"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Evil wrote:

I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now
out
by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully
experienced. I
would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.

Yup and as a result he can now pay for their scheme that will allow him
to self certify electrical work under part P...

Don't you feel safer already?

That's part P for you.

The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out. It is geared for the pro to do
the work, but does specifically state where DIYers can operate. It is quite
specific. While corgi allows any Tom Dick or Harry operate with limited
experience. The DIYers can be "competent" with gas, whatever that means.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Evil wrote:

The cowboy will ignore it.


And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.

How exactly?

Given that it is going to be rare for their poor standard work to
actually burst into flames or cause an acute problem. Most will go
unnoticed. Even if they are fingured they will be unlikely to have left
much in the way of a paper trail anyway.

The aim of corgi was to eliminate the cowboy, and to a large extent it does.
There are still unqualified operator, although these tend to be plumbers and
general builders who do all the work themselves and usually fit combi's
badly.

Minor works involves Building Control.

No they don't - minor works do not need to be notified.

So, declare minor works and no test then.

This "potentially reduced safety",
you are on about. Can you elaborate?

It is easy to think of a multitude of examples...

You are builing a loft conversion. The "correct" way to run its power
would be on a new circuit taken back to the CU. The "minor work" route
would be to add a few spurs to the existing 1st floor ring. Result:
complient work, but at more risk of overload, and less discrimination
between circuits.

You currently have to use an extension lead in your kitchen to run your
blender on the worktop. This creates a trip hazard amoung other things.
The correct solution would be to install new sockets. The minor works
one is to keep on using the extension lead.

You convert your shed into a workshop, but then notice the pre-existing
power feed is not protected by a RCD. The correct thing to do would be
to install one. The "staying within the rules of part taking the pee"
one is to ignore it or cough up 400 quid for a sparks to add a 40 quid
RCD. What do you suppose a good number of householders will do?

Your leccy shower goes tits up, so you replace like for like with a new
one... only the new one is "slightly more powerful". Upgrade the cable
or leave alone? (i.e. £90 for the new shower or £400")

Lights keep turning themselves on and off. Fuses are blowing.
Householder thinks the rubber sheathed insulation is getting a bit past
it (being 50 years old and all) better get this sorted PDQ. Since he
knows naff all about electrics he decideds he will get a "pro" in. Shame
is pros were scarce. Now they are almost non existent since half have
decided to jack in domestic work since it does not pay as well and has
extra (expensive) hoops to jump through, and some of the rest have been
poached by local council BC departments to carry out inspections. How
long is PDQ now?

What you highlighted was incompetence. Part P did nor say do things in an
incompetent manner.

or spend loads of extra money either "getting a man in"
(of unknown competence), or having a building control
office sprinkle holy water on it.

If the stated aim of the legislation is to reduce deaths and injuries
due to electrical fixed wiring, and it in fact achieves the opposite


"in fact achieves the opposite" Any facts to back this up?

Common sense. Human Nature. See above.

So, no facts.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

The people I would expect to be caught by Part P are kitchen - and to
a lesser extent, bathroom - installation firms who are not renowned
for the quality of their work in this department. If you have a
dispute with one of them afterwards then Part P may well give you a
useful stick to beat them with if they've ignored it.

That is pretty well the aim. Getting Jack of all trades away from lecky.

But generally I think that the aim of Part P
- greater safety - is laudable, but the
means of achieving it is doubtful at best.

People said the same thing about corgi, but overall it is a success despite
the problems with it.

requiring inspection reports on electric
and gas if you are selling a property
would make far more sense.

I believe this is coming read the bits and bobs.

In rented properties gas has to be
recertified every year, and IIRC electrics
every 5 years in Scotland.
Privately owned dwellings may go
uninspected from decade to decade.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip

The legislation is poorly drafted as
a result of government
incompetence

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been
told
about
making things up. Having safe electrical systems and
eliminating
cowboy
operators is a great idea.


But Part P does neither,

Any evidence to prove this?

How about reading the said regulations ?... Doh!

Those I have read do aim at safety and eliminating cowboys. What regs were
you reading?


