Part P question

[JohnW2]

A further thought/question has occurred to me ... if one replaces a, say, damaged socket on a circuit which does not have RCD protection, would you feel that this 'work' on the circuit requires an RCD to be installed to protect the replaced socket?

As you are not altering the circuit in anyway, I go no!

Needless to say, so would I - but I'll be interested to hear what others, in particular riveralt, say!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[roberta1000]

In context, and more to the point, this is a DIY forum, not a forum for scheme-registered electricians ...

I suppose I'm being naive again but I have always thought that the domain diynot.com implied that it was for things that were not deemed to be diy . (At least so far as the Electrics UK part is concerned). Almost every post here asking for advice is met with a demand that the OP should get himself a raft of expensive equipment and training in its use or preferably not diy it at all.

I couldn't agree with you more JohnW2. We all know that people with a bit of nouse will diy to their heart's content and a bit of sensible advice is what's wanted. No point is giving anyone an impossible list of requirements which he'll ignore. Anyone meggered or pat-tested their electric iron yet? Yet I bet that hundreds of them fray through and go pop every year.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

and, as I've said, DIYers are required to comply with Part P but (unlike you) are not obliged to comply fully with BS7671.

Is that a fact?

I never realised that.

 

[Spark123]

BS7671 is non-statutory so nobody has to comply with it. It however can be used in a court as a way of showing compliance with a statutory requirement.

If you contractually say you will be working to BS7671 then you have to.

 

[Electrifying]

and, as I've said, DIYers are required to comply with Part P but (unlike you) are not obliged to comply fully with BS7671.

Is that a fact?

I never realised that.

Yes, he's being clever because Part P is law, whereas BS7671 isn't...........but, truth be told, the chances of a DIYer complying with either of them is about as likely as finding the proverbial rocking horse poo!!

They'd have to get a copy of each and read the bloody thing first......what's the chances of that??

 

[JohnW2]

and, as I've said, DIYers are required to comply with Part P but (unlike you) are not obliged to comply fully with BS7671.

Is that a fact? I never realised that.

Yep. No-one is obliged by law to comply with BS7671. The only relevant law (in domestic situations), which everyone is required to obey, is Part P of the Building Regulations - which indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way (but not the only way) of satisfying the requirements Part P.

However, organisations which run self-certification schemes require that their registered members work fully in compliance with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Spark123]

They'd have to understand them all too and understand how to put it into practice! About as much chance as me winning the lottery

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Yep. No-one is obliged by law to comply with BS7671. The only relevant law (in domestic situations), which everyone is required to obey, is Part P of the Building Regulations - which indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way (but not the only way) of satisfying the requirements Part P.

However, organisations which run self-certification schemes require that their registered members work fully in compliance with BS7671.

Kind Regards, John.

Perhaps you would share some of the other ways that the DIY'er can satisfy the requirements Part P.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, he's being clever because Part P is law, whereas BS7671 isn't...........but, truth be told, the chances of a DIYer complying with either of them is about as likely as finding the proverbial rocking horse poo!!

As recently discussed, I think you're almost right if one includes testing requirements - although I suspect that in other respects many DIYers do comply with both. You also have the likes of me, and others in this forum, to factor in to your generalisations!

They'd have to get a copy of each and read the bloody thing first......what's the chances of that??

Again, you're probably right in what you imply - provided, again, that you're prepared to accept that I and a few others who frequent this forum are the exceptions who prove your rule To be fair, however, I think that a lot of the information/advice 'out there' for DIYers is such that, even if they have not read the regs and the legislation themselves, a lot of them do know what is required for at least simple DIY tasks - even if they 'fail' when it comes to testing.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Again, you're probably right in what you imply - provided, again, that you're prepared to accept that I and a few others who frequent this forum are the exceptions who prove your rule To be fair, however, I think that a lot of the information/advice 'out there' for DIYers is such that, even if they have not read the regs and the legislation themselves, a lot of them do know what is required for at least simple DIY tasks - even if they 'fail' when it comes to testing.

Kind Regards, John.

I hate 'kissing a**e' like this, but here goes :-

John, I don't class you as a DIYer - your knowledge far outreaches that category.


Christ, that was hard...........but as long as you're happy.

 

[JohnW2]

I hate 'kissing a**e' like this, but here goes :- John, I don't class you as a DIYer - your knowledge far outreaches that category. Christ, that was hard...........but as long as you're happy.

Thanks - but, believe me, it's difficult and embarassing for me, just as it is for you - and it certainly doesn't make me happy to be 'singled out'. However, although I am in some senses a 'special case', I'm far from alone/unique, even in this forum, so it's probably a little unfair to see as much generalising about 'DIYers' as we do.

Happy New Year!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

I thought the term diyer meant a person who practices 'Do It Yourself'.
This is as opposed to a qualified and practising professional.

 

[Electrifying]

I thought the term diyer meant a person who practices 'Do It Yourself'.
This is as opposed to a qualified and practising professional.

Funny you should say that..........at this moment in time I am doing some wiring in my kitchen - so what am I, a 'qualified and practising professional' or a DIYer??

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps you would share some of the other ways that the DIY'er can satisfy the requirements Part P.

Well, in the context of this thread, I think I already have done - by appealing to a common sense interpretation of the law - don't forget that it is judges and juries who make these calls, not BS7671-indoctrinated people ...

... in the sort of example we were discussing, imagine that there is an existing ring final circuit, about 30m in total length with 15 socket outlets, the cable being buried in walls, but not 50mm deep, which has no RCD protection. Even BS7671 accepts that this is 'OK' and that there is no need to rush out and upgrade it with an RCD so that it met what would be the requirements of BS7671:2008 Amd 1 (2011) for a new circuit.

A DIYer breaks the ring and inserts a 16th socket, entailing the addition of about 12" of new cable (again buried <50mm deep, in a 'safe zone'), the actual work all being undertaken 'competently'.

Part P of the Building Regs requires that 'reasonable provision' be made in the design and installation of the new socket to minimise the risk of fire or injury to persons. The prior ciruit was not considered unsafe, so I would hope a court would accept that 'reasonable provisions' had been taken if the additional socket and foot of cable had been incorporated in exactly the same manner as the remaining 15 sockets and 30m of cable, the actual wiring work having been undertaken competently.

Of course, I can't second guess the decision of courts, and therefore could be wrong - but what do you think? In my view, by wording Part P so loosely, the scene has been set for courts to apply common sense - and I hope they would. They may, of course. 'fail' the DIYer for not having tested the circuit adequately after the work, but that is a whole different discussion!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

I thought the term diyer meant a person who practices 'Do It Yourself'. This is as opposed to a qualified and practising professional.

I would say that it does mean precisely that - what is your point? However Electriying may view me, I fulfill my (and your) definition of a DIYer. My point, of course, was that generalisations which tar all 'DIYers' with the same brush are not necessarily always going to be fair.

Kind Regards, John.