Should Part P get scrapped?

[Electrifying]

To reiterate, in case you missed or misread my post,...

...i would, as a matter of course, test the Ring to ensure all was in order before adding any spurs, accessories etc.

My confusion was where to do any tests, after the work, without being in the same position after those tests.
There will obviously be a final part to be reassembled - how can it be assured that this has been done correctly without a further test somewhere else which then becomes a subsequent final part?

Well, that would apply to any testing - e.g. RFC tests on a new build - you still have to terminate the conductors in the CU afterward.

To be honest, Zs testing at each socket would then give you readings that implied that all was well when compared with your R1 +R2 - along with visually checking your terminations in the CU on completion.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, that would apply to any testing - e.g. RFC tests on a new build - you still have to terminate the conductors in the CU afterward.

Exactly - and that's what introduces the dilemma. Any testing which involves disconnecting and then re-terminating conductors carries the same risks of poor connection (or reversed, or otherwise incorrect, connections in some cases) as does 'the work' that has been undertaken. You seem to be assuming that one is less likely to create unsatisfactory or incorrect connections when re-connecting conductors after tests than when connecting conductors as part of 'the work' - what makes you assume that?

Albeit at a much smaller level, Mr Heisenburg and/or his Principle would have seen some familiar concepts here!!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Well, that would apply to any testing - e.g. RFC tests on a new build - you still have to terminate the conductors in the CU afterward.

Exactly - and that's what introduces the dilemma. Any testing which involves disconnecting and then re-terminating conductors carries the same risks of poor connection (or reversed, or otherwise incorrect, connections in some cases) as does 'the work' that has been undertaken. You seem to be assuming that one is more less likely to create unsatisfactory or incorrect connections when re-connecting conductors after tests than when connecting conductors as part of 'the work' - what makes you assume that?
Albeit at a much smaller level, Mr Heisenburg and/or his Principle would have seen some familiar concepts here!!

Kind Regards, John.

I'm not assuming anything of the kind - but terminating conductors in a CU after testing and then visually inspecting those terminations for tightness etc. is a lot less of a risk than jamming three 2.5mm cables and associated conductors into the back of a socket outlet and then forcing the faceplate on.

I had an incident on a recent job where we had a FCU off a ring final to feed a cooker hood.

On fixing the faceplate back on, I had (unknown to me), tightend the accesory screw down on the RFC neutral conductor - it just nicked the insulation.

Fortunately, as I carry out full testing on my installs, this showed up immediately on my IR test.

Mistakes are easily made - which is why we test.

 

[westie101]

We have much the same dilemma when testing HV circuits with connected transformers, usually we have to disconnect the primary winding at all sites prior to testing as we need to be able to test phase to phase.
More recent cable designs and a risk assessment based approach means that in individually assessed cases we can vary the procedure.

 

[JohnW2]

... You seem to be assuming that one is more less likely to create unsatisfactory or incorrect connections when re-connecting conductors after tests than when connecting conductors as part of 'the work' - what makes you assume that?

I'm not assuming anything of the kind - but terminating conductors in a CU after testing and then visually inspecting those terminations for tightness etc. is a lot less of a risk than jamming three 2.5mm cables and associated conductors into the back of a socket outlet and then forcing the faceplate on.

With respect, you certainly do seem to be making that assumption (that re-terminating in CU 'is less of a risk' than faults in the new work). However, you now give an explanation of the reasoning behind that assumption - and I agree that the reasoning makes sense.

However, the fact remains that, even if unlikely, it remains possible that re-termination of conductors after testing could result in persisting faults. Depending on the nature and extent of your subsequent live tests, you might, for example, not pick up a poor re-termination to the CU's neutral bar.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

... I should have added that we seem to be sliding further and further away from the point I made which seems to have started all this - namely that Part P effectively outlaws most non-notifiable DIY work, since the great majority of DIYers can't or won't undertake the testing which I think most of us are agreed (give or take some debate about the nature/extent of that testing) is required in order to satisfy Part P.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[acmedone]

I had an incident on a recent job where we had a FCU off a ring final to feed a cooker hood.

On fixing the faceplate back on, I had (unknown to me), tightend the accesory screw down on the RFC neutral conductor - it just nicked the insulation.

Fortunately, as I carry out full testing on my installs, this showed up immediately on my IR test.

Mistakes are easily made - which is why we test.

This would be an obvious short circuit which a diyer with a cheap multimeter could find just as easily as someone with an expensive IR tester.

I have yet to be convinced that domestic electrical installation is a particular "art" that can produce faults which inhabit some murky grey zone; faults are either in plain view or non-existent. It's a simple low voltage, low frequency system after all, totally unlike, say, microwaves. Even compared to car electrics or PC motherboard, the currents going through house wiring are not that big a deal.

 

[Gees]

I had an incident on a recent job where we had a FCU off a ring final to feed a cooker hood.

On fixing the faceplate back on, I had (unknown to me), tightend the accesory screw down on the RFC neutral conductor - it just nicked the insulation.

Fortunately, as I carry out full testing on my installs, this showed up immediately on my IR test.

