Has Part P gone too far?

[DWLondon]

I know I am going to upset a few electricians here, but in my view Part P is engineering its own downfall, especially as I believe it is now going to lead to people ignoring it.

Here is my specific example:

I urgently need to update my old fuse box to a modern high integrity consumer unit. Manly because I have two young children who have a nasty habit of not drying their hands and turning on lights (no matter how often I tell them!), and because being an old house I would feel safer having a modern consumer unit, even if it does mean the odd tripping out of circuits.

Now all of the electricians that come round to quote to change the consumer unit, quote around 400 to change the consumer unit, but then say all of the circuits have to be tested before reconnecting them, which they say could add another 600-700 pounds., as it is
"more than my jobs worth" to reconnect something that turns out to be unsafe.

Personally, I think this is cr*p (to put it politely). If they fit the consumer unit correctly, then the house is far safer, even if the circuits reconnected are a bit flakey. It is my problem if the circuits keep tripping, and would encourage me to push ahead with the overall renovation of the house.

Whilst I think part P is a good thing in principle it is starting to be used as an excuse to rip people off, and if we have to got to have these regulations, then maybe it is time to start having a standard pricing structure for the industry, rather than letting electricians hold the people to ransom.

The alternative, is that people start using people who "done a bit of electrics in the past", which is basically back to the bad old days. But to be honest, as money gets tighter, who can blame them!

 

[JonoPashley]

Maybe the electrician just doesnt want to do half of what is required of them? besides the CU change could lead to potentially dangerous problems if there are faults within the house install. You will be seriously ****ed off when those borrowed neutrals etc trip your RCDs every time you switch them back on. Hence why most sparks will want to carry out a PIR before carrying out a CU change. 400 for a CU change seems reasonable enough after that it depends what other faults that need rectifying to maintain a safe install.

 

[kevindgas]

on the opposite side of the fence it isn't any better
to take the training course cost me £950
last year it cost £165ish to register via COR£I this year it will be £391 with NAPIT (cheaper than the dog) this is why we have to charge a reasonable amount as the costs of registration is ridiculous

the overheads of running a business are what is crippling this countries tradesmen who would be a bit cheaper if only the government would stop taking the p*ss out of us with rules and regs that are totally unnecessary.

IMO it isn't Part P thats gone too far its this blo*dy government!

 

[Spark123]

Maybe the electrician doesn't want the liability and the stigma attached owing to them doing a rubbish job.
The aim of Part P is to ensure "Electrical Safety".
Part P is part of the building regs which are the law wether you like it or not.
You can still replace a CU yourself however to remain within the law you must notify your LABC before carrying out the work and pay their fee.
They can then oversee compliance with the building regs.

Borrowed neutrals are one problem, low insulation resistance is another problem, open circuit CPCs etc etc etc. Basically, it isn't just a case of changing the box on the wall - everything which is attached needs to be checked that it is safe. That is why it is better to employ someone who can do the job, interpret the test results ensuring the circuits are safe before returning them to service and can self certify compliance with the building regs via their scheme.

 

[jockspark]

hi before part p was ever thought of no electrician
worth his salt would come along and just change your consumer unit i example ze test to prove an earth path
exists equipotencal bonding ect how would you like a nice new fuse board installed on a system that could kill you
i have a lot of gripes with part p i am a time served
with 30 years experience but if part p improves
safety it cant be all bad
i must be going soft i hate part p

 

[JACKC]

Not a bad price for what is a very important job, its time consuming when done correctly and highlight any potential problems of a dangerous installation.
If you want to save a few quid get your mate who has done a few jobs before to do it. When one of your kids is shaking hands with the national grid, you will wish that it was done properly. Hey ho there not my kids, do what you want. A55hole

 

[il78]

I find this post quite disturbing, you say on one hand that you want your kids to be safe but then on the other hand you dont want to pay for there safety...

You say that the electricians that are quoting for these works are "more than my jobs worth" but would you put your neck on the line for a quick fix?

What is your occupation?

 

[flameport]

It is my problem if the circuits keep tripping, and would encourage me to push ahead with the overall renovation of the house.

You say that now, but in reality, no one is going to put up with circuits going off several times a day.
Not identifying and repairing faults could mean the RCD wouldn't even switch on in the first place. This would certainly be safe, but you would then have a shiny new consumer unit and no power to some or all of your house.

Whilst I think part P is a good thing in principle it is starting to be used as an excuse to rip people off

The only 'electricians' who complain that Part P has caused them huge costs and inconvenience are those who did not have test equipment, insurance or any of the other standard items. They are the ones who for years had 'ripped people off' by not doing the job properly, or ensuring that the work they did was safe.

For electricians who actually did a proper job and kept up to date with regulations etc., the only additional costs Part P created was the annual registration fee, and a small fee for each notifiable job.
Annual fees are around 400 pounds, and notification 2 or 3 pounds. Even with 1 notifiable job per week, the additional cost is still less than £10 per job.

The problem with Part P is that it does not go far enough and is not enforced properly or at all. People still have their consumer units changed by incompetent blunderers, and these people are rarely caught or prosecuted.

As for pricing - you cannot have 'standard pricing' since there is no such thing as a 'standard job'. Replacing a particular consumer unit could be done properly for £400. Another one might end up as £4000. Or even more.

