Can someone explan how the Council commisioned inspection works?

If I have put a new kitchin in which involved moving a few socked and
connecting up the new cooker i would be falling foul of PartP - How and when
is it inspected?
I presume it can't be when its finished as you will not be able to see
behind the cosmetics to see how the damage is done.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:55:24 +0100, "Rob Convery"
wrote:

Can someone explan how the Council commisioned inspection works?

If I have put a new kitchin in which involved moving a few socked and
connecting up the new cooker i would be falling foul of PartP - How and when
is it inspected?
I presume it can't be when its finished as you will not be able to see
behind the cosmetics to see how the damage is done.



You ought to have submitted a building notice to them before starting.

Some minor electrical work is exempt from the full rigmarole, but
nothing in a kitchen is, so the two alternatives would have been to
employ an electrician who is a member of one of the designated
electrical contracting mediaeval guilds and who can therefore self
certify his work, or to go for the building notice with building
control at the local authority.

Your options now a

- 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.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

Can someone explan how the Council commisioned inspection works?

If I have put a new kitchin in which involved moving a few socked and
connecting up the new cooker i would be falling foul of PartP - How and
when
is it inspected?
I presume it can't be when its finished as you will not be able to see
behind the cosmetics to see how the damage is done.



You ought to have submitted a building notice to them before starting.

Some minor electrical work is exempt from the full rigmarole, but
nothing in a kitchen is, so the two alternatives would have been to
employ an electrician who is a member of one of the designated
electrical contracting mediaeval guilds and who can therefore self
certify his work, or to go for the building notice with building
control at the local authority.

Your options now a

- 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 council do not check, they get someone else to check and charge you the
cost of the submission and the check. The councils had adequate warning of
what was to happen and 99% of them did nothing. So, it is best to have a
self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.

If you do it and don't tell, then how would they know? Difficult. When
selling a house then you get it all checked out which gives you selling
edge.

The "unfortunate consequences" have always been there.



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

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

Can someone explan how the Council commisioned inspection works?

If I have put a new kitchin in which involved moving a few socked and
connecting up the new cooker i would be falling foul of PartP - How and
when
is it inspected?
I presume it can't be when its finished as you will not be able to see
behind the cosmetics to see how the damage is done.



You ought to have submitted a building notice to them before starting.

Some minor electrical work is exempt from the full rigmarole, but
nothing in a kitchen is, so the two alternatives would have been to
employ an electrician who is a member of one of the designated
electrical contracting mediaeval guilds and who can therefore self
certify his work, or to go for the building notice with building
control at the local authority.

Your options now a

- 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.



--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

"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.

"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"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.

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.





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

"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...

--
Richard Sampson

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

"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

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.

Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?



_________________________________________
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 11:56:16 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:




The council do not check, they get someone else to check and charge you the
cost of the submission and the check. The councils had adequate warning of
what was to happen and 99% of them did nothing. So, it is best to have a
self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.

This is not an option.

The two choices, if the work is not exempt as a minor work a

- Use a contractor who is a member of one of the approved
organisations to do the work and self certify it.

- Do the work yourself and submit a building notice.

The second of these triggers an inspection.

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2


You are suggesting that a contractor who didn't do the work inspects
and signs it off. This is not one of the allowed options and would
not produce the necessary paper trail if anybody ever checked. There
wouldn't be an invoice for the work and there wouldn't be a building
notice.



If you do it and don't tell, then how would they know? Difficult. When
selling a house then you get it all checked out which gives you selling
edge.


This is always an option, but does not get past a question in a
vendor's solicitor's questionnaire about work subject to building
control having been done. At that stage it would be a case of
telling lies or getting the application regularised.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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.


No they can't unless they are willing to falsify that they did the
work.

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

No they can't unless they are willing to falsify that they did the
work.

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Dead link apparently - could you post the original?
Thanks

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:58:45 +0100, "Rob Convery"
wrote:


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.

If you look at the flow chart

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

you are only required to submit the building notice. The council, if
they were doing their job properly, should arrange for an inspection.
I am not certain that it is your responsibility if they don't do it.

I don't think that getting a contractor in and asking only for an
inspection is a realistic option. They are supposed to have done the
work if they self certify it. 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.

To get the paperwork coverage, you really need to have the building
notice or the invoice from the work having been done by an approved
contractor.

Is this all unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense? Yes.

Are you likely to get caught? No.

Could you run into problems when selling? Possibly.

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.

Provided you didn't falsify statements for conveyancing I am sure that
a council, given the situation of the legislation being recent, would
just take your money (which is very little more for regularising vs.
original notice), organise an inspection (perhaps) and issue the
paperwork.


The only other problem is if an application for building insurance had
similar questions. Then you have a moral question about what you want
to say.


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



Unfortunately, the thing you can't easily undo is the wiring being
plastered and tiled over.

So it seems to me that the choices are between doing nothing and
perhaps delaying a future sale through having to clean up required
paperwork and risking whatever outcome through going the building
notice route.

On balance, I think I'd address it now, but it is a bit devil and deep
blue sea.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"RichardS" wrote in message
...


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...

