Should Part P get scrapped?

[acmedone]

Part P is good. Part P must be followed by all including DIYers.

Indeed, since it's nothing more than a very general statement about the most basic of electrical common sense - i.e. that reasonable provision be made to avoid risks of fire and personal injury. Anyone not complying with that certainly should not be undertaking electrical work.

It is permitted for diyers to replace faulty sections of cable, replace faceplates and lights, and add extra lights or spurs in certain rooms without notification. The provision that it must be safe is covered and acknowledges that there are people that know the difference between red & black or blue & brown without a piece of paper to show they have attended a course.

Most of the nonsense comes when wanting to make minor changes in kitchens and bathrooms.

 

[JohnW2]

Can't help but think follow the money!
Who gains? Local Authorities obviously ... Registration bodies ... Training organisations

That's certainly a thought process which deserves consideration, but ...

Of course the latter two might just be represented on the groups that wrote the documents and are, after all, commercial organisations!

I guess you're thinking of BS7671 - but that's not really the issue. What we're talking about is legislation (Part P of the Building Regs) - so, if it were a case of 'follow the money', then the interested parties you mention would have had to make up some more credible reasons (e.g. 'public safety') to present to the legislators, since I really don't think that UK legislators would be prepared to create laws for the sole purpose of financially benefitting commercial organisations, at the cost of the general public!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

It is permitted for diyers to replace faulty sections of cable, replace faceplates and lights, and add extra lights or spurs in certain rooms without notification. The provision that it must be safe is covered and acknowledges that there are people that know the difference between red & black or blue & brown without a piece of paper to show they have attended a course.

The problem is that the very vague wording of Part P means that 'make reasonable provisions for safety...' is open to wide variations in interpretation. Some electricians will argue that, even for the 'minor' works that are not notifiable, making those 'reasonable provisions' requires testing which is beyond the facilities and/or knowledge of most DIYers - such that some/most DIY non-notifiable work may, in their eyes, fail to comply with Part P.

Most of the nonsense comes when wanting to make minor changes in kitchens and bathrooms.

I don't know about 'most', but there is certainly some nonsense (in Schedule 4) associated with such work.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I really don't think that UK legislators would be prepared to create laws for the sole purpose of financially benefitting commercial organisations, at the cost of the general public!

It may be difficult to quote an example where commercial profit was the sole reason.

However, most legislation brought about which causes the individual to pay a fee or for services would benefit the commercial organisation which monitored or implemented the new law.

All the privatisation of recent years has created commercial organisations which seem to be making more than enough profit.

 

[JohnW2]

It may be difficult to quote an example where commercial profit was the sole reason.

That was my point. As I went on to say, the legislators would presumably have had to be convinced (presumably by financially-interested parties) that there was (also) some more 'publically acceptable' reason for the legislation (e.g. 'public interest', probably in the form of 'public safety').

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ebee]

Look,
there does not seem to be all this bitching kicked up about gas.
you gotta be registered to do it or else.
everyone seems to accept that and the registered bods charge for it.

(OK what I just said is not totally true in itself but as a broad approximation of what many accept to be the case we will leave it as that for now).

If electrics were sewn up in a similar manner would a similar conception (or misconception) apply?

Perhaps it would.

I think the problem arises when you say "hang on we will relax it a bit and lets some DIY or unregistered to be done" then deciding what is reasonable in such circumstances. Then you get anomalies.

I think most LABCs would rather have nothing to do with electrics (or gas ) at all and leave it all to the schemes (including Corgi/Gas safe).

Likening the gas & electric certification schemes for a minute.
I know two persons who have both disciplines.
A also know about 30 people who know people who also have both disciplines.
Both the people I know and the people who know people sing from the same song sheet = of the two disciplines the electric is the most difficult & expensive of the two to get.

Plumbers/heating engineers are coining it in yet Electricians are not,

STRANGE?

 

[acmedone]

Some electricians will argue...

There does seem to be a difference in attitude between electricians I have met socially and those posting here.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you're talking about the figures for deaths due to 'dodgy electrical work', I don't doubt that they were very variable, pretty inaccurate and very small - so small that, in 'callous' but pragmatic terms, they were not really 'relevant' - and certainly not really large enough to justify legislation and a consequent 'bureacracy' in an attempt to reduce them.

Nothing to do with callousness - simple mathematical theory - they were not significant, and therefore no change in them was detectable.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the problem arises when you say "hang on we will relax it a bit and lets some DIY or unregistered to be done" then deciding what is reasonable in such circumstances. Then you get anomalies.