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...

I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
legislation - apparently it was
long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
before anyone at the ODPM
was told that testing an installation was any more involved than plugging
something into a few
sockets.....

Who advises them on the technical aspects.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:01:33 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

On the one hand you think that this is
a great idea and by implication
the trade associations associated with
it; while on the other you are
daming of CORGI at every opportunity.

I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now out
by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully experienced. I
would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.

So why do you imagine that this sham would be any different?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

At best, you would get a certificate,
but there is the risk anyway that any electrician inspecting will have
an issue with the cables now being hidden.

snip

At the least, you might have to do a regularisation exercise with the
council. I am sure that this will happen a lot, and you could simply
plead ignorance at that point.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, LA inspectors will want
to inspect the first-fix as part of their checking; my worry is the
worst-case scenario of having to re-expose everything to prove it was OK
(like BCOs are known to do with footings and lintels which have been
buried to quickly by over-enthusiastic builders). That would be a big
'ouch'. I don't know how likely that scenario is - maybe some leeyway
would be given dependent on the competence of the visible wiring; how
naughty you'd been in avoiding building control; whether the guy trusted
what you said you'd done with the hidden stuff; which side of bed he'd
gotten out of that morning...

David

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:01:33 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

On the one hand you think that this is
a great idea and by implication
the trade associations associated with
it; while on the other you are
daming of CORGI at every opportunity.

I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now
out
by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully experienced.
I
would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.

So why do you imagine that this sham would be any different?

Read other posts.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
legislation - apparently it was
long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
before anyone at the ODPM
was told that testing an installation was any more involved than plugging
something into a few
sockets.....

Who advises them on the technical aspects.

The industry associations who have been pushing for this.

It further demonstrates that the whole thing was a house built on sand
from the outset and has nothing to do with improving quality of work
or safety and everything to do with the notion of exerting ever more
control over people's lives.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
legislation - apparently it was
long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
before anyone at the ODPM
was told that testing an installation was any more involved than
plugging
something into a few
sockets.....

Who advises them on the technical aspects.

The industry associations who have been pushing for this.

So, the ministry was not to blame.

It further demonstrates that the whole thing was a house built on sand
from the outset and has nothing to do with improving quality of work
or safety and everything to do with the notion of exerting ever more
control over people's lives.

More Lord Hallisms of utter ****e.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:50:31 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
legislation - apparently it was
long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
before anyone at the ODPM
was told that testing an installation was any more involved than
plugging
something into a few
sockets.....

Who advises them on the technical aspects.

The industry associations who have been pushing for this.

So, the ministry was not to blame.

That's pretty thin.

This is exactly like the six stages of a project:

1 - Enthusiasm
2 - Disillusionment
3 - Panic
4 - Hunt the guilty
5 - Blame the innocent
6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it

This government is responsible for implementing a piece of legislation
that nobody wanted apart from commercially interested industry
activists.

They chose to ignore anybody who suggested that the whole thing was
ill thought out and would never work properly. Several people in this
NG wrote to the ODPM, including me. I wrote to Raynsford, my MP wrote
to Raynsford, as did numerous others qualified to do so. All of this
was ignored for what they obviously thought was easy political
capital.

The first attempt at the amending legislation was a balls up. The
second was little better and then there are hasty departmental memos
attempting to clarify.

As to the government department involved, there is culpability also.
Plenty of information was provided to them that addressing fixed
wiring installation would achieve virtually nothing because virtually
all electrical accidents and problems relate to appliances. This was
ignored, and in the final figures was finagled to ignore inconvenient
data.

Either this was incompetence or it was doing the bidding of their
political masters. None of them can claim that they weren't told.
They very definitely were and I have letters, copies of letters
between MPs and ministers and proof of delivery of letters to
demonstrate that.

They most certainly can't claim that they didn't know. They most
certainly did.



It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign. Actually he should
resign anyway.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:08:24 UTC, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out.

No. It's to make sure no work is done without taxes etc. being paid.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:50:31 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
.. .

I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
legislation - apparently it was
long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop
it,
before anyone at the ODPM
was told that testing an installation was any more involved than
plugging
something into a few
sockets.....