 

[comms]

Now all of the electricians that come round to quote to change the consumer unit, quote around 400 to change the consumer unit, but then say all of the circuits have to be tested before reconnecting them, which they say could add another 600-700 pounds., as it is
"more than my jobs worth" to reconnect something that turns out to be unsafe.

And rightly so but I never give a cost of any repairs that may be needed when found during testing, these are extras & quoted accordingly, but the customer is made aware of the possibility just like you have been.

Personally, I think this is cr*p

Hmm yeh thats right you get a pro in & they give you advice & a price & you think it's a rip off.
So look at it this way you take your car in for a service & the mechanic says "we can change the brakes but the brake lines are duff we as a proffessional outfit advise that you have them done now it'll only cost £350"
Odds on you wouldn't even quibble over the cost mate, because it's something you know is a safety feature.
Odds on again (like me) you probably dont have the first clue about cars so think it best left to the pro's at the garage.................well guess what the same goes for electrical work, yes any muppet can change a box on the wall, but what about testing or are main bonds up to scratch are the tails correct csa, is the system TT / TNC-s / TNS , is the Ze ok are the circuits SAFE, can you issue the installation cert. you can have the shinyest cu on the wall but if it's not done right & that includes the circuits, your nippers could be pushing up daisys anyway mate.
Or you could end up with the likes of the job I'm on at the mo, try to sell the house buyer comes in see's the new cu & sockets asks for certificates....."oh umm yes no we did it ourselves with the help of a mate from the pub"....I get a call from the potential buyer to undertake a pir & end up with a partial re-wire due to unsafe circuits, 1.5k all knocked off the sellers price.

rather than letting electricians hold the people to ransom.

Nobody gets held to ransome sunshine, if you ask for a quote you then decide if that quote is what you'd be willing to pay then engage in a contract for the work to be done.

The alternative, is that people start using people who "done a bit of electrics in the past", which is basically back to the bad old days. But to be honest, as money gets tighter, who can blame them!

And these are the sort of people that should be targeted by the part P police (sorry scheme operators & BC's), the bloke who thinks he knows how to do it & the property owner for having a job done on the snide because he thinks he's getting ripped off by electricians.

Funny how people will pay high prices for gas work by a corgi bod but view electrical work as "its only wires, it cant cost that much".

 

[bernardgreen]

The over all intention of Part P was to reduce risks of injury from un-safe electrical work. It is not having that effect.

40 years experience in engineering and in-formal risk assessment
leads me to believe that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk.

So replacing a old consumer unit will in almost all situations reduce the risks from the wiring.

If the wiring is perfectly good then the percentage reduction in risk is going to be very small.

If the wiring is dodgy then the percentage reduction in risk is going to be high.

When a "part P" electrican refuses to replace an old consumer unit with a modern one to better protect the wiring which he considers is not to a good standard he is in effect refusing to reduce the risks to people living in that house.

 

[MrHumbug]

When a "part P" electrican refuses to replace an old consumer unit with a modern one to better protect the wiring which he considers is not to a good standard he is in effect refusing to reduce the risks to people living in that house.

But your hypothetical electrician has a dilemma here. Ignoring any altruism that he/she might have, there are two considerations for doing that work:

1. is there a reasonable return on investment in time and materials (will they get paid)?

2. is there a subsequent risk to the electrician that is greater than the return on investment?

So refusing the job entirely is probably the most sensible action for the electrician unless they know that they will be able to eliminate the risk of being blamed for leaving problems behind.

The risk to the household is not something the electrician needs to consider in their own analysis.

Edit: sorry, the dilemma comes because the electrician probably does have some altruistic intentions.

 

[JonoPashley]

The over all intention of Part P was to reduce risks of injury from un-safe electrical work. It is not having that effect.

40 years experience in engineering and in-formal risk assessment
leads me to believe that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk.

So replacing a old consumer unit will in almost all situations reduce the risks from the wiring.

If the wiring is perfectly good then the percentage reduction in risk is going to be very small.

If the wiring is dodgy then the percentage reduction in risk is going to be high.

When a "part P" electrican refuses to replace an old consumer unit with a modern one to better protect the wiring which he considers is not to a good standard he is in effect refusing to reduce the risks to people living in that house.

Except a CU change to a modern more sensitive piece of equipment can bring about a whole host of problems all of its own. so the spark is only covering his own back by saying it would require full test/inspect and appropriate remedial action.

 

[sparkyspike]

hi before part p was ever thought of no electrician
worth his salt would come along and just change your consumer unit i example ze test to prove an earth path
exists equipotencal bonding ect how would you like a nice new fuse board installed on a system that could kill you
i have a lot of gripes with part p i am a time served
with 30 years experience but if part p improves
safety it cant be all bad
i must be going soft i hate part p

jockspark, I've got a present for you:


............................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,''''''''''''''''''''''';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:::::::::::::::::
[CAPS][CAPS][CAPS][CAPS]



Don't use them all at once!

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Jaymack]

Unfortunately those electricians who are represented by a body such as NAPIT, ECA, SELECT etc., require to work to BS7671. Those from off the streets; with a 4 legged means of transport don't have to comply, you as the employer and householder would then carry the risk. This document explains the reasons why more work may be required: -

http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/safety-in-the-home/Earthing-bonding-ESC.pdf