Part P and DIY Work

[Stoday]

...if I have got it correct in theory any work I do after 1st Jan 2005 needs to be inspected and certificated by an elecrician approved by one of the listed bodies.

No.

It needs to be inspected and tested by a competent person who need not be registered. That means if you're competent, you can do it yourself.

 

[jenki]

...if I have got it correct in theory any work I do after 1st Jan 2005 needs to be inspected and certificated by an elecrician approved by one of the listed bodies.

No.

It needs to be inspected and tested by a competent person who need not be registered. That means if you're competent, you can do it yourself.

I thought - that they were saying that a "competent person" would be recognized as one if they were part of a competent person scheme; thats why NICEIC sparks also have to join the domestic installers scheme! no?

Anyway - It seems to me that everybody interprates part P differently - so who knows. - Not Bolton MBC that's for sure

 

[Stoday]

Well I think part P is pretty clear on this, sufficinetly clear for it not to be a matter of interpretation. Here's the relevant paragraph:

ii) When the non-notifiable work described in Table 1 is to be undertaken by a DIY worker, a way of showing compliance would be to follow the IEE guidance or guidance in other authoritative manuals that are based on this, and to have a competent person inspect and test the work and supply a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate. The competent person need not necessarily be registered with an electrical self-certification scheme but, as required by BS 7671, must be competent in respect of the inspection and testing of an installation.

 

[plugwash]

non-notifyable works can be done and inspected by anyone who considers themselves competent and is willing to take the responsibility that the installation is safe.

notifyable works must be notified to building control for inspection (expensive) or done by a member of one of the approved self certification schemes

 

[Paul_C]

Well I think part P is pretty clear on this, sufficinetly clear for it not to be a matter of interpretation.

Sorry, but to me it's not at all clear and wide open to interpretation. Read the first part of that paragraph again: It doesn't state "Work must comply with BS7671" or anything so explicit; it says "a way of showing compliance would be to follow....." That does not imply that other methods are not acceptable.

The following extract from page 3 of the approved Part P document emphasizes this point:

Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

As I read it, there is no specific requirement to follow BS7671 at all, just so long as you comply with the rather vague requirements actually set out in part P, viz:

PART P ELECTRICAL SAFETY

Design, installation, inspection and testing

P1. Reasonable provision shall be made in the design, installation, inspection and testing of electrical installations in order to protect persons from fire or injury.

Provision of information

P2. Sufficient information shall be provided so that persons wishing to operate, maintain or alter an electrical installation can do so with reasonable safety.

I'd say that leaves one heck of a lot of room for individual interpretation.

 

[Stoday]

Paul_C - I agree with all you say.

But the issue was if the testing had to be done by a registered electrician. On that issue part P is clear; it does not.

 

[Damocles]

I had the idea that building regs set out one way of satisfying the regulations. It was up to an applicant to put forward any alternative plans they might have....and convince the inspectors to accept them.

I think 2004 is going to be a vintage year for DIY work. The more time that goes by, the more work will turn turn up which was "done" in 2004.

Bearing in mind that you are entitled to replace 'damaged' cables and fittings even in a kitchen under part P, who is going to be able to prove how many sockets were there originally and where they were?

 

[AdamW]

I think 2004 is going to be a vintage year for DIY work. The more time that goes by, the more work will turn turn up which was "done" in 2004.

Most definitely. It will just not be possible to prove when something was done unless you stick your foot in it by saying "The house has been rewired", when you bought the house in 2005. You won't be able to put "recently rewired" on the selling notes, otherwise you will have to explain to the prospective purchasers "The wiring, whilst 100% safe, is illegal right now."

Will electrician health insurance premiums go up? Only I am thinking, the extra work they will get from Part P, combined with the stupid light switch heights prescribed by Part M, their backs are going to take a pounding.

 

[Paul_C]

But the issue was if the testing had to be done by a registered electrician. On that issue part P is clear; it does not.

Agreed. I may have digressed a little there.

