O.K., I've found a way to be able to do any work in your home without having to comply with part P and without having to notify the local council.

The addition to the Building Regulations adding part P specifies that it applies to all low- and extra-low-voltage electrical systems.

So........

Just install a big transformer at the service entrance, then run everything around the house at, say, 625 volts to outlets.

Problem solved!

Like your thinking Paul

How is the limit defined? I think the LVD applies to everything below 1000VAC / 1500VDC. (So far, the ELV area (below 50V?) is also unregulated)

The LV limit for AC is now defined as 1000V between conductors, or 600V between any conductor and earth, hence my choice of 625 volts! (DC limits are 1500 and 900V.)

ELV is covered by the new part P as well. The AC limit is defined as not exceeding 50V, either between conductors or to earth.

In the actual Statutory Instrument, the DC definition of ELV is rather incomplete to my way of thinking. It just says not exceeding 120V between conductors, no mention of p.d. relative to earth.

Look,
At the end of the day, you fella's are just going to have to swallow Part P and live with it.
As in that I'm saying we didn't like the changes we had here either, but we've learned to live with them!.
It didn't sell us down the creek, we can still make a living and a darned good one at that.
Having said that, the local Council has never had a say in any Electrical Installations here, apart from Fire Alarms.
And personally I'd say they should keep to thier mandate of rubbish collections and Storm-water disposal, that's what I pay my Rates for!.

I understand what you're trying to say Mike, but the whole thing has just been a complete shambles from the beginning (like everything else this present administration has interfered with).

I've been reading through comments on the IEE Forum and from various other boards, and it seems that everybody who has asked their local council about the implementation of part P has been told, in effect, "We have no idea." Remember that this is due to become law in little over a week's time.

As you know, I'm not doing wiring work every day of the week. I certainly cannot justify the fees for joining one of the recognized schemes for self-certification. So compliance with the new law is down to notification of works to the local council. As you saw from the response I received from them a few weeks ago, they have nothing in place yet to deal with it.

Those officials who have suggested any sort of system for test and inspection in their area seem to be saying that it will be under their present scale of building inspection charges, at least to begin. I've seen charges quoted ranging from £60 up to £200 to £500 for larger projects.

I do a lot of small jobs in this area for low-income families, pensioners struggling on their meager payments, etc.

So next time I do a quick job of installing an extra socket in a kitchen for, say, an old lady in the village, am I supposed to tell her that it will be £30 for me but she'll have to hand over an extra £60 for the council inspector?

We dont have Part P here. According to Belfast City Council it will be on the long finger. So we have the luxury of hindsight should it become law in Northern Ireland.
Paul, I appreciate your altruistic considerations but the cost will have to be paid by the customer. At least to some extent it will be a level pitch (for those who choose to operate within the law!).

Is that an Irish expression?

I guess it means N.I. is only thinking about the possibility of introducing similar rules at some unspecified point in the future ?

As for the cost having to be paid by the customer, I have to ask whether that will happen. If we try to stay within the law but the cost is going to be grossly inflated because of that, then people who might otherwise have paid to have the job done will make other arrangements, e.g.

1. Not bother at all, and just fit 4-way extension sockets to walls and drape cords everywhere.

2. Have a go themselves, even if they're not sure what they're doing (maybe not the little old lady, but some will).

3. Ask Uncle ****** or Nephew ****** to do it, because he "knows a bit about wiring."

Remind me again, part P is supposed to be about improving safety of electrical systems, right?

Paul, dont know the source of "on the long finger" but you guessed correct.
I respect your views with regards to Part P. You have highlighted some of the major disadvantages. However, taken in a general sense, I think when the dust settles, Part P will be a definite improvement.

Possibly a slight improvement...

The only real difference that will be seen at the outset will be any building work subject to B-regs ( and thus inspection ), and possibly the sale of property.

It will not stop the "be-spurred" members of the public doing work for others, or those doing it for themselves either. How can it, unless there is some other reason for notification?

I'm with Paul on this; it will lead to an increase in Heath-Robinson circumvention without changing a damn thing. Maybe eventually we might see changes - but not for years, and certainly not whilst the likes of "Bodge-&-Quack" are selling everything neede for a complete rewire to anyone who shows them the money...

I'd go as far as to say that any marginal improvement in safety in some areas is quite likely to be offset in other areas as people find out about the new rules and work around them (i.e. ignore them).

