It's a while since we discussed Part P, and it's been a little quiet in here the last week or two, so I thought it might be an idea to see how the British contingent of ECN has been getting on with Part P now that it has been in effect for three months.

I was browsing the forum on the IEE website and noticed that the topic is still prompting a lot of comments there, mostly negative.

I've done exactly what I said I would do, and adopted the system which somebody suggested should go by the acronym COR, or Carry On Regardless.

I've explained the new rules on affected jobs, and so far not one single person has expressed any intention of notifying the council or paying their fees. In fact they've all come out with exactly the sort of the responses I was expecting, varying from "Huh... Another money-grabbing scheme" to less-than-polite suggestions about what the bureaucrats can do with their new regulations.

So what's it like in your areas?

Part P doesn't apply in Scotland. I've been through the Scottish building standards and I can't find any compulsion for certificates or notification. Am I wrong or is it somewhere else?

Paul, I have been asking sparkys at trade counters for some time, and I cant find anybody that has put in a notification yet, I do mainly industrial and commercial installations but just completing a domestic rewire this week. Mmm to notify or not to notify that is the question.

gideonr, I think its BS 7671 that demands certification and being part of the building regs makes it mandatory because building regs demand that work is carried out in accordance with BS 7671 its just a circle, thats my understanding anyway anybody know any different.

Well gents, regardless of attitude to Part P it would be prudent to equip yourself with the requirements. Complying with BS7671 2001 will not necessarily afford compliance with Part P.

So far nobody I've done any work for or even just spoken to about this gives a d*** about complying with Part P.

The local district council is regarded with utter contempt by almost everybody you speak to in this area. There are many rumors of corruption, thanks to perfectly reasonable planning applications being rejected out-of-hand while developers have gotten away with all sorts of things despite local objections.

In a village a couple of miles away, clifftop homes are falling into the sea because the council (in conjunction with the Environment Agency) has abandoned maintenance of the sea defenses. This same council then tried to tell some of those people that they would bill them thousands for demolition of their now-worthless homes when they were declared too close to the eroding edge for safety.

The roads in outlying villages are not maintained properly, and I shouldn't think the drainage has had anything done to it for years, so as soon as we get any quantity of rain the backlanes flood. About all we get for our money is weekly refuse collection.

Given such a background coupled with the extortionate rises in council tax of recent years (it has more than doubled since I moved here almost 9 years ago), is it surprising that nobody intends to pay the council for something which has almost zero likelihood of being detected?

P.S. I'm not ranting at any of you, just venting on the council as a local resident who is as fed-up with them as everybody else around here!



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 04-16-2005).]

for gideonr.

Yep, Part P doesn`t apply to scotland but, On 1st May 2005 a new Building Standards system will come into operation in Scotland.

Ive been looking through SELECTS website and as far as i can see you will only need to become approved to self cert work which needs a building warrant (also you will have to purchase certificate Numbers), extra sockets/circuits etc on an existing installation that does not require a warrant, then you can issue an IEE or similar cert without notification.

Select

About Scottish Electrical Registration

These new regs seem to make more sense than Part P.

[This message has been edited by sanUK (edited 04-16-2005).]

[This message has been edited by sanUK (edited 04-16-2005).]

Thanks sanUK, what I was looking for.

Gideon

Paul,
I trust your pressure valve was not vented by the tone of my offering! I do empathise but I am one of those rarities that supports Part P. The trouble is, I think we are all looking too hard at it. There is no way Councils want to be burdened with the microscopic, pedantic detail of the tiny job, whether DIY or professional. However, I really do think there is merit in making electrical work which is, afterall, a key aspect of the construction process, part of the statutory requirements for buildings.

Not at all Lyle, my anger is aimed right at the government and local council.

I agree that if we have certain minimum standards for buildings, then there's no reason why electrical systems should not be included.

My complaint is when the system starts making unreasonable restrictions on what somebody can or cannot do in his own home, and when that system seems to be more to do with extracting money than with any real safety concerns.

In my area, most of the existing requirements to notify building control are already widely ignored anyway. The council gets called only on major projects. The general attitude is that if it's internal and/or extremely unlikely to ever be noticed, just get on with it. Part P will just join the list of all other parts which are ignored.

Agreed Paul. I think for the most part only the work that would be "major" will be notified. Perhaps thats a good start! I also agree that the accreditation route was perhaps the wrong route. I would have suggested a simple requirement that all work should be supported by an electrical installation certificate thus clearly indicating a responsible person who could be taken to task in the event of injury due to poor practice.