--
Richard Sampson

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



Ah just double checked on http://www.niceic.org.uk/consumers/ppnotify.html
and if you
use an existing connection for the cooker you can do it yourself. I thought
it was virtually anything
in the kitchen and you were screwed - the cooker being the one I expected to
fall over on as it would
not be a socket in the wall

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...
"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

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.

Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?



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

http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159

On second reading it looks like is £60 + someone else inspecting or £290 all
in

"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...
"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

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.

Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?


http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159

On second reading it looks like is £60 + someone else inspecting or £290
all
in



It'd be a lot of money to pay if all you wanted to do was stay on the right
side of the law and add a couple of extra sockets to the kitchen!

Obviously far safer, legal and cheaper just to keep using that 4 way
extension cable, next to the sink..... ;-)


--
Richard Sampson

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

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:38:06 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

No they can't unless they are willing to falsify that they did the
work.

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Dead link apparently - could you post the original?
Thanks

Strange

Works for me.

Try this one instead.

http://tinyurl.com/3lfo6

and click on the PDF link



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:10:04 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"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.

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?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:10:04 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"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.

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.



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

"RichardS" wrote in message
...
"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...
"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

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.

Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?


http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159

On second reading it looks like is £60 + someone else inspecting or £290
all
in

It'd be a lot of money to pay if all you wanted to do was stay on the
right
side of the law and add a couple of extra sockets to the kitchen!

Obviously far safer, legal and cheaper just to keep using that 4 way
extension cable, next to the sink..... ;-)

In the kitchen, if you had MDF as the tile back above the worktops and leave
a cable space behind, insert sockets and run flex down into the space under
the units and have each socket plugged into an extension, then would this be
legal? Just like having a 4 or 6 way extension in the kitchen.



_________________________________________
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 12:58:45 +0100, "Rob Convery" wrote:


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

Can someone explan how the Council commisioned inspection works?

If I have put a new kitchin in which involved moving a few socked and
connecting up the new cooker i would be falling foul of PartP - How and
when
is it inspected?
I presume it can't be when its finished as you will not be able to see
behind the cosmetics to see how the damage is done.



You ought to have submitted a building notice to them before starting.

Some minor electrical work is exempt from the full rigmarole, but
nothing in a kitchen is, so the two alternatives would have been to
employ an electrician who is a member of one of the designated
electrical contracting mediaeval guilds and who can therefore self
certify his work, or to go for the building notice with building
control at the local authority.

Your options now a

- 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.



--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

What evidence would there be that it wasn't done (or started..) by the previous owner ?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:40:05 +0100, "Rob Convery" wrote:


"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...
"Rob Convery" wrote in message
...

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.

Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?



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

http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159

On second reading it looks like is £60 + someone else inspecting or £290 all
in

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 ?

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.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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.

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?

Does it say "all" of it has to be done by him? By connecting the ring to the
CU he has worked on that ring. He installed some wire to the installation.

Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

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.



_________________________________________
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
...

"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, all it does do is drive up the costs of the
lagit' company and that of the 'duty-full' / competent DIYer ! :~(

It would be nice to think that come the morning of the 6th of May a
lot of Prescott's follies would be instantly repealed, well we are
still allowed to day dream - I think...

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Doctor Evil wrote:

Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

No not really. The underlying requirement of the gas legislation is that
of "competence" (even if it does not go on to define it), the secondary
requirement for guild membership kicks in only for work done for reward.

With part P there is not requirement that the work be carried out
competently - only that it be certified by someone who is a member of a
relevant organisation, or that it is allowed by exemption.

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.

Since the government itself had to come clean and acknowledge that the
basis they used as justification for the whole mess was actually flawed
(i.e. because they did not understand the distinction in their own stats
between fixed wiring and portable appliance accidents), you can't
really hold out much hope for the rest.

Having safe electrical systems and eliminating cowboy
operators is a great idea.

Yes indeed I agree. Alas part P does none of those things. It does
however encourage dangerous practices that will result in more casualties.

The cowboy will ignore it. The semi competent DIYer who may have in the
past contemplated a safe but now outlawed modification is offered the
choice of make the problem fit a "minor work" solution (at potentially
reduced safety), 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
then I would suggest that "poorly drafted" and "incompetent" are perhaps
being a little too kind. Criminally negligent would be closer to the mark.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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?)

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andy Hall wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Bwahhhhhhh - that's a neon screwdriver in use on the front page of that.
Nice to see the ODPM encouraging safe working practices, not.

--
Andy

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:24:22 +0100, Andy Wade
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Bwahhhhhhh - that's a neon screwdriver in use on the front page of that.
Nice to see the ODPM encouraging safe working practices, not.

And I see we are to have nice new colours for cables to match flex ...
Stuart






Shift THELEVER to reply.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:16:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

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?

Does it say "all" of it has to be done by him? By connecting the ring to the
CU he has worked on that ring. He installed some wire to the installation.





Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

Unfortunately not. It is not written in the same way as that
relating to gas.

In definition 0.6 of the Approved Document for part P it clearly says
*all* electrical installation work. There are the clear exemptions
for minor works and for extra low voltage, but that's all.


