ATTENTION all ppl who put DIYERS off

[ban-all-sheds]

There is a government derivative (part P) coming out that all electrical work should conform to the regs (BS761) and must be tested and signed off by a qualified electrician.

Really?

So you do a DIY house rewire it must be tested and have the relevant paperwork, otherwise your insurance company will not pay out for your burnt out building. But why should you care you would probably be dead anyway.

That's a helpul contribution to this debate....

Anyway - I don't think that as part of any inspection & testing procedure someone goes round and checks the torque that's been applied to all the screws...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well put. I'm surprised some fools having started bleating that it's a basic human right to be able to change a CU or re-wire your house.

Well, it isn't.

But the citizens of this country do have a right to good governance, and they do have a right to expect that limitations placed on what they can and cannot do should be based on sound and justifiable reasons, and they have not got that with Part P.

Oh and Andrew 2022 spelling does matter - if someone isn't prepared to take care when asking questions that could save there lives (esp. when a spell checker is available!) what are the chances of them taking care whilst doing the work.

Agreed - there are a number of inferences that can be drawn from his poor spelling:

1) No attention to detail
2) No interest whatsoever in doing a good job
3) No interest whatsoever in checking that something has been done correctly
4) No awareness of his own limitations
5) A literacy ability so poor as to potentially be dangerous when applied to reading questions or instructions, or providing information to others.

 

[shaggy]

b-a-s:

Quote:
Oh and Andrew 2022 spelling does matter - if someone isn't prepared to take care when asking questions that could save there lives (esp. when a spell checker is available!) what are the chances of them taking care whilst doing the work.

ok, but there is a spelling mistake in that quote. Found it?

 

[algenon_iii]

No that's more of a grammatical error that's the sort of mistake a spell checker won't pick-up - my excuse is dyslexia but that's another story.

Here's your spell checking medal

 

[algenon_iii]

But the citizens of this country do have a right to good governance, and they do have a right to expect that limitations placed on what they can and cannot do should be based on sound and justifiable reasons, and they have not got that with Part P.

Yeah I couldn't agree more. I know someone who was involved in writing the IEE wiring regs. and they probably won't be allowed to do anything under Part P. As far as I can tell Part P is just another government muddle through.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Here's your spell checking medal

The text below perfectly illustrates the value of spelling checkers:

Catching Misspelled Words with Spilling Checker

As an extra addled service, I am going to put this column in the Spilling Chequer, where I tryst it will sale through with flying colons. In this modern ear, it is simply inexplicable to ask readers to expose themselves to misspelled swords when they have bitter things to do.

And with all the other timesaving features on my new work processor, it is in realty very easy to pit together a colon like this one and get it tight. For instants, if there is a work that is wrong, I just put the curse on it, press Delete and its Well sometimes it deletes to the end of the lion or worst yet the whole rage. Four bigger problems, there is the Cat and Paste option. If there is some test that is somewhere were you wish it where somewhere else you jest put the curse at both ends and wash it disappear.
Where you want it to reappear simply bring four quarts of water to a rotting boil and throw in 112 pounds of dazed chicken. Sometimes it brings in the Cat that was Pasted yesterday.

But usually it comes out as you planned, or better. And if it doesn't, there are lots of other easy to lose options...

 

[fubar]

But... citizens... do have a right to expect that limitations placed on what they can and cannot do should be based on sound and justifiable reasons, and they have not got that with Part P.

I actually don't have a problem with the vast majority of Approved Document P - it is a good start, a good draft. The problem is that this "draft" will become law on 1st January. Specifically, I perceive the changes needed are:

Change 1: Table 1, which lists non-notifiable work, does not restrict DIY work enough. In particular, I would like to see:
a) references to "kitchen" removed and replaced with 1c and 1e
b) references to "locations containing a bath tup or shower basin" expanded to include 1e
c) non-notifiable work limited to lighting circuits not exceeding 10A and socket-outlet circuits not exceeding 32A. Specifically, any circuit supplying fixed or portable equipment exceeding 2990W/13A would be notifiable.
d) additions to socket-outlets only permitted in rooms already served by socket-outlets on that circuit
e) add "locations or installations within 150cm of a water outlet or plumbed recepticle" (defined to include tray, basin, sink or bowl) to the special locations list. This would be generally inline with building codes in America and other European countries.

Change 2: Replace the need for approval of a scheme by the ODPM with a schemes' accreditation mark a little like the ISO 9XXX schemes, so that anyone that wants to offer a scheme can do so, simply by applying for accreditation to a body like BSI (not to be confused with the scheme that BSI runs for sparkys).