Who advises them on the technical aspects.

The industry associations who have been pushing for this.

So, the ministry was not to blame.

That's pretty thin.

This is exactly like the six stages of a project:

1 - Enthusiasm
2 - Disillusionment
3 - Panic
4 - Hunt the guilty
5 - Blame the innocent
6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it

Lord Hall, I have ran many projects and never had any of those 6 above.

This government is responsible for
implementing a piece of legislation
that nobody wanted apart from commercially
interested industry activists.

The government introduced it to save lives and improve quality. They are
supposed to introduce legislation to protect us. That is why we vote for
them, and a fine
government they are.

I suppose you want to take away the restrictions on medicine and law as
well. Let's do the lot while we are at it.

snip Lord Hallism opinionations

It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign.
Actually he should resign anyway.

It is not a shambles at all. Prescott is the best deputy PM we have ever had
and a great left hooker. My hero.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:08:24 UTC, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out.

No. It's to make sure no work is done without taxes etc. being paid.

Lord Hallism is catching. There must be therapy available on then NHS.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:11:57 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:08:24 UTC, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out.

No. It's to make sure no work is done without taxes etc. being paid.

Lord Hallism is catching. There must be therapy available on then NHS.

It certainly is a "then" organisation....



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:02:10 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


This is exactly like the six stages of a project:

1 - Enthusiasm
2 - Disillusionment
3 - Panic
4 - Hunt the guilty
5 - Blame the innocent
6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it

Lord Hall, I have ran many projects and never had any of those 6 above.

That thought would scare me.



This government is responsible for
implementing a piece of legislation
that nobody wanted apart from commercially
interested industry activists.

The government introduced it to save lives and improve quality.

That's what they told you, and you believe it. Unfortunately the
evidence doesn't support this belief.

They are
supposed to introduce legislation to protect us.

I don't need to be protected by any government, in most aspects of
life thank you. I'd prefer to make my own arrangements.


That is why we vote for
them, and a fine
government they are.

You may have done.



I suppose you want to take away the restrictions on medicine and law as
well. Let's do the lot while we are at it.

Don't get me started on my views on government involvement in
healthcare or law.



snip Lord Hallism opinionations

It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign.
Actually he should resign anyway.

It is not a shambles at all. Prescott is the best deputy PM we have ever had
and a great left hooker. My hero.


I can certainly believe the last sentence.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:02:10 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

This is exactly like the six stages of a project:

1 - Enthusiasm
2 - Disillusionment
3 - Panic
4 - Hunt the guilty
5 - Blame the innocent
6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it

Lord Hall, I have ran many projects and never had any of those 6 above.

That thought would scare me.

All on time and on budget.

This government is responsible for
implementing a piece of legislation
that nobody wanted apart from commercially
interested industry activists.

The government introduced it to save lives and improve quality.

That's what they told you, and you believe it. Unfortunately the
evidence doesn't support this belief.

Lord Hallisms is not evidence of anything.

They are
supposed to introduce legislation to protect us.

I don't need to be protected by
any government, in most aspects of
life thank you. I'd prefer to make
my own arrangements.

More rambling Lord Hallisms.

That is why we vote for
them, and a fine
government they are.

You may have done.

I voted for Tone.

I suppose you want to take away the
restrictions on medicine and law as
well. Let's do the lot while we are at it.

Don't get me started on my views on
government involvement in
healthcare or law.

I suppose we must have to be healthless and lawless in Lord Halls utopia.

snip Lord Hallism opinionations

It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign.
Actually he should resign anyway.

It is not a shambles at all. Prescott is the best
deputy PM we have ever had
and a great left hooker. My hero.

I can certainly believe the last sentence.

That is true.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

RichardS wrote:

"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:55:24 +0100, "Rob Convery"
wrote:

snip

- Do the building notice, which will now be in the form of a
regularisation. This could be nasty because the ensuing inspection
of the wiring could involve a jobsworth. While it is possible to do
some tests with instruments, there should be visual checks at first
fix (i.e. before plaster and tiles) that cables run in the right
places. There are requirements in the wiring regulations for them
only to run horizontally or vertically between sockets and switches or
in a band 150mm from a corner or top of a wall. A forgiving
inspector might let that go. One that is less so would not sign it
off without seeing it.

