Messy Install...

[securespark]

Overloaded socket above. CU change 6 months ago. JB not fixed. Broken Henley behind drop down lid.

L/H circuit on new board is 32A ring. Well, it's supposed to be, but it ain't.

Instead, the second picture gives you an idea what the wiring is like.

There are 5 cables here, one outgoing & 4 incoming. No grommets. The spur feeds a double socket into which is plugged a w/m and d/w.

Customer undid it & could not get it back.

Please note the very short, badly stripped cable which never actually made it to the spur terminals...

Oh, and here's that Henley...

 

[securespark]

I forgot to say that this guy paid a huge amount of money for this kitchen only 6 months ago.

Q: Why the old colours, if it was done 6 months ago?

No certs either. No surprise there, then.

 

[jj4091]

So what effect did part p have in stopping that then?

 

[Softus]

So what effect did part p have in stopping that then?

You seem confused. Part P is part of this country's legislation, not a mechanism for automatically detecting criminals red-handed.

Your question is no different to asking "How does a law against murder prevent people from being murdered", and you implication that Part P has no value suggest that you don't respect and don't heed it.

 

[jj4091]

Yet again softus, you make completley wrong assumptions on things you cannot possibly know. I feel that I am as entitled as anyone to voice my concerns over the effectiveness of costly legislation that appears to be difficult to police, to say the least, it appears to me that any crime committed could go years without detection & so I would question it's effectiveness. I am sorry if my cynicism offends you but that's life.

 

[Softus]

Yet again softus, you make completley wrong assumptions on things you cannot possibly know.

Please show me any unstated assumption that I've made, anywhere, on any forum, ever.

Your question is no different to asking "How does a law against murder prevent people from being murdered", and your implication that Part P has no value suggests that you don't respect and don't heed it.

So, if made I a wrong inference, you must both heed and respect Part P. Do you, jj4091?

it appears to me that any crime committed could go years without detection & so I would question it's effectiveness

Seemingly not.

I feel that I am as entitled as anyone to voice my concerns...

Presumably, therefore, I'm also entitled to voice my reaction to your opinion. On the one hand you say that I can't possibly know your opinion, and the next moment you confirm that my inference was correct.

...over the effectiveness of costly legislation that appears to be difficult to police, to say the least, it appears to me that any crime committed could go years without detection & so I would question it's effectiveness.

You seem confused about the goal of Part P. If you're not confused then so be it, but it would give a more accurate impression if you avoided using words that only a confused person would use, and having an opinion that only a confused person would have.

All legislation is expensive, but expensive doesn't equate to bad, and I don't see what it is about Part P that makes you think it was a more than averagely expensive piece of legislation. There was plenty of notice of it coming into effect, and continuing publicity has led to a widespread (IMHO) knowledge of its existence. This is A Good Thing.

Anyone engaging an electrician, or handyman, or domestic installer, has a responsibility (a general duty of care) to oversee the work to ensure that it's done competently. On this premise, the onus is, and always has been, on the householder, whereas you seem to think that Part P has created some new responsibility for someone (I don't know who you think that might be) to start policing work that Part P made notifiable.

What Part P has done is to formalise a means by which any householder, for the notifiable class of work (which is supposed to equate to the jobs that present more risk, if/when done badly), can be provided with a certificate of safety. For a householder who always acted responsibly the change is small, but for people who used to pay as little money as possible, they are now prevented (in law) from having a rubbish job done on the cheap.

In short, the problem has always been that cowboy tradespeople have exploited the uneducated and the greedy - the change in law, if properly publicised, should protect the former against the unscrupulous, and prevent the latter from endangering everyone else.

In my view, the future of ‘fail-safe’ electrical safety lies not in technology but in education and regulation - the law is there to protect, but you have to know about it AND be an honest and upright citizen for that law to be fully effective.

I am sorry if my cynicism offends you but that's life.

For one thing, you're not in the least bit sorry - that's just a platitude. Secondly, why would you even think that I was offended?

 

[jj4091]

The only response I am going to make is to assure you that I do comply with the part p regulations, even if I do question their effectiveness.

 

[plugwash]

Your question is no different to asking "How does a law against murder prevent people from being murdered", and you implication that Part P has no value suggest that you don't respect and don't heed it.

An unenforced (and lets be honest part P is only enforced in the nastiest of cases) law only effects those who both know about it and respect it. The number of diyers who know about part P is almost certainly low and I bet the number who respect it is even lower.

And i can't see it affecting selling houses much either, worst case an electrician gets called in to do a PIR and ticks the previous records not availible box but in most cases i doubt even that will happen.

I also disagree with your comment about an expensive law not being a bad law. Part P seems to have made electrical work considerablly more expensive thereby encouraging use of extention leads on a permanent basis. Our fixed wiring standards have sufficiant safety margins built in that even when bodged they aren't all that dangerous.

People respect the requirement to use a corgi plumber because they belive rightly or wrongly that gas is far more dangerous than electricity and also because there are far less gas appliances in a home than electrical ones so it impacts them less.

 

[Softus]

The only response I am going to make is to assure you that I do comply with the part p regulations, even if I do question their effectiveness.

In that case, on the basis that someone who questions the effectiveness of Part P is also someone that complies with it, I consider it to be highly effective.

An unenforced (and lets be honest part P is only enforced in the nastiest of cases) law only effects those who both know about it and respect it.

Again, the corollary of that is that only those who are aware of a speeding camera, and respect the use of them generally, are prosecuted for speeding. That is demonstrably not the case.

