anything...?

If he's confident you are doing it properly then yes. If not then he can
ask for calculations (you pay) or testing (he pays out of your fee - at
least in theory)