Mistakes are easily made - which is why we test.

This would be an obvious short circuit which a diyer with a cheap multimeter could find just as easily as someone with an expensive IR tester.

I have yet to be convinced that domestic electrical installation is a particular "art" that can produce faults which inhabit some murky grey zone; faults are either in plain view or non-existent. It's a simple low voltage, low frequency system after all, totally unlike, say, microwaves. Even compared to car electrics or PC motherboard, the currents going through house wiring are not that big a deal.

Yes but unlike a car or a PC motherboard mains voltages can kill.
I agree that its hardly "rocket science", How can it be that complex as there are very few if any "active" components is a domestic installation.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes but unlike a car or a PC motherboard mains voltages can kill.

Mains voltages (and appreciably lower ones) indeed can, and do, kill. However, in the context of this thread, I think there is a need to get this into perspective.

There are 30 or so deaths per year in the UK due to electric shock. More than half of those are 'industrial' and/or otherwise related to workplaces or victims from the electrical trades. I suspect that a substantial proportion of the 'domestic' deaths result from overt foolishness/stupidity on the part of the victim (including electrical DIYers), or the ignorance of children.

Of the tiny number of domestic deaths due to electric shock which remain, I can't help but wonder how many (if any) are due to faults/errors in electrical installations that would/could have been detected by prior testing.

There are, of course, also some deaths due to fires of electrical origin (some of which may originate in cars or computer mobos!). As discussed here before, the statistics about this are poor (most of the fires reported as 'electrical' probably being due to misuse/abuse of heating appliances) but again seem to suggest very small numbers - so, again, one wonders how many (if any) would have been avoided by prior testing of the electrical system.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ebee]

I think we might agree there are as few deaths that could be down to things that Part P might prevent if working properly. Just one death is one too many.

Most of us wish the cost of joining a scheme was a lot less and ditto with courses and exams too.

Many of us have no objection in our work and methods being scrutinised by a third party.

What we do object to is the lack of a level playing field and a lack of publicity.

The only people being policed are the people who are trying to do the right thing in the first place.

There are quite a few Electrical Death Traps out there.
Some could be eliminated.

Like with cars though, you could be driving a death trap for years and not actually get killed by it. Nevertheless you would not like to be driving one or be a passenger or be a pedestrian near it either.

All DIY work should be banned completely or alternatively it should all be allowed and notifiable and the cost proportionate to the number of inspections required to get it right and the time of the LABC inspector or the qualified person on their behalf, either at cost or with a small element of profit.

 

[bernardgreen]

Would it be feasible for the LABC to keep the necessary test equipment together with detail instructions on its use for loan to DIYers to test their work. With a bit of cunning design of the test procedure the LABC could detect whether the tests had been properly carried out from the results supplied by the DIYer.

The possibility of a fault being introduced during the reconnections after testing has to be considered. It has always puzzled ( concerned ) me that connections are allowed to be made after testing has been completed with "safety" dependent on those last (re)connections being made properly. It is not rocket science to test a system with all connections in place but is a bit complex and requires more than just a volt meter and simple resistance measurement equipment.

As to should Part P be removed.. No it must remain and be enforced but then all parts of the building regs need to be better enforced during the work. Foundations and drains tend to get full attention from the LABC as they are are expensive to re-work when they fail under the weight of the building and collapsing buildings really are dangerous. Loft conversions need to be ( in general ) far better controlled as to whether they conform to the submitted plans that LABC have approved. Timber beams substituted for the specified steel beams being one "trick" builders use to cut costs.

Perhaps Part P could be extended that DIYers must submit a planned and calculated design to the LABC before starting work. These could be on planning sheets produced by the LABC that are pre-printed with the formulas needed to calculate the design. That would help the DIYer realise the depth of design needed and the potential hazards of a bad design. It will nothing to reduce the amount of intentionally{/b] bodged work where the person has no interest in safety but is only interested in getting the function at the lowest cost ( highest profit for cowboys ).

 

[martinxxxxxx]

On fixing the faceplate back on, I had (unknown to me), tightend the accesory screw down on the RFC neutral conductor - it just nicked the insulation.

Fortunately, as I carry out full testing on my installs, this showed up immediately on my IR test.

Mistakes are easily made - which is why we test.

The RCD would have tripped in this case, even if you had not tested

This is a tongue in cheek quote. I fully value testing, in the case above it may not have tripped the RCD straight away and then for a future electrician it would have been a pain to trace what was causing the RCD to trip when it did happen.

In other words a perfect example for the value of testing

 

[SimonH2]

Just one death is one too many.

Sorry, but that's the sort of wooly thinking that gets us into such a mess with overly prescriptive regulations/restrictions.

Remember that so far, for thousands of years, life has been 100% fatal for everyone. It's a simple fact - you are going to die sometime, so am I, so is everyone else reading this thread. As with most safety issues, there are "easy pickings" which give good improvements at minimal cost; but after that each incremental improvement gets progressively harder/more costly and as indicated already, you can get to a point where the measures introduce as much (or more) risk as the risk they are supposed to avoid.