Here's what I believe will happen:

* Employed electricians working full-time on major projects, almost certainly NICEIC registered already, and getting good money will be covered by one of the self-certification schemes. Most are already carrying out safe, compliant work, and will continue to do so. There will be no improvement in safety, but there will be an increase in costs to their customers to cover the additional expenses.

* Small outfits are in a tougher position. Do they come up with the high fees to join and maintain certification in one of the approved schemes, or do they go down the notification route? For self-certification, they will (eventually, if not immediately) have to increase their charges to cover the costs, so the customer loses out. For notification, the customer is going to be hit with the building inspection charges and loses again. That's if he even accepts them in the first place.

Non-registered outfits are going to start losing customers once they tell them they'll have to pay fees to the local council. It might well even increase the business going to the one-hammer-and-a-neon-screwdriver "lektrishun" who says "Oh I'll do that for you, half of that price and no council involvement."

The smaller the outfit, the more of a problem this is going to be and the less attractive the option of joining one of the schemes. For a one-man-band such as yours truly who is not working on wiring every day it's not even an option, as the costs would be prohibitive for the amount of work involved. So we can either tell the customer they'll have to pay the council for an inspection (exempt work excluded, of course), or we just carry on and ignore the new rules.

* Mr. Average Homeowner might change a light switch or even add a socket himself, but gets an electrician in for anything bigger. He will still be allowed to carry out his minor works under Part P, so no change there. When he needs larger work doing, what happens? Chances are that he won't even know about the new law at first.

When he does learn of it, he might go with somebody who has become approved under one of the schemes. Will the work be any safer than it would have been if done by the same person before part P? Most probably not, but he'll be paying extra to cover the costs. What about if he goes with somebody who isn't in a scheme? Get the council involved, pay fees, have an inspector visit. Is he going to want all of that?

The relationship between the Mr. Averages and their sparkies will therefore go one of two ways: Either the small outfits will be forced out of business because they will simply be losing work, or the whole thing will move underground, as jobs become cash-in-hand, no questions asked, no invoice, and we forget we ever met.

Mr. Average might just decide to side-step all this nonsense and have a go himself. Maybe he'll get a few books from the library to learn some more, and good luck to him. But isn't there the chance here of the new rules prompting some people to get into projects that are out of their depth? That's not going to improve safety, and as the work will still be unauthorized and uninspected, might makes things worse.

* Finally, we have Mr. Do-Yourself-In who bodges every job he attempts around the house. Half of these probably don't even know about the new law yet either and certainly will not care. Those that do will ignore it and continue to make the most appalling bodge-ups on wiring, just as they do now.

As John said, there might be some improvement where a major renovation or a new build is concerned and building control is already involved. For example, somebody doing a DIY build and installing his own wiring will have it subject to inspection. But any minor improvements in such cases I believe will be offset by the sort of cases I've quoted above.


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 12-30-2004).]

likes of "Bodge-&-Quack" are selling everything neede for a complete rewire to anyone who shows them the money.

Lets not forget
This also applies to our faithfull wholsalers. How many times have you stood at the counter whilst members of the public are waving pound notes at the counter staff and receiving copiouse amounts of advice on what they need to purchase to complete a diy job?

Paul,
You obviously feel quite strongly about the Part P Scheme and I have to acknowledge your misgivings. I know that many one-man bands are seething about the fees rather than the regulatory imposition as such. I do not work in the domestic side of the industry but I do recognise that it is an extremely important area and it is imperative that the operatives engaged there are fully competent. If the householder was simply left to exercise due diligence in the choice of a competent enterprise to carry out his electrical installation work I am sure that cost as always would be the most important factor. The onus is to be on the householder as well as the electrician to notify Building Control. For those wishing to circumvent the Regulations the door is as wide open as ever and may indeed result in shoddy unregulated practice.
BUT, it may be reasonable to acknowledge that the vast majority of householders and indeed electrical firms will attempt to stay within the law.Thus, because there has been, to some degree, an evaluation of competence (if not least confirmation of current Public Liability Insurance) an improvement should be the consequence. It may be that Building control Officers will also have a keener, more critical eye for electrical work undertaken as part of a standard, composite application and subsequent inspection regime.
Any way, Part P is with us (you) and I wish you all the best with it. I do hope that it strengthens the reputation of the industry rather than weakens it but most of all I hope it makes you money, loads of it!!