- Do nothing for the moment. Nobody from the council is going to
come round. They don't have detector vans. However, if you sell, or
possibly renew buildings insurance, you will/may be asked about works
in the house and perhaps specifically about wiring. If the project
started or "started" before the end of 2004, then you can
legitimately, or according to your conscience say no because part P
didn't apply on commencement. On the other hand, if there were a
fire or somebody was electrocuted because you had done something
wrong, then there could be unfortunate consequences.


The first option is what I am looking to do. My local council charges ?60+
VAT
for the inspection which will be carried out by a 3rd party who is
certified. Its this
process I was wondering about. Looks like no-one has actually got this to
happen yet.

The second option is not really there as I am just purchasing the house so
its obvious if i did it it would be after 2004


not necessarily - unless it's a new house there is unlikely to be any form
of wiring diagram. So the kitchen was changed.,.. "don't think the wiring
was touched, guv". But the accessories all have 2005 date stamps on them,
"yes, the accessories were changed - the old ones were decidedly grubby."
This is outwith the scope of Part P, AIUI.

And, at sale time "Don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer...

What's known in the trade as a lie.

Doctor Evil wrote:


What you highlighted was incompetence. Part P did nor say do things in an
incompetent manner.

No. John gave detailed, specific, plausible, real-world examples of how
the Part P regs create a strong incentive for the householder to
*bodge*, by using an alternative which - while not actively and
immediately dangerous - is less safe, competent, and satisfactory than
doing the job properly. It does this by rating the 'proper' job as
needing building-control or membership-of-trade-body, while letting the
lashup through as a minor work.

In the world of regulation, this is called 'perverse incentives'. It's a
concept well-known to policy wonks, whether Tory or Labour. However,
Prescott's department was in this case acting only as the enforcement
arm of the Treasury, who want to reduce the amount of cash-in-hand
tradesmen; the actual effect on householder safety and quality of
building stock was well down their list of priorities.

Not that a single word of the above will shake your simple faith in the
lily-whiteness of all things (New) Labour...

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:00:04 +0100, Rob Convery wrote:


"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

So, it is best to have a
self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.


So they could sign it off rather than the council commisioned place even if
I did the work.

That's what the law is intended to make you do. The BCO does not really
want to be involved they will act as an agency for getting a registered
electrician to inspect the work and charge 100+VAT for their efforts.

Since very few members of the public know anything about these
regulations - I think you can be fairly safe in assuming it is going to be
observed in the breach for quite a while.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:05:56 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:38:09 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:




Appears so. As long as you don't switch on the power and the tester does
that then you can do what the hell you like anywhere. If there is parts
that
need inspecting, but you have tiled over, take a digital photo of the
work
with time stamp.

You're making things up.

Where is the basis for that suggestion in the legislation or the
published guidelines?

If you install your own ring and run it back to the CU and don't connect to
the mcb, get an electrician to connect at the CU, he then has done work on
the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then a that is totally within the
law, even if it is in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy at sockets or
any other point which could have endangered life. Everything he did was
cold.

This is not what the legislation or the guidelines say at all.

You are pulling ideas out of the air.

The contractor needs to have done the work in order to self certify
it. How can he do that legally if part was not done by him?

The legislation is poorly drafted as a result of government
incompetence and doesn't have the latitude that is in comparable
legislation relating to other areas of building regulation.

I tend to agree. In many ways the situation is much the same as gas work.
You need to find a registered installer who is prepared to test & sign off
the installation as compliant.

However because the electrical jobs are likely to be much smaller the cost
of getting someone in is highly disproportionate.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:13:53 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Doctor Evil wrote:
The cowboy will ignore it.

And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.