IMO, "Part P" & Schedule 4 are already a little past that point - although some of the issues are because the actual regs are so poorly understood (and some in the trade have a vested interest in not correcting that confusion). Take a really simple example :
Little old granny is a bit short of sockets, and so to put <something> where she wants it means running a flex/extension lead across a doorway. Her son/grandson/nephew/whatever offers to add a socket for her, but they've heard that it's now illegal. She decides not to pay for a qualified electrician to do it, she is after all, struggling to both stay warm and eat on her pension.

One day she trips over the cable, is seriously injured by the fall, and dies.

It won't ever appear in the not-kept statistics of deaths caused (directly or indirectly) by "Part P", and so no-one will ever know if Part P is doing more good than harm or not.

Alternative scenario, son/grandson/nephew/whatever does fit the extra socket, but because they believe it's illegal they are scared to ask for advice. Or they may ask for advice on a forum like this and be put off by a response from someone like B-A-S. The socket doesn't get fitted properly, and for whatever reason, at some point granny is electrocuted or dies in the fire.

Again, a death that's indirectly had "Part P' as a contributory factor, but which will never be recorded as such.

Would it be feasible for the LABC to keep the necessary test equipment together with detail instructions on its use for loan to DIYers to test their work.

Ha, Ha - that's a good one. Can't you just imagine how often it will come back broken ? And it means that you'll need LABC staff at every office with the skills to test the equipment every time it goes out and every time it comes back. Not to mention the repair costs every time if comes back faulty. Sorry, but I've seen the results of loan schemes, and I've seen how some people treat even their own tools
[/quote]Perhaps Part P could be extended that DIYers must submit a planned and calculated design to the LABC before starting work. These could be on planning sheets produced by the LABC that are pre-printed with the formulas needed to calculate the design. That would help the DIYer realise the depth of design needed and the potential hazards of a bad design. It will nothing to reduce the amount of intentionally bodged work where the person has no interest in safety but is only interested in getting the function at the lowest cost ( highest profit for cowboys ).[/quote]
For that to be any use, you'd need to do away with the exemptions in Schedule 4. Given the exorbitant cost of LABC minor works processing, that would just exacerbate the problem and result in more "hidden" work happening.

Here's a (completely fictitious, honest guv ) example from a different area - one that is very tightly regulated. Person A owns a share in a 4 seat light aircraft, where regulations are very tight - he isn't even allowed to change a light bulb under the regs as they applied at the time to this aircraft. The sockets for the rear seat headsets have been a problem for some time - they are mounted in the "cardboard" trim panels and flex, breaking off the wires. Each time, the "engineers" fix it by re-attaching the wires with a hot poker (at least, that was A's assessment of their soldering ability. Since A was quite experienced with electronics, he was "rather annoyed" at the group spending £70/hr for the engineers to keep bodging it in this way.
So one Sunday, he flies off to a quiet airfield where a good lunch is served in the adjacent hotel/restaurant. While he's there, he fixes them properly, with some small plates to make the sockets better fixed, and fixing the wires so the solder terminations don't get flexed all the time. After which, no more trouble for the next few years until the aircraft got sold.
A was happy, the other group members were happy (though most weren't aware of the circumstances), the engineers were happy (ignorance is bliss) - absolutely no safety risk, but completely illegal under overly strict regulations.

Now regulation is being taken over by EASA (European Aviation Safety Administration), other countries look at the "lax" regulatory regime in the UK with horror - most other countries involved take a view that "more regulation = more safety" when nothing could be further from the truth. Believe it or not, some of their proposals with require pilots to choose between legal and safe since there are circumstances where they are mutually exclusive. This is because there have been a tiny, tiny number of incidents, so they apply the Just one death is one too many approach with no thought as to the way things would work in the real world.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I knew someone once who had a light plane, and was a great fan of using farmer's strips, or indeed any flat bit of land he could find, largely because he was very much not a fan of landing fees. (Or avgas prices, but that's another story.)

Some of the strips he used were a leeetle bit short....

A highly non-compliant nitrous oxide injection system took care of that though. He reckoned it was worth the aggro of removing it each year for the inspection.

 

[JohnW2]

On fixing the faceplate ....

Oh no he didn't!

The RCD would have tripped in this case, even if you had not tested This is a tongue in cheek quote. I fully value testing, in the case above it may not have tripped the RCD straight away and then for a future electrician it would have been a pain to trace what was causing the RCD to trip when it did happen.

Obviously not impossible but, assuming there were some other loads on the installation at the time the new circuit was energised, I would suggest extremely unlikely - I bet that, even if you delberately tried, you would be very hard pressed to create a fault by screwing into the insulation of a neutral conductor that was detectable by IR testing but not low enough impedance to result in an RCD operating. Even if the insulation had been damaged, if there were not enough of a N/E path to trip an RCD, it is extremely probable that IR testing would reveal nothing at that time - so, if IR testing were undertaken (in a situtaion in which the RCD was not operating), it would probably give a sense of false reassurance (in the presence of a persiting fault) rather than anything else.

Kind Regards, John.