Should Part P get scrapped?

[1john]

Every property in the land should have the following -

an intricate and expensive alarm which can tell if an electrical installation has been tampered with by a DIYer, this must be paid for by the homeowner including any ongoing running fee's, there would also be call out fees should the alarm be triggerer. Minimum wage for electricians should be at least £100 per hour or part there of and all electrical work in all properties must be carried out by such electricians, even if it is the changing of a plug top fuse or a light bulb.

All people moaning about "part p" or commenting on it should prove beforehand what it is and that they understand it fully before commenting!

Merry flippin Xmas!!

 

[JohnW2]

... 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.

That seems very likely but, if so, does it not beg the question as to why it is considered necessary to regulate work on any of these services? If the number of deaths is tiny (and the number of serious injuries probably not that high) is there really sufficient reason for what some people would call 'Big Brother' to show his face?

This won't change until DIY electrical work is banned.

To be really controversial, one could argue a case for all DIY work to permitted, without any notification/regulation, but to have a tight system of regulation (and a ban of self-certification) for work undertaken by professionals. If one undertakes DIY work, or even if one has work undertaken by someone one knows to be a 'DIYer', then one is implicitly accepting whatever risks that may invoke. However, if one has work undertaken by 'an electrician' (or whatever other tradesman), one really should have some reassurance that there are no risks - i.e. about the quality and competence (and safety) of the work - a reassurance which really requires something other than 'self-certification'. !!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Merry flippin Xmas!!

A bit late. Have you perhaps just awoken after a particularly good party on Christmas Eve?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[1john]

Merry flippin Xmas!!

A bit late. Have you perhaps just awoken after a particularly good party on Christmas Eve?

Kind Regards, John.

Sadly not, although it's a nice thought! Better late than never eh?!

John

 

[JohnW2]

Sadly not, although it's a nice thought! Better late than never eh?! John

Sure - as they say, it's the thought that counts - so a Merry Christmas to you, too!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

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.

610.4

For an addition or alteration to an existing installation, it shall be verified that the addition or alteration complies with the Regulations and does not impair the safety of the existing installation.

631.1

Upon completion of the verification of a new installation or changes to an existing installation, an Electrical Installation Certificate, based on the model given in Appendix 6, shall be provided.

631.3

Where minor electrical installation work does not include the provision of a new circuit, a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate, based on the model given in Appendix 6, may be provided for each circuit altered or extended, as an alternative to an Electrical Installation Certificate.

633.1

The requirements of Sections 631 and 632 for the issue of an Electrical Installation Certificate or a MEIWC shall apply to all the work of the additions or alterations.



So, John, in answer to your questions:

Yes, you would be required to undertake testing in your scenario - as a very minimum:


CPC continuity and polarity
Insulation Resistance
Earth Fault Loop Impedance
RCD operation (if the altered circuit is covered by an RCD)
Continuity and adequacy of installation earthing and bonding

You see, as the regulations require that, at minimum, a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate is completed for ANY electrical work, then you would have to complete the tests listed above......because the results are required on the certificate.

You should also read Section 2 of Approved Document P.

So, No, I don't see how DIYers with no knowledge of 'testing' can comply with anything.

 

[bernardgreen]

However, if one has work undertaken by 'an electrician' (or whatever other tradesman), one really should have some reassurance that there are no risks - i.e. about the quality and competence (and safety) of the work - a reassurance which really requires something other than 'self-certification'. !!

I totally agree with the need for reassurance that the tradesman is not going to create risks and/or hazards. The problem is how to get that reassurance in an accurate and reliable way.

After moving into a new ( to him ) house a friend had some work done by a "tradesman" and then heard some adverse comments about the "tradesman" so had the work inspected. When he went back to the "tradesman" to have the work corrected he discovers the "tradesman" had closed down his company and working for his wife's company. After a series of complaints from customers the wife's company ceased trading leaving more customers with poor and in some cases hazardous work unable to make any claim for compensation.

Eventually the LABC stopped accepting the tradesman's self certification that work done complied with the relevant parts of the regs.

 

[bernardgreen]

So, No, I don't see how DIYers with no knowledge of 'testing' can comply with anything.

True for quite a lot of work but not true for all work.

There are some jobs where testing is not essential. How many electricians do minor work like adding a socket and do not test the new cable other than a quick polarity and CPC continuity check. That is continuity and not impedance checking. Visual inspection is as important, maybe more important, than low current level testing.