No deterrent at all IMO. No doubt you could use the Freedom of
Information Act to find out how many people have been prosecuted for
failure to comply with Building Regulations - my guess would be that
it is a few hundred a year at most. Has anyone been prosecuted for a
DIY window replacement since 2002 - my Wickes has plenty of windows
and I doubt whether more than a few of those bought are installed
following a notification to the LA.

In my 8 years in Building Control I was responsible for taking two
people to court. It takes a huge amount of time and is likely to
result in an award of costs to the LA that does not begin to cover the
real cost, and in the meantime you've not been doing what you're meant
to be doing, out inspecting work.

The people I would expect to be caught by Part P are kitchen - and to
a lesser extent, bathroom - installation firms who are not renowned
for the quality of their work in this department. If you have a
dispute with one of them afterwards then Part P may well give you a
useful stick to beat them with if they've ignored it.

But generally I think that the aim of Part P - greater safety - is
laudable, but the means of achieving it is doubtful at best. Requiring
inspection reports on electric and gas if you are selling a property
would make far more sense. In rented properties gas has to be
recertified every year, and IIRC electrics every 5 years in Scotland.
Privately owned dwellings may go uninspected from decade to decade.

Yup. One of my questions when doing a "Landlords'" is "Is this the first
time you are letting the property?". Because if it is then there is
likely to be quite a few things that will need doing to brings things up
to standard.




--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:05:42 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"Doctor Evil" writes:
If you install your own ring and run it back to the CU and don't connect to
the mcb, get an electrician to connect at the CU, he then has done work on
the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then a that is totally within the
law, even if it is in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy at sockets or
any other point which could have endangered life. Everything he did was
cold.

Sorry to say, but that alone does not satsify Part P.
Specifically it is missing the inspection at first fix,
which for most domestic wiring installations could not
be done restrospecively after final fix.

Ah I see the difficulty now. There is no way any job can be regularised
after the event. 8-( That's a pain.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:19:52 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


That is pretty well the aim. Getting Jack of all trades away from lecky.

If that is the case why does it not require the _installer_ to have
proven training and competence?

As it is, and as it clearly says in its own RIA, Part P will increase
deaths from electrocution.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:19:01 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Mike Harrison writes:
A while ago someone claimed it was illegal for the council to demand
additional payment above the building approval fee - is this true or not ?

I didn't claim it, but I do remember reading it on one LA's
website. It didn't actually use the word 'illegal', but did
say something like the fee paid to BCO had to be inclusive
of all inspections. I also recall reading the ODPM caps all
the BCO fees, which combined with above would imply total
cost including inspection is capped. (Anyone know what the
cap is?)

I beleive that for Part-P (and certain other notices) there is some
exemption (section 12 IIRC) which allows the BCO to charge more I.e. the
cost of getting a professional to make at 2 visits.



Also I noted the inspection performed by/for BCO does not
have to be performed by a Part P registered person/company;
that's only the case for self-certified inspections.
It seemed to me the BCO could choose to accept your own
inspection, if they were sufficiently satisfied you were
compitent.

More likely, they are too busy to accept that unless you were personally
known to them and they knew you to be competant.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

RichardS wrote:
And, at sale time "Don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer...

Exactly. "The vendor is not qualified to comment on building
regulations. The purchaser must rely on his own inspection of the
property and the opinion of his professional advisors."

Owain

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:19:52 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

That is pretty well the aim. Getting Jack
of all trades away from lecky.

If that is the case why does it not require the _installer_ to have
proven training and competence?

As it is, and as it clearly says in its own RIA, Part P will increase
deaths from electrocution.

Who? Where? Why? What? When?



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Doctor Evil wrote:

No they don't - minor works do not need to be notified.


So, declare minor works and no test then.

So in light of this legislation, you advice would be to bodge it on a
minor works exemption?

(you don't get irony do you?)

What you highlighted was incompetence. Part P did nor say do things in an
incompetent manner.

Part P stated aim: reduce accidents and death due to substandard fixed
wiring.

Part P effect: to encourage people to opt of substandard fixed wiring.

Competent drafting?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been
told
about
making things up. Having safe electrical systems and
eliminating
cowboy
operators is a great idea.


But Part P does neither,

Any evidence to prove this?

