Forthcoming Building Regulations on electrical work (Part P)

25 views
Skip to first unread message

northern_relayer

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 4:36:22 PM7/23/03
to
extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133

page/announcement dated 15 July 2003
---------------------

Tough, new controls on electrical work in the home will reduce deaths,
injuries and fires caused by defective installations and save the
economy an estimated £93m over ten years, the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister announced today.

CRACKDOWN ON DANGEROUS ELECTRICAL WORK SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT'S FIRE
PREVENTION AGENDA

Tough, new controls on electrical work in the home will .......

<NB the word 'tough'>

The Government wants to curb the rising number of electrical accidents
and fires in the home by bringing electrical safety within the scope
of the building regulations for the first time.

But the success of the new controls, which could come into force by
next spring 2004, depends on the electrical industry coming forward
with trade certification schemes to test the competence of installers.
........

.....Government, ......... now wants national safety standards
reinforced by redefining work on fixed electrical installations in the
home as building work to bring them within the control of building
regulations...........

Notes to Editors
1. These regulatory proposals have been developed in response to the
Construction Industry Deregulation

<O Orwell! Thine spirit lives!>

Task Force&#8217;s 1995 report which recommended amongst other things
that the Building Regulations should address electrical safety
............


2. The current Building Regulations for England & Wales (2000) do not
address the safety of fixed electrical systems in buildings. For the
purposes of Building Regulations a fixed electrical system means those
parts of the wiring and appliances that are fixed to the building
fabric e.g. sockets, switches, fuse-boxes, immersion heaters and
ceiling fittings.............


8. Regulations are considered necessary to bolster the existing
voluntary schemes because:

Existing voluntary schemes have attracted less than one quarter of
electrical

Large numbers of jobbing electricians and the DIY market are beyond
the reach of voluntary controls

<NB last line - it is aimed at us!>

10. The Building Regulations 2000: Proposals for amending Schedule 1
to introduce electrical safety requirements is available on the DTLR
website

northern relayer

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 6:29:38 PM7/23/03
to
On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:22 -0700, northern...@hotmail.com
(northern_relayer) wrote:

>extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133

Thanks for drawing attention to this, it has been expected for a
while. I notice the link at the bottom of the page to the DTLR web
site doesn't work.

Something that draws my attention:

"4. Each year an average of 30 people die and about 1150 are seriously
injured in accidents involving defective fixed electrical
installations in the home, including fires caused by such
installations."

How many lives might be saved by spending an equivalent amount of
money on things like smoking or car vehicle accidents?

Besides which, I reckon that probably 90%+ of the fatalities occur
from work carried out by the DIYer rather than the tradesman, and I
don't somehow see Joe Public taking the slightest bit of notice.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

parish

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 8:21:07 PM7/23/03
to
Andrew McKay wrote:

> I don't somehow see Joe Public taking the slightest bit of notice.
>

If I understand the proposals correctly the problem for DIYers is that
it means you will have to produce a certificate or something (like the
FENSA cert. for replacement windows) when you sell your house and, if
you don't, lay yourself open to compensation claims after the event.

BigWallop

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 7:21:58 PM7/23/03
to

"parish" <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3f1f17fb$0$45184$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...

I wonder if B&Q will give the certificates away for free with new kitchens
and bathrooms or if they'll stick true to form and sell you one on request ?
:-))


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/03


parish

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 8:35:38 PM7/23/03
to
BigWallop wrote:

> "parish" <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3f1f17fb$0$45184$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
>> Andrew McKay wrote:
>>
>> > I don't somehow see Joe Public taking the slightest bit of notice.
>> >
>>
>> If I understand the proposals correctly the problem for DIYers is that
>> it means you will have to produce a certificate or something (like the
>> FENSA cert. for replacement windows) when you sell your house and, if
>> you don't, lay yourself open to compensation claims after the event.
>>
>
> I wonder if B&Q will give the certificates away for free with new kitchens
> and bathrooms or if they'll stick true to form and sell you one on request ?
> :-))
>

LOL.

Tell you what BW, the more of this shit that the Civil Service morons in
Whitehall come up with the more appealing emigrating to rural France and
restoring a derelict farmhouse becomes.

Andy Hall

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 9:10:47 PM7/23/03
to
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:21:07 +0000, parish <parish_AT_ntlworld.com>
wrote:

So all that would happen with this additional piece of pointless
regulation is that people who want to wire themselves will continue to
do so, and then one of two things will happen when it comes to sale
time.

a) seller will get an electrical inspection done and be able to
produce certificate at his cost whereas now the buyer pays.

b) people will apply for regularisation at the local authority. This
costs typically 20% more than if a Building Notice had been requested
in the first place. However, since there is no VAT on the
regularisation fee, the difference in cost is minimal.

Both of these will be technically breaking the law, but my estimation
is that it will be as widespread as speeding.

With any luck, the government will continue digging in the hole in
which it finds itself and this won't make the statute books due to
lack of priority.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

BigWallop

unread,
Jul 23, 2003, 11:48:49 PM7/23/03
to

"parish" <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3f1f1b63$0$45176$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...

