Should Part P get scrapped?

[JohnW2]

... But because they simply don't know any of that and don't even realise it. The real solution lies in education.

I certainly agree with the first sentence. However, I think that education would only be the answer if (as I assume is the aim of a lot of advice you give) an understanding of what was required resulted in a substantial proportion, probably a large majority, of potential DIYers deciding that electrical DIY was not for them - since I don't think it reasonable or realistic to expect that most of those who undertake minor electrical DIY could or would get themselves 'educated' to the required extent.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

....At least with gas the news reports of houses blown apart and collapsing tower blocks has made most of the population aware of the dangers of mis use and poor installation of gas equipment. How can the dangers of of mis use and poor installation of electrical equipment be "educated" into the minds of people ?.

I'm obviously sympathetic to the idea of educating the public about any dangers - but, putting it into perspective, in view of the seemingly very low level of the dangers to which you refer, I suppose one has to ask to what extent such education is 'necessary' or 'cost-effective' (in the broadest of senses). After all, you have just written (and I agree):

As others have said the number of deaths from dangerous DIY electrical work seems to be insignificant compared to deaths from bodged work in other trades, work by both DIYers and "professional" tradesmen having resulted in death, injury or serious damage to property.

... and I think that applies to all electrical work, not just 'dangerous DIY electrical work'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. Mine majors on values between 0.01Ω and 5Ω. and 0.1MΩ to 500MΩ, with a few others.

Not built yet (got all the parts except the round tuit):
0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 10, 100, 1K, 250K, 500K, 1M, 200M, 500M, 1GΩ

Similar minds, even if you are a decade or two behind me

... checking the loop impedance testing functionality of an MFT (or dedicated loop tester) is obviously not quite as simple as just having a resistance box - but, as I said, was not difficult to implement with the combination of an inverter and a 'resistance box' arrangement.

POP if you have a non-RCD socket available in your house.
Have a socket in the box with a 1Ω resistor switchable into the earth path, and check that your loop test result changes by 1Ω each time.

I did consider that, but it obviously does not give complete reassurance about the accuracy of the absolute measurements being obtained. A meter could pass your test (with any value of switchable resistance) even if all the measurements being obtained had a fixed offset from the truth.

You can also fit a switchable RCD into the box as well.

One could, but for what purpose?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[acmedone]

But because they simply don't know any of that and don't even realise it.

The real solution lies in education.

True, the "education" of the masses about electrical safety is very poor if not non existant. But would education have any real result in improving the situation.

The thing is, electricity is easy. Mains electricity requires respect and care, certainly, but there is a big difference between abiding by the letter of the rules and an installation that is so incompetent it is a physical danger. (It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous.)

Car users are "educated" to know that cars have to have an MOT and be road worthy but few if any have any idea what makes a car safe.

Everyone accepts that a car is dangerous device. And the rules are fairly good at finding things that are genuine safety issues.

 

[JohnW2]

Mains electricity requires respect and care, certainly, but there is a big difference between abiding by the letter of the rules and an installation that is so incompetent it is a physical danger. (It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous.)

Yes, I think that's an important point. Most of the issues one sees discused in places like this which are 'deviations from the letter of the rules' are design issues which, although often theoretically representing a safety concern, carry an incredibly low risk of ever resulting in any problem. Even many of the things which most here would probably regard as 'major issues' are, in practice, extremely unlikely to ever result in any problem or harm - things like multiple sockets on an unfused spur of a ring final, moderately under-sized cables (due to lack of consideration of de-rating factors) etc. etc.

I would suspect that, in practice, the greater (albeit still very small) true risks associated with incompetent work are more likely to be due to to the lack of skills/knowledge/experience in relation to execution (e.g. how to terminate conductors properly/safely), rather than to the design issues that provoke most of the discussion.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

The thing is, electricity is easy. Mains electricity requires respect and care, certainly, but there is a big difference between abiding by the letter of the rules and an installation that is so incompetent it is a physical danger.

This is an oxymoron

(It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous.)

That is a stupid statement - I think you're in a wind up mood!!
Let me assure you it is extremely easy to make an installation potentially and/or actually dangerous.
Out to a job this morning - "my garage lights have stopped working!!!"
Cause stupid ****in plumber had hack sawed through the live and switch live cables when installing some pipe work - forgot to tell the owner that he had done so leaving live cables exposed.
While there I asked the owner to check his electric shower - yep he had done that one as well.

 

[JohnW2]

... there is a big difference between abiding by the letter of the rules and an installation that is so incompetent it is a physical danger.

This is an oxymoron

As written, perhaps, but if you change 'physical' to 'significant', then (IMO)the statement would have more than a small element of truth in it.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The thing is, electricity is easy.

That depends on what you mean by 'easy'.

Is it because all you need is a screwdriver and a pair of scissors?
Is it because you know how to do it?
Is it because you think you know how to do it?
Is it because if you get something wrong the fuse?breaker will disconnect?