This would allow trade bodies like JIB and JTL or even colleges and universities to run their own scheme and for the scheme to be more about continuing professional development. Crucially, this would make it cheaper and easier to conduct the entry requirements assesment as part of a course so that those passing the course would automatically be entered onto the register with no additional assesment or fee to pay for the first year (insurance and warranty excepting).

At the end of the day, there are only four basic tests needed for entry: a) can you prove that you are competent? b) do you have the required insurance? c) do you have a written and reviewed H&S policy d) will you offer customers a warranty?

Change 3: Create a single certification mark that clients can recognise rather than the five that exist at the moment. Create a single database that clients can use to check whether a contractor is approved for domestic work.

Change 4: Permit those using building control to perform emergency work (perhaps limited to "making safe") on the proviso that building control is notified (including payment of their retrospective fee) on the next working day.

I think that 1 and 4 are farily trivial changes that could be introduced as clarifying changes. I'm not sure how to introduce 2 and 3. I don't think that industry will drive this and I think that ODPM would only introduce it in the light of problems - after lots of money had been spent educating customers about the various different schemes and marks.

 

[AdamW]

Can someone post another link to Part P, only a search for it yields so many results due to all the references people have made to it?

Just felt I should reassess my situation on it, last time I read part of it I thought it was stupid. Seemed to assume everyone's abilities were at the lowest common denominator, unless they had paid money to the relevant organisations.

Algenon: problem with being a chartered electrical engineer is that whereas you know you can rewire a house, many chartered electrical engineers CAN'T even wire a plug! I know one with a 1st class MEng from Imperial, he can't. I doubt there is anything in the syllabus of most electrical engineering degrees that covers household wiring, however being an engineer usually means you are blessed with the logical mind, patience and common sense to do most such jobs in your own home. All you need is the guidance of the regs, often provided via the kind sparks on this website. There are some regs that don't necessarily make sense, but if everyone follows them then it makes things easier when you want to get some work done on it, or for the next guy who owns your house.

 

[fubar]

Can someone post another link to Part P, only a search for it yields so many results due to all the references people have made to it?

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/gro...tentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=4972&l=3

Just felt I should reassess my situation on it, last time I read part of it I thought it was stupid. Seemed to assume everyone's abilities were at the lowest common denominator, unless they had paid money to the relevant organisations.

There are basically three categories:
a) those that have been admitted to a self-certification scheme - they have to submit a few jobs a year to be assessed but otherwise their work goes unchecked unless a customer or peer complains.
b) those (DIYers and professionals) that will use the local authority building control to inspect every notifiable work they undertake, for basic adherance to BS 7671
c) non-notifiable work (by DIYers and professionals that do not self-certify) which is now limited to the simpler jobs and safer locations and will go unchecked until the owners come to sell the house (and possibly not even then)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Change 1: Table 1, which lists non-notifiable work, does not restrict DIY work enough.

DIY work does not need restricting, let alone further restricting, it needs regulating, which is not the same thing at all.

Change 2: Replace the need for approval of a scheme by the ODPM with a schemes' accreditation mark a little like the ISO 9XXX schemes, so that anyone that wants to offer a scheme can do so, simply by applying for accreditation to a body like BSI (not to be confused with the scheme that BSI runs for sparkys).

This would allow trade bodies like JIB and JTL or even colleges and universities to run their own scheme and for the scheme to be more about continuing professional development. Crucially, this would make it cheaper and easier to conduct the entry requirements assesment as part of a course so that those passing the course would automatically be entered onto the register with no additional assesment or fee to pay for the first year (insurance and warranty excepting).

Another crucial clarification requested - would you support the introduction of a training and exam scheme designed to allow DIY-ers to work on their own houses?

At the end of the day, there are only four basic tests needed for entry:
a) can you prove that you are competent?

Yes

b) do you have the required insurance?

Not needed for DIY.

c) do you have a written and reviewed H&S policy

Not needed for DIY.

d) will you offer customers a warranty?

Not needed for DIY, any more than buyers of a house get a warranty that a DIY pond won't leak, or a DIY gutter won't spill water, or DIY paintwork won't flake off, or DIY tiles won't fall off, or DIY plumbing won't leak, or DIY wallpapering won't peel off, or DIY garden fence won't fall down, or DIY kitchen cupboards won't come off the wall, or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or....., or.....,

 

[fubar]

Change 1: Table 1, which lists non-notifiable work, does not restrict DIY work enough.

DIY work does not need restricting, let alone further restricting, it needs regulating, which is not the same thing at all.

Agreed - I wasn't precise in my choice of words. I mean regulating even though I wrote restricting. Given that, would you broadly agree with my first suggested change?