The legislation is poorly drafted as
a result of government
incompetence

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this?

The evidence is plain to see.

- There was no reason to do anything legislative in the first place.
The government decided that it wanted to put regulation in place and
deliberately ignored any comments and evidence to the contrary.
The reality is that the whole thing was pushed by the trade
associations and commercially interested players and power brokers,
and the power drunken idiots in central government fell for yet
another opportunity to legislate.


- The whole thing was totally mismanaged in that it took two attempts
at Statutory Instrument Amendment to remove some of the completely
ridiculous things that would have been included such as installing a
battery doorbell. Local authorities were equally disorganised and
unprepared and proper guidelines on how to operate the scheme were not
given in good time. There is a whole raft of hastily constructed and
ill thought out memos from central government departments as the
stupidity of the whole thing was realised.

-

You have been told about
making things up. Having safe electrical systems and eliminating cowboy
operators is a great idea.


Your inconsistency amazes me.

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.

Do you have a short memory or do you imagine that people are unable to
recognise that you are speaking from both sides of your mouth?




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:24:22 +0100, Andy Wade
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Bwahhhhhhh - that's a neon screwdriver in use on the front page of that.
Nice to see the ODPM encouraging safe working practices, not.


I know, I noticed that too.

There's the stranded earth in the T&E as well.

It really does demonstrate the lack of knowledge on the part of the
producers of this nonsense legislation and/or their contempt in the
assumption of stupidity on the part of the reader.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas
runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes
connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

No not really. The underlying requirement of the gas legislation is that
of "competence" (even if it does not go on to define it), the secondary
requirement for guild membership kicks in only for work done for reward.

With part P there is not requirement that the work be carried out
competently - only that it be certified by someone who is a member of a
relevant organisation, or that it is allowed by exemption.

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.

Since the government itself had to come clean and acknowledge that the
basis they used as justification for the whole mess was actually flawed
(i.e. because they did not understand the distinction in their own stats
between fixed wiring and portable appliance accidents), you can't
really hold out much hope for the rest.

Having safe electrical systems and eliminating cowboy
operators is a great idea.

Yes indeed I agree. Alas part P does none of those things. It does
however encourage dangerous practices that will result in more casualties.

The cowboy will ignore it.

And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.

The semi competent DIYer who may have in the
past contemplated a safe but now outlawed modification is offered the
choice of make the problem fit a "minor work" solution (at potentially
reduced safety),

Minor works involves Building Control. This "potentially reduced safety",
you are on about. Can you elaborate?

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?

then I would suggest that "poorly drafted"
and "incompetent" are perhaps
being a little too kind. Criminally negligent
would be closer to the mark.

The Tories are going to lose you know. Just as well as you will be better
off.


_________________________________________
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
...

"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?




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

Andy Hall wrote:

There's the stranded earth in the T&E as well.

Well, if it's 6mm^2 or larger it will be stranded - but you have a
point: the picture shows an _equal_size_ CPC that is distinctly off the
centre line of the cable. It's obviously been done by a marcomms or PR
agency and no one's thought it necessary to have it checked by anyone
with a molecule of electrical knowledge.

--
Andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:16:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

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?

Does it say "all" of it has to be done by him? By connecting the ring to
the
CU he has worked on that ring. He installed some wire to the
installation.

Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas
runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes
connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

Unfortunately not. It is not written in the same way as that
relating to gas.

In definition 0.6 of the Approved Document for part P it clearly says
*all* electrical installation work. There are the clear exemptions
for minor works and for extra low voltage, but that's all.

The legislation is poorly drafted as
a result of government
incompetence

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this?

The evidence is plain to see.

snip Lord Halls opinions with no evidence.

You have been told about
making things up. Having safe electrical
systems and eliminating cowboy
operators is a great idea.

Your inconsistency amazes me.

It seems many things amaze Lord Hall.

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.




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

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.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"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!

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.

Minor works involves Building Control.

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

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?

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.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:32:44 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:16:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

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.

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?

Does it say "all" of it has to be done by him? By connecting the ring to the
CU he has worked on that ring. He installed some wire to the installation.





Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

Unfortunately not. It is not written in the same way as that
relating to gas.

In definition 0.6 of the Approved Document for part P it clearly says
*all* electrical installation work. There are the clear exemptions
for minor works and for extra low voltage, but that's all.


The legislation is poorly drafted as
a result of government
incompetence

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this?

The evidence is plain to see.

- There was no reason to do anything legislative in the first place.
The government decided that it wanted to put regulation in place and
deliberately ignored any comments and evidence to the contrary.
The reality is that the whole thing was pushed by the trade
associations and commercially interested players and power brokers,
and the power drunken idiots in central government fell for yet
another opportunity to legislate.


- The whole thing was totally mismanaged in that it took two attempts
at Statutory Instrument Amendment to remove some of the completely
ridiculous things that would have been included such as installing a
battery doorbell. Local authorities were equally disorganised and
unprepared and proper guidelines on how to operate the scheme were not
given in good time. There is a whole raft of hastily constructed and
ill thought out memos from central government departments as the
stupidity of the whole thing was realised.

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.....