Part P - second requirement

[Dippy]

I am currently creating an extensive document about my own domestic installation as a permanent record of all the work I do on it (so it will include all my detailed inspection comments, test results, copy of the PIR etc). I'm doing this for my own benefit, because it is good engineering practice, and most of all because it will help me in designing future changes. I have prepared wiring diagrams based on the inspection and testing which give me a good idea about what is connected to what when I need to plan changes.

However I also note that the second requirement of part P is:

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

Now I suppose that operation and maintenance can be done with reasonable safety through having a PIR and proper labelling. However I remain doubtful that any non-minor alteration can be done with reasonable safety without having a lot more information.

So out of interest what sort of additional documentation do other people do?

 

[davy_owen_88]

IIRC P2 was scrapped so don't worry about it

 

[Adam_151]

Requirement P2 was actually removed in the April 2006 appendment to the building regs

Note that BS7671 requires a circuit schedule (protective device, conductor sizes, wiring system, points served, description, etc) next to the DB. BS7671 is undoubtedly what you'll be working to in order to meet P1

 

[Dippy]

Thanks for letting me know - I didn't think to check! However as Adam points out, the removal of P2 doesn't remove the fact that BS7671 requires said documentation at or near the DB.

I have several friends who have bought houses which were built after the introduction of part P, and none of them have received anything even vaguely resembling a circuit diagram or schedule.

No problem, it doesn't affect me, it just seems strange that's all.

 

[Softus]

I have several friends who have bought houses which were built after the introduction of part P, and none of them have received anything even vaguely resembling a circuit diagram or schedule.

Non-compliance with BS7671 isn't an offence.

 

[fattony]

but non complience with part p is, where is the logic

 

[Softus]

The logic is that an installation still has to be safe, and the common way of achieving that is to adhere to BS7671. If you don't complete BS7671 paperwork then the LABC will want to know how you're claiming safety of installation. I was simply making the point that BS7671 is not a legal requirement. Yet.
________________

Edit: corrected a typo spotted by ricile.

 

[ricicle]

I was simply making the point that BS7671 is NOT a legal requirement. Yet.

 

[fattony]

fair play

 

[Softus]

I was simply making the point that BS7671 is NOT a legal requirement. Yet.

Oh a*se.

Just a tick...