Change 2: Replace the need for approval of a scheme by the ODPM with a schemes' accreditation mark a little like the ISO 9XXX schemes, so that anyone that wants to offer a scheme can do so, simply by applying for accreditation to a body like BSI (not to be confused with the scheme that BSI runs for sparkys).

This would allow trade bodies like JIB and JTL or even colleges and universities to run their own scheme and for the scheme to be more about continuing professional development. Crucially, this would make it cheaper and easier to conduct the entry requirements assesment as part of a course so that those passing the course would automatically be entered onto the register with no additional assesment or fee to pay for the first year (insurance and warranty excepting).

Another crucial clarification requested - would you support the introduction of a training and exam scheme designed to allow DIY-ers to work on their own houses?

Yes I would. In fact, I think such a scheme should have been a part of the proposal and that an opportunity has been missed here.

At the end of the day, there are only four basic tests needed for entry

Not needed for DIY

The whole of that section was meant to refer to those in the trade, not DIYers. Tradespeople taking such a course will likely either already have their own firm, or intend to start their own firm immediately after finishing the course or be an apprentice on day-leave from their firm.

There will be a small number that won't be able to meet (b) and (d) at the point when they finish their course. Those could be given a "provisional" pass and could send in proof of (b) and (d) when sorted. A small administration fee of, say, £1.50 could be charged. Even a £15 administration fee (like JIB) wouldn't be outrageous.

My basic premise is that Part P doesn't regulate DIY enough - doesn't seek to improve the quality of work done by DIYers and regulates professionals too much by trying to shoe-horn them into paying outrageously high professional fees.

Given my clarification above, would you broadly agree with my second suggested change?

 

[Damocles]

As far as I am concerned, all laws should be based upon the principle of preventing harm to others. That's what it is about, protecting me from you.

This is fairly easy to sort out if we talk about murder- you are not allowed to murder me -, but is a lot more difficult if we are talking about parking outside your own house.

Wiring is somewhere in between. There is the chance of significant harm to others, but just how big is it?

The ODPM did an analysis to justify the new regulations, where they tried to demonstrate the cost savings of the scheme (in terms of fires and injuries prevented), compared to the added cost to householders from all the administration and regulating. They concluded that it was cost effective, but their figures do not stack up.

They also made an argument about the general number of accidents which were likely to be prevented. Unfortunately, since they actually have no idea whether any particular accident was down to bad installation work or bad luck, whether professionals or DIYers were responsible for it, they have no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate part P will prevent one single accident.

 

[fubar]

The ODPM did an analysis to justify the new regulations, where they tried to demonstrate the cost savings of the scheme (in terms of fires and injuries prevented), compared to the added cost to householders from all the administration and regulating. They concluded that it was cost effective, but their figures do not stack up.

That is one advantage we have over the ODPM. It is reasonable to expect that the quality of DIY work could be improved by regulation, particularly if the cost to a DIYer of complying with the regulation is inexpensive. Such a position (without a supporting spreadsheet) might be defensible on this forum, but perhaps not by the ODPM.

The building regulations are (in the main) about health and safety. Certainly, this stated to be true of Part P and therefore, officially at least, it is only proper that the justification should be wholly about health and safety too.

However, one can easily read between the lines to see other justifications. For instance, by regulating the work done by cowboys and small traders so as to encourage them to join approved schemes, they are more likely to group together and thus more likely to run a proper business including the payment of taxes and fair wages as well as offer their employees proper benefits like healthcare and pensions. This, in turn, is good for the economy. Plus, it keeps the trade organizations happy.

 

[supersparks]

However, one can easilly read between the lines to see other justifications. For instance, by regulating the work done by cowboys and small traders so as to encourage them to join approved schemes, they are more likely to group together and thus more likely to run a proper business including the payment of taxes and fair wages as well as offer their employees proper benefits like healthcare and pensions. This, in turn, is good for the economy. Plus, it keeps the trade organizations happy.

and makes everyone bust
which makes more people say 'well **** that
which means more illegal, yet perfectly compitant sole traders and small companys

 

[fubar]

and makes everyone bust
which makes more people say 'well **** that
which means more illegal, yet perfectly compitant sole traders and small companys

Well, they aren't complying if they are breaking the law are they? And they won't all go bust if there are fewer cowboys and the demand for Electricians hasn't gone away, will they?

Now, I agree that Part P is a bad document and that the resulting law is a bit of an ass, but I really don't understand the growing tendency in this country for citizens* to believe they have the fundamental right to choose which laws to obey and which not to obey. We are a f###ing democracy - hell we invented the term. If you don't like something, argue and debate the issue until you have it clear in your own head how you want it it to be different, then lobby for the change. Don't say f##k that, I'll do my own thing.

* actually, ISTR that we are still subjects, but that is another story.