BCO requires competant sign off of installation

[sparkiedave]

the one big advantage of Part P as I see it, is that it makes the work accountable, for almost every piece of electrical work done, the customer SHOULD have a certificate with the contractors details on, and those test results on the certificate should show that he has tested his work, it is there to protect the consumer, there is no way I would have done a wiring job without performing the correct tests before part P was introduced, and hopefully now, every sparky in the land should be doing the same, although I still find some who aren't.
I think part P is a mess, but I can see the reason why it was introduced

 

[jpdw]

I think part P is a mess, but I can see the reason why it was introduced

It's a shame isn't it? The intention is good but it has the effect to deter the competent (small c) and careful DIYer from doing something properly because the LABC will often charge an-arm-and-a-leg to certify notifiable work even if our DIY work was comparitively small. [yes, I know it still costs a call-out just to come test a single socket]


Anyway... bradf0rd... good luck with your BCO.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am not sure what the actual point of Part P is, is it to deter the DIYer from carrying out the most simple of tasks.

No - it was to increase the sphere of influence of NICEIC and the ECA by making it harder for anyone who they didn't regard as "electricians" to work.

However, unless this is declared to building regs who would ever know, and if you could get hold of some old red and black, then they try and conceal it in the past. Houses with mortgates get a cursory once over, all recommend the electrics should be checked by a professional - and how many do ?

Not many, and the chances of anyone getting caught having installed old red & black (unnecessary anyway, as harmonised cable was in use before Part P came into force) are pretty slim.

BUT - if you do get caught, having sold a property and lied about notifiable work, then it's no longer a Building Regulations offence - it's fraud, and the penalties for that are severe.

Has the number of available "electricians" out there dropped since Part P came out ?

No - the number of electricians is about the same - I imagine by now that most of those who threatened to flounce off in feigned outrage to become pig farmers have seen sense, as have most of the refuseniks who thought it big and clever to make lawbreaking part of their business model.

The number of "electricians" though has increased, thanks in the main to the shameful way that NICEIC prostituted themselves with the EAL Domestic Installer NVQ.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, part of the reason for part P is that a while back an MP's daughter was electrocuted banging a nail into a wall. She died. The circuit was run outside safe zones, and had no RCD protection.

1) The consultation document for Part P was issued in May 2002.

2) The results of the consultation were published in September 2002.

3) The first Part P amendment to the Building Regulations was made on 13th July 2004, and laid before Parliament on 22nd of July 2004.

4) Mary Wherry, Jenny Tonge's daughter, was killed on 31st July 2004.

Now if it's urban legend or not I can't say, but I was told by people who should know that this was one of the things instrumental in trying to get rid of lethal DIY electrics, and regulate the trade.

Whoever told you that clearly had no idea what they were talking about so take anything else they say with a pinch of salt.

B&Q can still sell consumer units to DIY'ers even though it's probably illegal for them to fit it.

There is no law or statutory instrument which forbids it, therefore it is not illegal.

Local councils don't know what's required

Yes - poor loves, it's only been a little over 6 years since they were first told what would be required, how on earth can they be expected to get up to speed so quickly?

 

[jpdw]

4) Mary Wherry, Jenny Tonge's daughter, was killed on 31st July 2004.

Now if it's urban legend or not I can't say, but I was told by people who should know that this was one of the things instrumental in trying to get rid of lethal DIY electrics, and regulate the trade.

And also contrary to the urban myth it wasn't "DIY electrics" (in the sense of home owner, an "electricians screwdriver" and some advice from a mate in the pub) but an organisation paid to do the work (as part of other building work).

Shame there isn't a term for "Do it to someone elses place" to diff from DIY!

 

[david_uk]

Well, the person who told me that the death of the MP's daughter was in part instrumental was none other than my college lecturer when I was doing 2391. And sad to say they were a bit out dated / wrong on a lot of things, so we did take to selectively ignoring what they said on occasions! However, it might have added a bit of weight to the argument (maybe).

Anyone know if when part P was being discussed anyone bothered to mentio orange sheds selling stuff to people hat really shouldn't buy it at all? Or did orange shed get in there and star threatening the government with the EU anti-competition laws?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, it might have added a bit of weight to the argument (maybe).

It can't have done - look at the dates - Part P was already done and dusted.

Anyone know if when part P was being discussed anyone bothered to mentio orange sheds selling stuff to people hat really shouldn't buy it at all? Or did orange shed get in there and star threatening the government with the EU anti-competition laws?

Why shouldn't they buy it at all?

The sheds already sold bricks, mortar, timber, plumbing, gas appliances, WCs, windows, drainage etc etc, all items which could be used in ways controlled by the Building Regulations, and there's never been any suggestion that people really shouldn't buy any of them. Except I expect from the self-interested job-protection bleaters.

The list of principal organisations consulted included B&Q, Homebase & Wickes.

 

[mattylad]

What! you mean they did not consult diynot?
Thats a poor do

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Or Screwloose - think of the fun they would have had reading the rants...

 

[Stoday]

Anyone know if when part P was being discussed anyone bothered to mentio orange sheds selling stuff to people hat really shouldn't buy it at all? Or did orange shed get in there and star threatening the government with the EU anti-competition laws?

I do know that in discussions they were particularly keen not to inhibit DIY. It was problematical to construct regulations to prevent cowboys' shoddy work without clobbering DIY work. Finished up with the usual compromise with neither being achieved.

The saving grace is that a cowboy gets caught in the long run because a dissatisfied customer complains whereas the DIYer can never get caught if he ignores the requirement to notify.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Until someone buys his house, finds duff work which can be dated to post-2004 (this will get easier and easier with each passing year), notes that when asked during the sale if any notifiable work had been done he lied, and takes him to court...

