Is Part 'P' enforceable?

[Midwest]

I love your optimism... but I've bought and sold many many houses over the years and the whole thing about having a certificate or not is never ever an issue. I fully expect the vendor to answer that question about any recent electrical works with a NO... I have never heard of any cases of legal action due to people incorrectly filling in that form.

I think if we are to change anything... we need to get building surveyors to actually survey ! and check everything out properly.

Wish I had a Pound for every time I've said this...…………….when selling a property, you are required to complete & sign a legal document (as I did last year). One of the questions asked, is have you had any electrical work carried out since 2005. If so, supply copies of electrical certificates & compliance certificates.

Like Paignton pete, I've had old customers chasing me for copies of certificates, funnily enough when selling their house. So as pete said, perhaps things are slowly changing.

 

[Zerax]

Wish I had a Pound for every time I've said this...…………….when selling a property, you are required to complete & sign a legal document (as I did last year). One of the questions asked, is have you had any electrical work carried out since 2005. If so, supply copies of electrical certificates & compliance certificates.

Like Paignton pete, I've had old customers chasing me for copies of certificates, funnily enough when selling their house. So as pete said, perhaps things are slowly changing.

And when the vendor says "I don't have it anymore/can't find it"... what happens then ? The buyer walks away ? The buyer stages a sit-in until the documents turn up ? The vendor can never sell the property ? etc. etc.

Would I not buy a property because there was a missing certificate ? No
Would I ask for a price reduction because of it ? Yes
Would I expect the vendor to say 'don't be ridiculous' ? Yes

But then that's just my view...

 

[Midwest]

And when the vendor says "I don't have it anymore/can't find it"... what happens then ? The buyer walks away ? The buyer stages a sit-in until the documents turn up ? The vendor can never sell the property ? etc. etc.

Would I not buy a property because there was a missing certificate ? No
Would I ask for a price reduction because of it ? Yes
Would I expect the vendor to say 'don't be ridiculous' ? Yes

But then that's just my view...

Well I don't know about that, but my customers were pretty desperate to get a additional copies of certificates.

If there's no certificates, then its down to the buyer to make an informed judgement. We've seen loads of threads on here about work with no documents. EICR's, Regularisation documents, or the buyer just factors that into the negotiations. It may have been done properly & professionally; but if certificates are not available, you have got to ask why.

But my point is, is there is a legal document you sign, which requires you to declare all sorts of things, one of which is electrical work.

 

[snowhead]

But my point is, is there is a legal document you sign, which requires you to declare all sorts of things, one of which is electrical work.

As with the Court case above, it's not the fact that there was or is currently any dispute and with Eleectrical that testing has or hasn't been done, it's signing a document and making a false declaration that's the Offence.

 

[Simon47]

It's nothing at all to do with Part P Part P is only a few words and merely says that electrical work has to be safe.
What is needed is Building Regs notification for certain types of work - which in England since 2013 has been "replacing a CU", "adding a circuit", or "work within the zones of a bathroom". If the works don't fall into any of those 3 categories then no notification is required - at all. But it must still be "safe" to comply with Part P. When the building regs changed in 2005, Appendix 4 made a lot of electrical work notifiable, but in (IIRC) 2013 most of that went and Appendix 2 (it moved) just specified the 3 types of work listed above.
Part P does not even specify compliance with BS7671, aka the wiring regs. The guidance for Part P says that compliance with BS7671 is one way to achieve compliance with part P - and so that's the easiest way to do it. Technically, if you have the skills and qualifications you could do whatever you want as long as you can show that it meets a similar level of safety.

As to your neighbour ...
If all he is doing is extending the RFC and lighting circuits then there is no notification requirement. As long as whoever does the work provides an EIC then that's all that's needed and LABC should be happy. The only hard part is that a DIYer isn't likely to have the equipment required to do the testing and complete an EIC.

 

[Midwest]

The guidance for Part P says that compliance with BS7671 is one way to achieve compliance with part P - and so that's the easiest way to do it. Technically, if you have the skills and qualifications you could do whatever you want as long as you can show that it meets a similar level of safety.

Don't think thats what the 'Secretary of State' says in their document?

 

[Andrew Hunter]

Actually is I not the case that if extending circuits the requirement is for minor works certificate.
Just to prove that the circuit has been tested and is still safe for the characteristics of its origin ie MCB/RCBO

 

[Dustydazzler]

Part Pee only applies to ‘new’ circuits

Very bizarre ill thought out Scam , only serves to line the pockets and boost the pension pots of the scam providers

 

[Simon47]

Don't think thats what the 'Secretary of State' says in their document?

Ah, I see it has changed since I last looked at it. I'm sure it used to be worded along the lines of "compliance can be achieved by compliance with BS7671 - or an equivalent other national standard".
Even if Guidance Document P doesn't say it, Part P itself is open to any means of compliance - so if you have the technical knowledge and skills to do so, you could work to your own standards. I can't really see any situations where that would be easier or better than just working to BS7671 though.