I had the idea that building regs set out one way of satisfying the regulations. It was up to an applicant to put forward any alternative plans they might have....and convince the inspectors to accept them.

That's the impression I have as well. If you read through the Regs., they are full of vague phrases such as "A way of satisfying this requirement would be to...." or maybe "Compliance with XXXX would be considered as one way to satisfy this requirement," none of which state that other methods are unacceptable.

As for convincing an inspector, shouldn't be the other way round? Shouldn't it be up to the inspector to prove why a certain method is not acceptable, if indeed he can?

 

[dingbat]

...combined with the stupid light switch heights prescribed by Part M

Part M applies rigidly to new builds only - you don't have to muck about with switches and sockets in your house or extension when you rewire as the regs don't apply retrospectively, but I can imagine there's going to a new trick for the booted and spurred amongst us, "Oooh, red and black? No missus, new colours, see... it's the regs, nothing we can do about it... It'll have to be a full rewire, I'm afraid."

 

[jenki]

As I read it, there is no specific requirement to follow BS7671 at all, just so long as you comply with the rather vague requirements actually set out in part P, viz: ......

Except that Building Regulations will only allow the current edition of BS7671 to be the standard for electrical work to be undertaken against.
And will mean that any competent person finding deviations from BS7671:2001 will not be able to self certify the work. Only LA officers can authorise deviations form the building regs. Or so say NAPIT bottom of page 2. http://www.napit.org.uk/PDF/Easy_Guide_to_Part_P.pdf

 

[Paul_C]

Except that Building Regulations will only allow the current edition of BS7671 to be the standard for electrical work to be undertaken against.

But where precisely does the new Part P actually state that you must follow the current edition of BS7671 in full? The NAPIT leaflet you refer to actually contradicts itself. The part you refer to:

Because the Building Regulations will only allow the current edition of BS7671 to be the standard for electrical work to be undertaken against

And another part which reflects what the Approved Part P document actually says:

The changes to the Building Regulations are contained in an Approved Document P, which is called "Electrical Safety";, and compliance with it will be achieved if the standard of the electrical work is such, that it complies with the "Fundamental Requirements" of Chapter 13 of BS7671:2001

That's a long way from saying that wiring must comply with BS7671 in full. Even the reference to following the "Fundamental principles" in BS7671 Chapter 13 is not listed as an absolute requirement. It says that compliance would satisfy the Building Regs., but does not say that you must comply.

In fact the ODPM emphasizes a specific get-out clause. Look at that extract from page 3 of the Approved Part P again:

Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

 

[jenki]

But where precisely does the new Part P actually state that you must follow the current edition of BS7671 in full? The NAPIT leaflet you refer to actually contradicts itself. The part you refer to:

I agree with the contradictions, and I can't point you to a place that "state that you must follow the current edition of BS7671 in full?" because I don't think it does -


And even the bit that says

Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way

Are they not saying - it won't meet building control approval - if it's not BS7671 (Because thats what BC will say - and part P is under BC control) remembering that (I think) "Even a competent person self certifying will still need to inform BC" ??

 

[Paul_C]

Maybe Building Control in some councils will try to say that, but it doesn't matter. They are constrained by what the law says.

Some building inspector may think that every installation should conform to BS7671 in full. but that doesn't mean he can impose more stringent requirements than the law allows.

I don't doubt that there are some council officials who would object to certain sheds, garages, etc. being constructed, but if they are within the listed "permitted development" limits, there's nothing they can do to stop them.

 

[dingbat]

Some building inspector may think that every installation should conform to BS7671 in full. but that doesn't mean he can impose more stringent requirements than the law allows.

And, of course, they can't apply the regulations retrospectively. Which, considering I have never seen a fully BS7671-compliant installation, means that unless housebuilders suddenly become saints overnight it's highly unlikely your building inspector will ever have a precedent to refer to.

And as has been mentioned elsewhere, BC really don't want to get involved - I don't blame them considering the frequent disagreements between qualified sparks on interpreting the regs - they would far rather you got a registered self-certifying spark to do the work.