 

[empip]

A different idea ... Given that China may be supplying a significant amount of equipment in future. . . Due to a possibility of poor quality control within their equipment manufacturing, maybe merely due to growing a fledgling industry. A 'backstop' of rigorous checks and balances (just doing the job properly-final inspection etc) at the install was deemed necessary. . . .
Could it be that the Govn' approached the likes of NICEIC and the ECA etc. for their ideas on combating a possible future problem ?- Perhaps they then grasped the opportunity to further their own ends as a bonus.

What else of any magnitude had occured to warrant the introduction of Part P? Unusual increase in deaths - fires - etc etc.???
Or is it down to the fact that electricity will become the only source of power in the home as gas and oil become more expensive over time. Hence home systems may come under greater load with weaknesses being exposed, perhaps in a deadly fashion...

The real deal on this would be interesting - I wonder if anyone actually knows ??

 

[mattylad]

Until someone buys his house, finds duff work which can be dated to post-2004 (this will get easier and easier with each passing year), notes that when asked during the sale if any notifiable work had been done he lied, and takes him to court...

I wonder how many (non tradesmen) have been taken to court for this thus far?

 

[Pensdown]

I never really mentioned anything about electrics on the building notice.

For the electrical works you've described a building reg notice is not required so you've done nothing wrong.

It's only non-notifiable if it consists only of the work itemised in Schedule 2B.

In this case it was part of something which was notifiable, and therefore it came to the attention of the BCO.

The electrical work must comply with P1, and the BCO is quite correct to insist that it does, whether it would have been notifiable in isolation or not.

And as the OP didn't do a full plans submission and therefore didn't specify how he would ensure compliance with P1 the BCO is quite entitled, at this stage, to ask for an electrical certificate from someone he trusts as proof that it complies.

I agree that the OP has made a big mistake by not including the electrical works as part of the overall building regs submission but that does not change the building regs sign off proccedure.

It was only when it came to post roofing and building, when discussing the completion certificate he said to insulate, dryline, skim up add electrics and call him back to check. I said that the ring man would only be extended and a new light and could I do it myself - he only replied I would need a certificate from a qualified person to cover the work.

That’s not how it works.

If Bradf0rd manages to find a sparks to test and inspect and issue a certificate then that sparks signs off the work to P1, not building control. But that gets complicated because although the DIY’ed work may meet P1, it’s unlikely to meet BS7671 2008 which the sparks will be testing to - so in comes the RCD's etc.

BC only sign off electrical works as compliant with P1 if the electrical works are part of the original building regs submission which in this case they were not.

IMO if BC won’t sign off the other works without confirmation that the electrical meet P1 then they should ask for a revised building reg submission which includes the electrical work. As far as I can see that’s the only way that BC can included the works in their completion certificate.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree that the OP has made a big mistake by not including the electrical works as part of the overall building regs submission but that does not change the building regs sign off proccedure.

Ah - but that's it - he didn't do a proper Building Regulations submission - he just did a Building Notice (lord knows why - it's no cheaper than doing a full plans submission), which means that nothing is approved up front, and you just hope that when they come to check things that you got it right.

Always a high risk strategy, particularly when electrical work is involved, given the way that LABCs try to evade their proper responsibilities even when everything is done up front.

It was only when it came to post roofing and building, when discussing the completion certificate he said to insulate, dryline, skim up add electrics and call him back to check. I said that the ring man would only be extended and a new light and could I do it myself - he only replied I would need a certificate from a qualified person to cover the work.

That’s not how it works.

It might be - if they were never given the opportunity to approve the plans for complying with P1.

IMO if BC won’t sign off the other works without confirmation that the electrical meet P1 then they should ask for a revised building reg submission which includes the electrical work. As far as I can see that’s the only way that BC can included the works in their completion certificate.

i.e. a full plans submission for the first time.

Probably the fee all over again? Possibly too late now?

And there might be no completion certificate at the end of the day anyway, even if they are happy.


The Building Notice procedure:

5.10 This procedure does not involve the passing or rejecting of
plans. It therefore avoids the preparation of detailed ‘full plans’,
and is designed to enable some types of building work to get
under way quickly; although it is perhaps best suited to small
work. There are also specific exclusions in the regulations as to
when building notices cannot be used. These are for building
work which is subject to section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act
1971 or Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations
1997; for work which will be built close to or over the top of
rain water and foul drains shown on the ‘map of sewers’ (see
paragraph 3.3); and where a new building will front onto a
private street. If you decide to use this procedure you need to
be confident that the work will comply with the Building Regulations
or you will risk having to correct any work you carry out if your
local authority requests this. In this respect you do not have the
protection provided by the approval of ‘full plans’.

5.11 Once you have given your ‘building notice’ and informed your
local authority that you are about to start work, the work will
be inspected as it progresses. You will be advised by the authority
if the work does not comply with the Building Regulations. If
before the start of work, or while work is in progress, your local
authority requires further information such as structural design
calculations or plans, you must supply the details requested. A
‘building notice’ is valid for three years from the date the notice
was given to the local authority, after which it will automatically
lapse if the building work has not commenced.

5.12 A local authority is not required to issue a completion certificate
under the ‘building notice’ procedure; and because no ‘full plans’
are produced it is not possible to ask for a determination if your
local authority says your work does not comply with the
Building Regulations (see paragraph 5.19).

I wonder if the highlighted part means that if they say, part way through, "prove it complies with P1" you have to....