[This message has been edited by lyledunn (edited 12-31-2004).]

The issue of cost and effectiveness (or lack of) is a big one.

If I seem rather "down" on the idea of the local council becoming involved, it's in no small part due to the fact that my local district council are, to put it mildy, not held in high regard around here. In fact, it's pretty near impossible to find anyone who has a good word to say about them. I could quote many examples, but this would soon turn into an off-topic rant.

Well, I always used to believe it was the owner who was responsible, but I think you may have a point. I've seen various references to electricians having to notify building control themselves, but it's hard to get reliable information from many sources. Just look at how many sources (often promoting the approved schemes) are putting out the false information that compliance with BS7671 will become mandatory.

The current Building Regulations (2000) can be seen here:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002531.htm

Part 12 includes the following:
So what is a "person who intends to carry out building work" exactly? The person actually, physically doing the work or the person who commissions that work?

By the way, the S.I. which actually adds Part P to the Building Regs. can be seen here:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043210.htm

Electrical firms maybe. Householders? Not with the attitudes toward the local council around here.

There's quite a lot of renovation work going on around my little settlement at the moment. If it involves major rebuilds, extensions needing planning consent, then yes, people will go through the official channels. If it's all basically internal work, they just keep quiet and get on with it.

In practical terms, part P in these cases will be just another section of the building regs. to be ignored along with all the others.

Paul,
Householder and electrician would both be both regarded as persons who intend to carry out work. Precedent was set in Gwent Borough Council v Khan (1993). The High Court found that an owner of a building who orders work to be carried out comes under the definition "person carrying out or intending to carry out building works".
I agree with your other points and generally accept that notification for pure electrical work may not occur as regularly as the authorities might hope and indeed some negative consequence may exist. However, for the first time a refurbishment for example, which is notified as building works will see scrutiny of the electrical installation within an authoratative frame. Certificates will be required, and yes I do know that these can be fabricated, but at least it will emphasise the need to inspect and test new work.
I am convinced that Part P will have a positive impact in due course. We are required to notify BC on say a new wet heating system in domestic premises. Few do when that is all the work that occurs, but I can tell you that when an application is received as part of a composite package, BC are scrupulous in ensuring that the obligatory controls are properly installed. That can only be a good thing!

There has been some very good discussion laid down here because of Part P.
And also comments from people that care about the future of thier Industry.
However, I have always maintained the idea that a system that is Independent, from any Government (be it Central or otherwise) control, is the best.
[soapbox]
This is what we are trying to get over here in New Zealand, to have the Electrical Workers Registration Board actually run by those in the Trade and out of Government hands.
Until that happens, we are just waiting for a big stick to hit us, should we do anything wrong.
The biggest problem is, our idea of wrong differs from thier idea.
Unfortunately, the EWRB is run by a bunch of people that have never worked with Electricity in thier lives!.
Eg: Bureaucracy.
I'd like my peers to decide, if I am out of line or not, not some over-paid EWRB commitee.
As none of them have a clue about HV work for a start!.
[/soapbox]

{Sorry about the thread-jack Paul!}

{Message edited to add last line}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 01-02-2005).]

Lyle, I hereby nominate that as the first contender for understatement-of-the-year!

Well yet again it seems we are to be monitored by Beauracrats with little or no knowledge of the industry they are overseeing, correction getting are rake off from. The sole aim of notification to the BCO seems to be to produce yet another piece of paper which has no liability for them, gives no added protection to the person ordering the work and ultimately leaves responsibilty squarely with the person testing and certifying the work, be they the installer or third party inspector.
So tell me what has really changed, except additional costs, more inconvenience and a government feeling good about itself

Hi Dave, and welcome to ECN.

I'd say that about sums it up. But then that's about the sum total of everything this lot has done, isn't it?

Hi Paul,
I certainly wouldn't disagree with that.

I am part P registered.. i have just had some paper work through the post, and it appears that when a job is completed you have to offer the client an insurance policy to insure against your work???? they are of course under no liability to purchase it, but reading the small print, if the client pursues a claim against you, the insurance company then claims against you for all there costs??????
are we not vetted to ensure we are profesional installers so the job is up to standard??
and do we not have public liability to guard against accidents and people sueing us..