Part P. Confusion encore...

[plugwash]

reffering to something is totally different from requiring compliance with it.

first lets look at the law itself which BAS kindly posted the link to

BS 7671 is mentioned exactly twice.

"special location" means a location within the limits of the relevant zones specified for a bath, a shower, a swimming or paddling pool or a hot air sauna in the Wiring Regulations, sixteenth edition, published by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2001 and incorporating amendments 1 and 2."

The Wiring Regulations BS 7671: 2001 and amendments (ISBN 0-86341-373-0) can be obtained from the Institution of Electrical Engineers, P.O. Box 96, Stevenage, Herts SG1 2SD (email sales@iee.org.uk) or the British Standards Institution, Customer Services, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL (email [email protected]).

now lets look at the approved document http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_029960.pdf

immediately we see there is no requirement to comply with what the approved document says it is guidence only.

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.

there are mentions of BS 7671 in the approved document. BUT most of them are either just referncing definitions or are covered in very gaurded language.

 

[Albert]

You made you point very clear, as B-A-S did in previous posts. This is very confusing (tell me that you are surprised!), as it seems that C&G, NICEIC and IEE insist that the part P is part of the building regulations that you must comply with...

 

[Damocles]

Most builders work to the examples given, which does make things boring. Then along comes someone who wants to build a house out of straw bales...

Another example. Estate I was working on. Refurbishment of a load of Victorian terraced flats. All the floors were replaced with a proprietary 'floating floor system'. This was specially chosen to reduce noise. Designed to be extra dense to deaden sound. Trouble was, it had a built in squeak. The floating boards squeaked whenever you walked over them. This was immediately transmitted downstairs. You could not hear the footsteps, worked very well, but you certainly heard the squeak. All night.

Obvious solution was to nail down the boards. I suspect that a lot of the squeaking was because it neededed perfectly flat and level joists. Otherwise the loose boarding just moved about, as it was designed to.

Everyone on the estate was complaining about the ridiculously noisy floors. But everyone on the building side denied any responsibility. It had type approval, therefore passed building regs automatically. Building inspector was not interested in its dismal failure at preventing noise from one flat affecting another. But if you nailed it down, then you would be breeching the regulations and he would tell you to pull it up.

So what? Just because the building regs say something is ok, they may be wrong. Just because they do not say something is right, it may not be wrong.

yeah. wonderful.

 

[confidentincompetent]

Now i'm reeeeely con fused! I asked building control about prescots part P. I asked If I do work in a kitchen How much will it cost to get it certified by bc. He said council dont have anybody to certify have to get nieec to do the work as I'm not competent Soo like pre 2005 I could put a new cu in and have board connect up and test that is not allowed now. The thing is some sparkys I know are now classed as incompetent even tho they been in trade all their lives but someone whos just done a nvq course can certify their work Seems when house is sold it will be nieec inspected and have to comply with latest regs. The way regs r changed each year looks like a 2 yr old house will need lots doin to comply. I'm just a lowly decorator /handyman doin this for last 21 yrs i'm worried wot prescots goin to do next.

 

[Damocles]

I am not sure where building control stand legally on this. I think they are supposed to inspect and certify. It should be up to them to organise it, not you. They are entitled to charge what it costs them, but it is their responsibility to do the certifying.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry for shouting - I was getting a bit exasperated.

What C&G, NICEIC, IEE et al tell you is quite correct - there is a new part in the Building Regulations, Part P, and it is a law, and therefore you should comply with it.

However, the Approved Document P - this one:

only explains the law, and suggests ways in which you might comply with it, but, and this is crucial, it is not the law itself. It is not the legal definition of what you are now required to do, and nothing it says has any legal significance.

The legal definition is the one on the HMSO website - this one:

(I've highlighted the first instance where is starts to define Part P in terms of a series of amendments and insertions into the existing Building Regulations).

It is only the requirements defined in this Statutory Instrument which are the ones enshrined in law.

So yes, there is a Part P of the Building Regulations, yes, it mandates that you do certain things. Yes, there is an Approved Document P which explains how conforming to BS7671 is one way of meeting the relevant requirements of Part P of the Building Regulations, and no, Part P of the Building Regulations does not mandate adherence to BS7671.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am not sure where building control stand legally on this. I think they are supposed to inspect and certify. It should be up to them to organise it, not you. They are entitled to charge what it costs them, but it is their responsibility to do the certifying.

I think one would need to study the Building Act, and the Building Regulations in full to be sure of that. It may be that Building Control are allowed to do that. The S.I. that adds Part P to what's already there doesn't say they can do that, but if you read it you'll see that it doesn't impose any requirements on B.C. to do anything at all. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the legislation as it was before Part P there will be a definition of the duties of B.C., and how they might allow, or insist, on 3rd party inspections of work. The Part P amendments have not changed whatever the situation already was.

 

[Damocles]

The interesting question might come down to what they do if you refuse to get in an outside sparks to certify work done. It would appear the answer is 'damn all', just so long as the work is in fact up to scratch.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I've observed before, once they go outside the definition of a Competent Person with respect to the ability to self-certify compliance with Building Regs, there is no official definition of competence to issue EICs etc.

So if you'd be happy to stand up in court and justify reasonable competence, and that what you've done is BS7671 compliant, write your own bl**dy certs....

 

[Damocles]

So in fact part P has changed virtually nothing.

 

[securespark]

We didn't have to all round the Wrekin just to work that out!!

 

[Damocles]

maybe, but some people seem to thing the earth moved.

 

[punchjoshua]

b&q do a nice easy to read leaflet on the part p law,

 

[Panjandrum]

b&q do a nice easy to read leaflet on the part p law,

...but be careful, it falls apart the first time you read it.

 

[Damocles]

If you want to know about electrics, always get a leaflet from B&Q.

(Oops, hope I'm allowed to say that without anyone taking offense. Good place B&Q. Especially when it was still Block and Qayle (apologies if I got the names wrong)) (not to say that there is anything wrong with it now, of course)