Since coming back, I have realized that most of the newer laws enacted in the UK are a complete joke. The inspection/approval routine *WORKS* in countries like the US and Canada, where they have the correct offices in place and so forth. The UK government seems to think it's Jean-Luc Picard, "Make it so". Sorry, doesn't work that way, I won't be paying someone else to replace kitchen light switches and outlets for a LONG time. Think Hades and subzero temperatures:-)
[edited for post script]
P.S. This is not a total rejection of part P. It should be capable of stopping Mr. I.N.Competent from running extensions to ring circuits using zip cable and the like, which would be A Good Thing[tm]. They merely need to redefine "competent person" to mean "anyone who has paid £20 once to have a piece of work inspected and the inspector found it to be non-hazardous"... What do you guys think of that idea? Would there be any objection to paying an inspector's wage for 1 hour, once, in order to have your workmanship assessed?

[This message has been edited by chipmunk (edited 04-20-2005).]

Now guys,
I can't comment too much on this subject as I am very much looking in from the outside.
I must say though that Paul is right in his comments about the way the system is being run.
What needs to happen (IMO) is make it simple as possible and run the thing in such a way that it only has a real impact on people when work is poorly done and the like, other than that, it should be "in the background" so to speak.
No need for extra work or whatever to comply with the system, apart from one single form that can be posted or dropped into the local council office, this should be the building owners responsibility to send it.
This form should just be a notification that work has happened at such and such address, the council can do what they like after they recieve the notice.
Just my $0.02 worth.

Yep, good call there. The new laws which do get passed these days seem to have little to do with addressing any real problem and more to do with money -- Either requiring more payments for something, or putting rules into place which seem designed to deliberately catch people out so that can then extort more money in fines. SORN for cars, and the proposed new insurance law are prime examples, but I won't get into that!

Paul, you are sounding a little like a nascent ex-pat in the early stages of considering a life elsewhere than TonyB.LiarLand. I can recommend it!
Alan

I've already been an expat Alan. Had it not been for family issues I would probably still be in the United States (gotta love the official terminology: "Permanent resident alien" ).

I was actually thinking about moving over to France some time ago, I'm still not sure about the hassle with French bureaucracy though -- Although ours is probably getting as bad here.

Hi Pauk,
Comments from the 'Soft South' regarding Part P.
It seems to be gathering momentum down here but confusion still reigns.
A number of contractors have gone down the route of becoming 'Accredited' and it seems that the Qualification requirements first muted are starting to be watered down. A number of scheme operators seem happy to rely on the initial inspectors assessment visit and as long as they get there £300 or whatever, it sails through. Most concerning!
Other operators are now starting to offer courses purely for Part P (Obviously at a cost) Snouts in the trough seem to spring to mind!
Other EC's have elected to ignore the accreditation and use the Local Authority Visit method. Reports are that this seems to work for them, the charges being about £70 per £1000 of work value. For this the EC gets three visits from a building surveyor. How they know that the work is OK I have no idea and I can't see this continuing because £140 ish for three visits by a BS @ 2hrs a time can't pay.
I'm sure we are going to see some Amendments to Part P before long!
Why they couldn't have just demanded posession of a suitably rated ECS card amazes me.

Horace, as Paul said earlier, this is just another piece of ill-conceived legislation, which by virtue of the old 'smoke-and-mirrors' technique attempts to disguise the fact that it's just another tax. QUACK! QUACK! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and sounds like a duck- it's a bloody duck! Don't expect common sense, just cough up the extortion money and then bill the poor old customer. Last night "Question Time" had the 3 Monkeys on stage, and M. Howard (C) reckoned 40% as about right as a tax rake for the UK. And he's supposed to be the low tax Party! The mind boggles!!
Alan

Calm down Alan!
I feel it's about time some sort of 'Registration' took place in the UK.
I thought the ECS Scheme would do that but the JIB shot themselves in the foot with the demand for the NVQ3. I've felt for a long time that the 'Poor Customer' has been getting away with it (low prices) for far too long. Part P could be classed as a tax but it does seem quite a complicated way for the government to 'raise a bit more cash'. The fact that I have to pay the NICEIC £1.50 for every notification they make to the local authority on my behalf, again, could be classed as a tax, but by the NICEIC, not Gordon Brown.
This will sort itself out, and then they'll probably roll it out to cover commercial & industrial installations next. Could be a good thing!

Guys,
Was there actually ANY consultation with the people that this legislation was going to affect directly (ie: Electricians) to ask how they felt about it and if the changes could be better instituted, and if so how?.
It sounds to me to be a good old British nose-in-the-air, we know better than you attitude.
Which is a shame, this could be a good system, if it was actually set up and managed properly.

Hello Horace, and welcome to ECN.

I see you registered here a while back, so I guess you may have already followed some of our earlier discussions on Part P, but here are some links to earlier related threads anyway:

Part P

Plan p & costs to customer


Part P Get-Out Clause

I think that sums it up pretty well. Every turn in this whole mess that is Part P seems to result in different organizations giving different interpretations of the rules.

There seems to be far too much confusion over what the law actually says, too. We keep seeing references to the "Approved Document" for example, yet many people don't seem to realize that this is of no legal consequence whatsoever, and there is no obligation to follow any of its contents (the introductory notes in the document itself even say as much).