How about reading the said regulations ?... Doh!

Those I have read do aim at safety and eliminating cowboys. What regs
were
you reading?



Do you mean those that discourage me from changing my CU to a modern split
one with an RCD. Oh sorry those ones. Don't they encourage trailing
sockets? Perhaps they are a good idea after all. Yes aren't they a good
idea aren't they.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
RichardS wrote:

"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:55:24 +0100, "Rob Convery"
wrote:

snip
snip

The second option is not really there as I am just purchasing the house
so
its obvious if i did it it would be after 2004


not necessarily - unless it's a new house there is unlikely to be any
form
of wiring diagram. So the kitchen was changed.,.. "don't think the
wiring
was touched, guv". But the accessories all have 2005 date stamps on
them,
"yes, the accessories were changed - the old ones were decidedly
grubby."
This is outwith the scope of Part P, AIUI.

And, at sale time "Don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer...

What's known in the trade as a lie.

Owain got the answer spot on - I was a little short of imagination and brief
at the time. It's a politician's answer, a lawyers answer. Sidestep the
whole question.

In a sense, unless you're a BCO or an expert on the building regs, or have
sure knowledge that absolutely no work [that was not notified to BC] has
ever been carried out on the property, then you really need to answer "NO"
to any questions asking if you can confirm that any notifiable work has been
approved. Or sidestep it.

How do I _know_ that my patio is compliant with building regs? (before
anyone jumps on me about this, my point is how can the layman know that such
a work doesn't come within the scope of building regs? the answer is that
without details knowledge of the regs he/she cannot know this).

--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:08:06 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


Who? Where? Why? What? When?

Where I said - read it, it is perfectly plain and the figures are
there in support.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:05:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"Doctor Evil" writes:
If you install your own ring and run it back to the CU and don't connect to
the mcb, get an electrician to connect at the CU, he then has done work on
the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then a that is totally within the
law, even if it is in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy at sockets or
any other point which could have endangered life. Everything he did was
cold.

Sorry to say, but that alone does not satsify Part P.
Specifically it is missing the inspection at first fix,
which for most domestic wiring installations could not
be done restrospecively after final fix.

More to the point Part P excludes provision for any inspection other
than under BCO control. The work has to be done by the self
certifier.

"Will I be able to have my electrical work certified as compliant
with Building Regulations by other than a building control body?

As the Building Act under which the Building Regulations are
formed recognises only those who actually carry out work to be
competent to self-certify, it is understood that third party
certification (by other than a building control body) will not be
acceptable under the provisions of Part P."

(http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/partpknow.html)

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Fred" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been
told
about
making things up. Having safe electrical systems and
eliminating
cowboy
operators is a great idea.


But Part P does neither,

Any evidence to prove this?

How about reading the said regulations ?... Doh!

Those I have read do aim at safety and eliminating cowboys. What regs
were
you reading?

Do you mean those that discourage me from changing my CU to a modern split
one with an RCD. Oh sorry those ones. Don't they encourage trailing
sockets? Perhaps they are a good idea after all. Yes aren't they a good
idea aren't they.

A CU is deemed to be outside the scope of DIY. It is very much an involved
aspect and demands careful work. Everyone knows you don't have trailing
leads and sockets should be in appropriate places. If outside DIY then you
get the pro in and pay.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:24:15 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:08:06 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


Who? Where? Why? What? When?

Where I said - read it, it is perfectly plain and the figures are
there in support.


You're making a big assumption here, Peter.....



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:24:15 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:08:06 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

Who? Where? Why? What? When?

Where I said - read it, it is perfectly plain and the figures are
there in support.

You're making a big assumption here, Peter.....

Very big ones too.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:06:27 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


You're making a big assumption here, Peter.....

I do appreciate that - but there were some pictures as well :-).

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
...

snip

Do you mean those that discourage me from changing my CU to a
modern split
one with an RCD. Oh sorry those ones. Don't they encourage
trailing
sockets? Perhaps they are a good idea after all. Yes aren't they
a good
idea aren't they.