The number of diyers who know about part P is almost certainly low and I bet the number who respect it is even lower.

In that case we have opposing opinions. Awareness of Part P was low when it came into force, but it continues to get publicity, and awareness continues to grow. I would say that the majority of customers I speak to about it are already aware of it, although they're unaware of the precise content and implications. Most people who know about Part P believe that it prevents them from doing electrical work, whereas it doesn't of course.

And i can't see it affecting selling houses much either, worst case an electrician gets called in to do a PIR and ticks the previous records not availible box but in most cases i doubt even that will happen.

This isn't the black and white situation that you seem to think. The more times a particular house is sold, the more it's exposed to the regulations, and, eventually, it will be brought up to scratch. The likelihood that it won't be right first time is no reason not to work at it and continue doing the right thing.

I also disagree with your comment about an expensive law not being a bad law.

I apologise for not making myself clear. By expensive, I meant expensive to draft and pass, not to implement and enforce.

Part P seems to have made electrical work considerablly more expensive thereby encouraging use of extention leads on a permanent basis. Our fixed wiring standards have sufficiant safety margins built in that even when bodged they aren't all that dangerous.

Whilst I'd agree that permanently trailing flex is more dangerous than structural cable, I don't know how to measure the accuracy of your claim that the use of flex has become more prevalent because of Part P.

People respect the requirement to use a corgi plumber because they belive rightly or wrongly that gas is far more dangerous than electricity and also because there are far less gas appliances in a home than electrical ones so it impacts them less.

Again, it's conjecture to presume to know that people respect the dangers of gas more than those of electricity, and conjecture to presume that, if true, that it's true because they believe gas to be more dangerous.

You might be right, or you might be wrong, but since I don't have any information to support or deny your presumptions, I don't know which it is, but I suspect that they're far from being factual.

 

[dingbat]

Part P is a part of the Building Regulations. Its requirements are entirely reasonable and easy to achieve. The moans are all from people (tradesmen and householders) who somehow feel that they have been disadvantaged by it.

These people should acquaint themselves with the rest of the building regs to see just how much work is notifiable - a lot more than is ever notified, that's for sure. New bathroom? New c/h system? Windows? Walls? Ventilation? The list is long - remember, it is notifiable unless it is expressly excluded.

I'd agree with Softus, especially as regards education; unlike the rest of the Building Regulations Part P has been widely publicised... pleasingly by the very people who unthinkingly oppose it.

 

[esra_ptrap]

There are more building regulations in this country than any of our major European neighbours or in the US and yet we have no better safety record.

This is IMO because most homeowners who DIY don't know what is subject to building regs (education) and that regs alone aren't enough there needs to be some mechanism to ensure compliance (policing) ... And, no I don't believe seller packs are the answer

The important thing to get across to homeowners is that DIY work IS still allowed under Part P (or gas for that matter) but there are mechanisms in place (building control) to ensure that, whether it is done by a professional or the homeowner, it is done to the correct standards.

I've always found it amusing that DIY'ers would probably be happy to rewire their own house but wouldn't plumb in their new gas hob yet the number of houses razed to the ground by faulty electrical work exceeds those by faulty gas by an order of magnitude.

This is not because people don't DIY gas (because some do), it's because gas work is easier to do safely once a few basic skills have been mastered and principles are understood irrespective of what the Corgi RGI's tell us all ... The fact is that gas installations are far more straightforward to understand than electrical installations.

 

[davelx]

The important thing to get across to homeowners is that DIY work IS still allowed under Part P (or gas for that matter) but there are mechanisms in place (building control) to ensure that, whether it is done by a professional or the homeowner, it is done to the correct standards.

It is equally important to ensure LABC understand what is required of them in terms of inspection and test of notifiable work by persons who are not members of a self-cert. scheme, and that they are not permitted to interpret the law and statutory instruments as they see fit. They should be compelled to fulfill their responsiblities at no additional cost to the householder (over and above a normal buliding notice).

 

[esra_ptrap]

Agree 100%

 

[sm1thson]

P unlike the rest of the Building Regulations Part P has been widely publicised...

I don’t think its been publicised widely enough, for eg I was reading electrical literature put out by focus over the weekend that didn’t even mention it, somebody quoted a survey a while back it was either 80-90% of people didn’t know what it was. Having said that yes it is more known that many building regs, most people don’t realise windows etc need notifying to building control. But on the other hand building regs that are there for safety do need more publicity.

 

[Adam_151]

New bathroom? New c/h system? Windows? Walls? Ventilation? The list is long - remember, it is notifiable unless it is expressly excluded.

I'm lead to believe that as long as you just replace the 'bathroom furniture' and don't add extra drainage points or move existing ones, then its non-notfiable... rather like fitting new lights and a cooker in a kitchen in the same place as the old one

Of course I may be wrong, I haven't taken the time to read that particular SI (I assume its part H?) but certainly that interpretation seems to fit in with the others and seems sensible

I'm also assuming that the powers that be are well aware that some of the red tape to notify will get ignored on the smaller jobs, and I'm not sure anyone cares if a replacement window, wash basin or an extra lighting point slips through the net, as long as the stuff which could go massivly wrong such as new extensions, roofs or moving of walls gets notified then things are deemed at working acceptably well, although not in strict accordance with the law, which of course in the real world is an unacheiveable aim! (just try looking at how some people drive*)


*I have had the misfortune to be in a manual car travelling a short way through the back streets of a city while the driver kept a handheld phone glued to his right ear...