 

[Cbuk2k2]

I love the American legal system. We really need to sit up and take notice.

Maybe once we are out of the shackles of Europe we could get shackled with America as the 51st state.
[automerge]1568912208[/automerge]

I’ve been asked a lot more than I ever have also. I think your right.

It'll be a very sad day if we ever follow in the legal footsteps of the US.

 

[Zerax]

It'll be a very sad day if we ever follow in the legal footsteps of the US.

Well... we have recently introduced a politicised Supreme Court... just like the US..

 

[Taylortwocities]

In the "Approved Document" it says this

It's guidance only.
In fact, the very first page explains what an approved document is. Is actually says


So, in discussion with you local friendly building control wallah, you could wire your house to Japanese wiring standards. but that's a hard sell. Most BCOs use the Approved Document as the bible. And the bible now actually refers to BS7671, so if you want an easy life, then do as the good book says.

 

[Cbuk2k2]

In reality any electrical test and inspection simply ensure the installation is safe at the time of testing. You could pull off the driveand

In the "Approved Document" it says this
View attachment 52714
It's guidance only.
In fact, the very first page explains what an approved document is. Is actually says

View attachment 52715
So, in discussion with you local friendly building control wallah, you could wire your house to Japanese wiring standards. but that's a hard sell. Most BCOs use the Approved Document as the bible. And the bible now actually refers to BS7671, so if you want an easy life, then do as the good book says.

Same as everything standard are guidance documents, need to be a professional engineer to deviate from them

 

[telectrix]

whole system stinks. the purpose of part p was to ensure that electrical work was done only by qualified sparks. that has not happened. due to pressure from the likes of niceic, it can now only be done by sparks who are willing to cough up £500 ish per year. all now down to lining pockets of parasites, rather than improving safe installations.

 

[Dustydazzler]

whole system stinks. the purpose of part p was to ensure that electrical work was done only by qualified sparks. that has not happened. due to pressure from the likes of niceic, it can now only be done by sparks who are willing to cough up £500 ish per year. all now down to lining pockets of parasites, rather than improving safe installations.

THIS 100%

It was never about safety and all about increasing the pension pot for the 'schemes' involved...

 

[Cbuk2k2]

whole system stinks. the purpose of part p was to ensure that electrical work was done only by qualified sparks. that has not happened. due to pressure from the likes of niceic, it can now only be done by sparks who are willing to cough up £500 ish per year. all now down to lining pockets of parasites, rather than improving safe installations.

I might be a little cynical but I think (like gas safe) part P was more to do with stopping cash in hand work/tax avoidance than consumer protection/safety.

 

[telectrix]

the purpose of partpee was to ensure that electrical work was carried out only by qualified sparks.niceic and the other scams jumped on the gravy train with short courses .. domestic installer. £6K course then £5K/annum subs. nothing was done to stop the sheds (b&q and others) from selling gear to joe public. end result was encouraging the cash in hand cowboys , no certs. undercut the genuine sparks with no tax, no vat, money in, no guarantee, we cut prices by the score ( wher i heard that b4). in effect, a good plan gone ---- up, due to money grabbers.

 

[DPG]

He said ----. Can he say ---- on here?

 

[Cbuk2k2]

@telectrix personally I’m quite strongly against having to be a member of some trade to buy materials for a few reasons:

1) Where does it stop? Almost any trade could tell tales of doom. Would you let people work on their own cars? Would you have to be a joiner to buy roof truss or builder to buy bricks? If you mess up fresh fresh water plumbing you can poison people with contaminated drinking water.

2) Most DIYers know their limits - plenty would change a light pendant or a few sockets but there aren’t many that would change a consumer unit etc. Can a business make a profit from changing 2 sockets?

3) The risk isn’t that great, in the past 30 years I’ve only known 2 people killed or injured from electrocution. These two were experienced professional working on a HV sub station. I don’t personally know of anyone who’s house has burnt down. More often than not when you read about electrical fires it’s not even fixed wiring that’s at fault. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but it’s certainly not at epidemic proportions. Certainly far less common than road deaths or drink/drug related deaths.

4) lots of people are perfectly competent but don’t hold the required certificate/membership. Industrial sparks etc.

5) The people who employ Dave from the pub will still employ Dave from the pub. Often their not doing it by choice, their doing it because they don’t appreciate the dangers and can’t afford a professional. You just end up making life more expensive/awkward for those doing this legally.

6) DIYers won’t stop buying electrical gear, but they will loose access to good quality parts from reputable suppliers. Instead of fitting MK sockets from screwfix they will be fitting cheap chinese eBay specials that have little of no product testing.

In my view the best way to improve electrical safety in the UK (which is already pretty good in my opinion) would be to teach kids at school a basic understanding. Safe isolation, basic workmanship, changing sockets etc as part of design technology type subjects. Instil an appreciation of the risks and give them some practical skills has to be better than trying to ban it.

 

[James]

He said ----. Can he say ---- on here?

it would appear that we can mention ----, boobies, knockers, breasts, hooters, mammary.

but I might get told off for incorrect spelling.