A CU is deemed to be outside the scope of DIY. It is very much an
involved
aspect and demands careful work. Everyone knows you don't have
trailing
leads and sockets should be in appropriate places. If outside DIY
then you
get the pro in and pay.


You are still missing the point, Part P is un-enforceable, it will not
stop the 'cowboy' builder / DIYer, all it is going to stop is the safe
up-grading of old, inadequate or damaged wiring by many competent by
conscientious DIYers who do there own work as otherwise the work would
not be carried out due to cost.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
...

snip

Do you mean those that discourage me from changing my CU to a
modern split
one with an RCD. Oh sorry those ones. Don't they encourage
trailing
sockets? Perhaps they are a good idea after all. Yes aren't they
a good
idea aren't they.

A CU is deemed to be outside the scope of DIY. It is very much an
involved
aspect and demands careful work. Everyone knows you don't have
trailing
leads and sockets should be in appropriate places. If outside DIY
then you
get the pro in and pay.


You are still missing the point,
Part P is un-enforceable, it will not
stop the 'cowboy' builder / DIYer,

I heard the same when corgi started to become strict. The cowboy will always
be there, and many combi's are slapped in by Jack-of-all trade fly by night
untraceable builders. In reality cowboy gas installations are pretty well
un-enforceable. Only when someone informs corgi does something happen, and
only if he is traceable. BUT!!! The cowboy operators dropped like a stone.
The same will happen here with Part P. All it needs is a few highly
publicised prosecutions and minds will sharpen.

From the point of this ng, it is a matter of knowing how to get around some
of the regs, i.e., you can replace a part of a ring, but not install a whole
ring. You can work on a CU if the part of the ring is the part connecting to
the CU. How do you replace the whole ring then? In stages as it when a
part was replaced the others were down too.

In principle from a holistic view, Part P is right. The nitty gritty aspects
is all subjective. Once DIYers know what they can and can't do, and get
around some aspects, all will settle down.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:06:27 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


You're making a big assumption here, Peter.....

I do appreciate that - but there were some pictures as well :-).

Did they allow you to colour them in?



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
...

snip

Do you mean those that discourage me from changing my CU to a
modern split
one with an RCD. Oh sorry those ones. Don't they encourage
trailing
sockets? Perhaps they are a good idea after all. Yes aren't
they
a good
idea aren't they.

A CU is deemed to be outside the scope of DIY. It is very much
an
involved
aspect and demands careful work. Everyone knows you don't have
trailing
leads and sockets should be in appropriate places. If outside
DIY
then you
get the pro in and pay.


You are still missing the point,
Part P is un-enforceable, it will not
stop the 'cowboy' builder / DIYer,

I heard the same when corgi started to become strict. The cowboy
will always
be there, and many combi's are slapped in by Jack-of-all trade fly
by night
untraceable builders.

I suggest you read the regulation relating to gas installation and
those relating to Part P...

In reality cowboy gas installations are pretty well
un-enforceable. Only when someone informs corgi does something
happen, and
only if he is traceable. BUT!!! The cowboy operators dropped like
a stone.
The same will happen here with Part P. All it needs is a few highly
publicised prosecutions and minds will sharpen.

And just how long has 'Corgi' been around ?...


From the point of this ng, it is a matter of knowing how to get
around some
of the regs, i.e., you can replace a part of a ring, but not install
a whole
ring. You can work on a CU if the part of the ring is the part
connecting to
the CU. How do you replace the whole ring then? In stages as it
when a
part was replaced the others were down too.

In principle from a holistic view, Part P is right. The nitty gritty
aspects
is all subjective. Once DIYers know what they can and can't do, and
get
around some aspects, all will settle down.


Look, if someone can install an extension to a current ring circuit
then why not the whole ruddy thing, the chances are that a full new
ring will be a lot safer than X meters of 'ring circuit' or X number
of spurs feed off an already old ring. Instead of 3 separate rings
serving a floor each of a large Victorian house it could end up with
one ring and any number of spurs in an attempt to get around the silly
restrictions imposed by Part P.

All Part P is doing is muddying the waters whilst (in theory) forcing
extra costs on both industry, trade and home owners.