Do you know how to test to determine if the fuse/breaker will disconnect in the required time to avoid fire and danger?

Mains electricity requires respect and care, certainly, but there is a big difference between abiding by the letter of the rules and an installation that is so incompetent it is a physical danger. (It's probably quite difficult to make something that's potentially or actually dangerous.)

Well, actually, either intentionally or by mistake, it is extremely easy.

The trouble is your mistake is unlikely to show up until something else goes wrong.

 

[ericmark]

You will always get people who will do daft things. I could not believe it when an alarm was fitted at work to find the SELV cables on my tray work. So much for 300mm separation.

But Part P only required notification in special areas. So it will not make any difference to most of the sub-standard work done by the DIY man or woman. And even in the special areas will the DIY man really worry about the law? In the main no so Part P does very little to protect occupiers of domestic premises from DIY mania.

Part P does however mean those electricians working on domestic premises have to become members of a scheme which will lay down rules for it's members to follow which in the main means safer installations.

However unlike the gas it's not the electrician who is tested but the firm and to tell a guy who works on electrics in houses every day that if he wants to work on his own house he needs to pay LABC over £100 just to have a little bit of paper signed is OTT.

If like gas it was only people charging for there work which are required to be registered then maybe but as it stands it is used to get people who can least afford it to deal with cow boys and also stop them complaining when it all goes wrong.

Human nature means offering to do work on the side with no vat or Part P at a reduced rate gets the cow boys work. It also means when it goes wrong the house holder is afraid to report the cow boy as he has also broken the law. So what Part P has done is given the cow boys a wall to hide behind. Clearly not what it was designed to do. The OTT LABC charges have killed what might have been a good system and now it's useless and all it does is drain money out of peoples pockets.

So yes it needs scrapping. Not because the idea was wrong. But because it can't be policed so is useless.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So yes it needs scrapping. Not because the idea was wrong. But because it can't be policed so is useless.

That just about sums it up.

 

[JohnW2]

So yes it needs scrapping. Not because the idea was wrong. But because it can't be policed so is useless.

It's hard to argue with that - or, at least, to say that since it's achieving little/nothing positive, is being ignored by many/most of those who it was 'intended' to contol, and effectively is not being policed/enforced, it doesn't make much difference whether it's scrapped or not.

Of course, it will never be scrapped, since it is part of an attempt to bring regulation of all aspects of 'building' (in the widest sense) into alignment (and repealing any law seeming exisiting in the interests of public safety would be politically difficult). The title of this thread is therefore probably wrong. If there is to be a debate, it should probably be about how Part P (particularly the implementation of Part P) could/should be changed/improved, not about the fanciful notion that it would ever be 'scrapped'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[mattylad]

It has scared a lot off, people now say that they are not allowed to do anything so dont. (even though they can do some stuff).

Some of us just ignore it anyway so still do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I did consider that, but it obviously does not give complete reassurance about the accuracy of the absolute measurements being obtained. A meter could pass your test (with any value of switchable resistance) even if all the measurements being obtained had a fixed offset from the truth.

Could it?

Would it fail in that way?

If, freshly calibrated, your switchable resistance is faithfully recorded would it continue to be faithfully recorded if the meter had drifted?

One could, but for what purpose?

For the purpose of tracking the performance of your RCD tester.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The OTT LABC charges ...

Can you make a case for the council tax payer subsidising DIYers and tradesmen who choose not to register?

And what about 6 (3) of The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010?

 

[JohnW2]

I did consider that, but it obviously does not give complete reassurance about the accuracy of the absolute measurements being obtained. A meter could pass your test (with any value of switchable resistance) even if all the measurements being obtained had a fixed offset from the truth.

Could it? Would it fail in that way? If, freshly calibrated, your switchable resistance is faithfully recorded would it continue to be faithfully recorded if the meter had drifted?

Very unlikely, but theoretically possible if the loop impedance being measured was not the same every time the meter was checked.

However, it's so unlikley that you would get seemingly unchanging results despite meter drift that I agree that your method would be reasonable if all one wanted to do was to undertake serial checks on the same meter to monitor any changes in results. What put me off that approach is that I wanted my box to also be able to to give a reasonable indication of whether an 'unknown meter' was giving accurate absolute results - and that requires a series of 'known loop impedances' to check the meter with; your method (even with multiple switchable resistances) would only confirm a linear relationship between reported and true loop impedances, without detecting any systematic difference.

One could, but for what purpose?

For the purpose of tracking the performance of your RCD tester.

That would rely on the built in 'reference RCD' maintaining its behaviour from check to check, which is surely an iffy assumption. You might just as well look for serial changes in the RCD tester's results with one of the RCDs in your home - which would be equally iffy. In either case any observed changes would be as likely to be due to the RCD as the tester, wouldn't they?

Kind Regards, John.