One DIYer of my aquaintance checked every socket in his re-wire with a 3 Kw load and recorded the voltage drop to calculate the impedance of the circuit. The comment from the LABC was on the lines of "wish the professionals took the same care with their testing"

 

[ebee]

However, if one has work undertaken by 'an electrician' (or whatever other tradesman), one really should have some reassurance that there are no risks - i.e. about the quality and competence (and safety) of the work - a reassurance which really requires something other than 'self-certification'. !!

I totally agree with the need for reassurance that the tradesman is not going to create risks and/or hazards. The problem is how to get that reassurance in an accurate and reliable way.

After moving into a new ( to him ) house a friend had some work done by a "tradesman" and then heard some adverse comments about the "tradesman" so had the work inspected. When he went back to the "tradesman" to have the work corrected he discovers the "tradesman" had closed down his company and working for his wife's company. After a series of complaints from customers the wife's company ceased trading leaving more customers with poor and in some cases hazardous work unable to make any claim for compensation.

Eventually the LABC stopped accepting the tradesman's self certification that work done complied with the relevant parts of the regs.

Bernard,
was this "Tradesman" running Ltd Co`s and was he registered thru a scheme ?

 

[bernardgreen]

Bernard,
was this "Tradesman" running Ltd Co`s and was he registered thru a scheme ?

From memory I think it was limited company and a scheme was involved but I will have to check on that.

 

[Electrifying]

There are some jobs where testing is not essential.

Only replacement of accesories or luminaires.

How many electricians do minor work like adding a socket and do not test the new cable other than a quick polarity and CPC continuity check.

Then they shouldn't be calling themselves electricians..

It would not normally be just the new cable that required testing.

If they extend and add a socket to, say, a Ring Final, then it would be necessary to do the full Ring Fnal Continuity Test.........what if they inadvertently cause a break in the existing Ring Final whilst adding their new cable and socket?........they would have no idea by just testing continuity on their new section of cable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

You'd need to find a way to make the price cheaper for DIYers, and that could fairly easily be done - lower the price for one-off copies sold by the IET.

1) Make it a requirement for the competent person schemes to supply copies of BS 7671, The OSG, and a CD of the Guidance Notes to each member on initial registration and at each renewal if there had been changes. Deals that size could be provided at a lower overall cost than that of the current list price of each publication, so overall each member pays less than he would otherwise have done. The fact that his purchase of the publications is bundled into his scheme fees would mean that he'd have no incentive to buy a reduced price copy.

2) Multiple copy purchases by training organisations, companies etc could be charged at the normal price.

 

[acmedone]

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.

In the good old days I was standing in a queue in a shop selling electrical supplies and overheard a conversation between the manager and another customer. The customer seemed to be unsure about extending a lighting circuit. The manager "there are only 3 faults - the light will not switch off, it will not switch on or the fuse will blow". Good stuff.

Apart from basic wiring faults - screw terminals that don't grip the conductor (open circuit), shorted conductors, swapped conductors - which can be checked by inspection and simple instruments, I am willing to bet that the cases of faults (other than damp tracking) on a new installation only found by a stress test is vanishingly small. Even then, if such a fault is found, what are the long term problems if left uncorrected?

Is it more a case of we can test things now that was more difficult years ago therefore we must?

 

[Electrifying]

Apart from basic wiring faults - screw terminals that don't grip the conductor (open circuit), shorted conductors, swapped conductors - which can be checked by inspection and simple instruments, I am willing to bet that the cases of faults (other than damp tracking) on a new installation only found by a stress test is vanishingly small. Even then, if such a fault is found, what are the long term problems if left uncorrected?

Is it more a case of we can test things now that was more difficult years ago therefore we must?

To carry on mine and John's example of adding a socket to a ring final circuit - a very simple job within itself.

So the DIYer taps into an existing socket, runs 6 metres of cable and installs his new double socket outlet.

He now has to get three 2.5mm conductors into two of the existing socket terminals - he squeezes them in and tightens as hard as he can to keep them all in place.

Not realising he's crushed one of the existing 'Line' conductor ends to the point of breaking, he forces the socket face back onto the back box...........snapping the 'line' conductor where it enters the terminal.

If he doesn't do a RFC continuity test and leaves this fault undetected, then you could have an overloaded leg of the ring final.........all over one tiny oversight and then not testing your work!!

That's just one example - all electrical work should be tested in compliance with the regulations - otherwise, why bother following the 'Regs' at all...........might as well just do as you please.

 

[mattylad]

You'd need to find a way to make the price cheaper for DIYers, and that could fairly easily be done - lower the price for one-off copies sold by the IET.

Even simpler - publish it online like all the other regs we have to obey rather than have it sold by a private party.

This would be updated when required at public expense.