Of course - that is the problem and, as you say, not one which applies to the essentially 'no DIY' situation with gas ... or with aircraft servicing or whatever.

However, just because unlicensed/unregistered work on gas installations and aircraft is outlawed does not necessarily mean that the same should be the case with domestic electrical work. The decision has to be made on the basis of a risk assessment in relation to each type of work.

If it is true that, pre-Part P, there were only half a dozen or so deaths per year due to 'dodgy electrical work' (some of which was probably perpetrated by electricians), the case for any LABC control of electrical work on safety grounds would seem very weak. They are probably more deaths due to falling out of bed, or falling down stairs.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can't help but think follow the money!
Who gains?

Local Authorities obviously

No - they have distinguished themselves by trying to ignore and resist it - if it had been a revenue earner they would have behaved differently.

Unlike Planning, Building Regulations are national, not local - there is no legislative reason why any LABC could not "set up in business" and process applications from anywhere in the country.

Not one ever has - there has never been any money in it.

Registration bodies

They were the prime movers, and the way in which they subsequently prostituted themselves was shameful.

Training organisations

I suspect they all sprang up after the event.

 

[JohnW2]

Some electricians will argue...

There does seem to be a difference in attitude between electricians I have met socially and those posting here.

I have seen that argument presented by both electricians I have met socially and those who post here.

How about a survey for the electricians here? If, say, you extended an existing socket or lighting circuit (not in special location etc.), would you feel that in order to comply with Part P's requirement for "reasonable provisions to be made ... to avoid fire or injury", that you had to undertake any testing - and, if so, what? - and, hence, whether you feel that a 'standard DIYer' (without any appreciable testing knowledge/facilities) undertaking the same work (without any specialised testing) would be compliant with the requirements of Part P. ??

Kind Regards, John.

 

[acmedone]

If it is true that, pre-Part P, there were only half a dozen or so deaths per year due to 'dodgy electrical work' (some of which was probably perpetrated by electricians),

Presumably "dodgy electrical work" is likely to be of a sort where problems come to light very quickly (ie, the house burns down with the electrician still in it). How many are likely to be where the work was left apparently trouble free to begin with but bites back after several years?

 

[mattylad]

IMO if the government wants to improve the following of part P, in the conforming to the 17th then the 17th should be more readily available to the DIYr, then they can make an informed decision that in order to follow it they are out of their depth or they can follow it correctly leaving a safe electrical works which is what IMO the government created part P for.

Free the 17th.

 

[flameport]

However, just because unlicensed/unregistered work on gas installations and aircraft is outlawed does not necessarily mean that the same should be the case with domestic electrical work. The decision has to be made on the basis of a risk assessment in relation to each type of work.

In terms of risk, gas in most homes consists of a single appliance - the central heating boiler. Sometimes there will be a gas hob and maybe a gas fire. In any event, a very small number of items, and very little to go wrong or be tampered with.

Electricity is present in multiple locations in every room, outside, in the garage etc. It is also far more likely to injure persons, as it can't be detected without test equipment, and from the evidence on this website, most DIY persons do not even own a basic multimeter, yet seem perfectly happy to rip down light fittings and then find they have no idea where the wires should be connected.
There is the added problem of ancient and dangerous electrical installations which have not even been seen by electricians, simply because the property owners have done everything themselves.

If it is true that, pre-Part P, there were only half a dozen or so deaths per year due to 'dodgy electrical work' (some of which was probably perpetrated by electricians), the case for any LABC control of electrical work on safety grounds would seem very weak. They are probably more deaths due to falling out of bed, or falling down stairs.

There are. The number of deaths from faulty wiring is tiny. So is the number of deaths from faulty gas installations.
The real reason was to bring electrical installations in line with other notifiable services such as water, heating and gas.

Corgi (now Gas Safe) did a good job at convincing people that gas was dangerous (even if that isn't necessarily true), with the result that most people do not attempt gas work themselves. No equivalent exists for electrical work, and although there are plenty of ways to kill yourself with the electrical system in the average house, most people are happy to have a go at it anyway.
This won't change until DIY electrical work is banned.

 

[JohnW2]

Presumably "dodgy electrical work" is likely to be of a sort where problems come to light very quickly (ie, the house burns down with the electrician still in it).

I have no idea why you presume that. As you went on to imply, a high proportion of dodgy electrical work is quite likely to be undetected for years, only to show itself, and possibly kill, when some additional fault or set of circumstances comes into play many years down the road - things like absent bonding, CPC/earth faults, L/N reversals, broken ring finals, inappropriate ratings of OPDs and cables etc. etc.

Kind Regards, John.