ROFLMAO !!!! With my luck, B&Q would open a warehouse next door.

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 1:16:44 AM7/24/03
to
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:48:49 GMT, "BigWallop"
<spamguard@spam_guard.com> wrote:

>ROFLMAO !!!! With my luck, B&Q would open a warehouse next door.

You do seem to have a fascination with B&Q - are you considering a new
career as one of their ever-so-helpful-helpers? <g,d&rvvf>

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 1:39:56 AM7/24/03
to
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:10:47 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>With any luck, the government will continue digging in the hole in
>which it finds itself and this won't make the statute books due to
>lack of priority.

I think you will find this is scheduled to enter statute next April.
It has been rumoured for a while, the sparkies I did my C&G2381 course
with earlier this year knew all about it.

What you have to realise is what is going on behind the scenes. These
new regulations favour the big companies, who eventually will be the
only ones able to furnish their sparkies with the necessary experience
and certification requirements. The small one-man-band operators will
be sacrificed because in true Labour style everyone really should be
an employee of BigCo.

Being an employee of BigCo means that you are on PAYE. And being on
PAYE means it is very easy for the Inland Revenue to get at your tax.

Plus of course Labour as a political party are deeply in debt. So
there is probably some palm oiling going on behind the scenes here
with BigCo's making donations. This is EXACTLY what is going on in the
IT industry with some of the big players starving out the little guys.

Example: An IT company such as EDS (they write the Inland Revenue IT
systems which never work - e.g. child tax credit) charge out a warm
body at a cost of about £1,000 per day. They pay the warm body £200
per day, pocketing £800 per day in profit - which is taken offshore.

If the warm body were an IT contractor (as I was) then exactly the
same person who subcontracted to EDS (e.g.) would charge the same
client directly (without the EDS middle man) in the region of £300 per
day - without offshoring. Much more profitable using the little guy
who doesn't have all the overheads of BigCo.

At the end of the day these sorts of stupid policies hurt the
chancellor in ways he can't imagine. My income level used to be a
guaranteed 60K per year (that's £300 per day, 200 days worked per
year), which the chancellor gained lucrative amounts of tax on (up
until last year I paid in tax what I will now receive as total
renumeration). With the handyman business I'm likely to be earning
more like 20K per year - because that's what I need to survive on, and
if necessary I'll stay at home 2 days a week to make sure I don't pay
the chancellor any more than he has to receive. Once I've got the
loaves on the table to feed my family I couldn't give a toss about
working any harder - it isn't worth it under Labour.

Meanwhile Labour have (a) opened the floodgates with respect to giving
visas to IT migrants and (b) promoted the offshoring of work to India
and elsewhere.

As a direct result of their own policies Labour are losing tax revenue
hand over fist in the IT field, which is why Gordon is now finding
inventive new ways of taxing the blue collar worker. Remember the good
old days when Labour were going to get into power to tax the rich?

One other thing that may have slipped past the jobbing handymen.
Gordon Brown extended the reach of IR35 in this years budget to
include nannies, butlers and others who are employed by other members
of the public. That means that 95% of all income coming into your
company from a client is supposed to be treated as personal salary,
regardless of whether you decide to pay that to yourself or not:

http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1133170

There weren't any blowing of trumpets with regard to this change, but
from next April you can expect any Inland Revenue inspector to get a
gleeful look in his eye should he inspect your books (the tax isn't
due until next April).

Someone mentioned on this thread about moving to France to do up an
old farmhouse. Sounds like a jolly good idea to me!

Ed Sirett

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 3:57:17 AM7/24/03
to

All this sounds bad but in practice won't alter anything.

The crunch for me would come if small works certificates for domestic
stuff are needed and/or professional work could only be done by
registered people. In which case I'll be a couple of grand down (test
equipment, exams , subscriptions) untilI've recouped the cost on the
bills <wry smile>.

Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

Charles Fearnley

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 3:58:02 AM7/24/03
to

If I wanted to be really paranoid, I would wonder whether the proposed
colour changes for fixed wiring cores (from red/black to brown/blue etc),
were perhaps intended to coincide with the proposed regulations which will
make DIY wiring difficult/illegal. This way it will be difficult to claim
that that new ring main spur has been in place for at least five years "long
before the new regulations came in guv!".

Perhaps we should all be laying in stocks of T&E in the current colours?

Charles F


use...@isbd.co.uk

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 4:22:12 AM7/24/03
to
Ed Sirett <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The crunch for me would come if small works certificates for domestic
> stuff are needed and/or professional work could only be done by
> registered people. In which case I'll be a couple of grand down (test
> equipment, exams , subscriptions) untilI've recouped the cost on the
> bills <wry smile>.
>
I always wonder what qualifications will be required for certificating
installations. I don't have any specific 'trade' type qualifications
but I am a C.Eng. and Eur.Ing. (with my original degree in Electrical
Engineering). It probably turns out that I'm allowed to set and
examine the 'trade' qualifications but I'm not allowed to do it.

--
Chris Green (cgr...@x-1.net)

John Greenwood

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 4:26:53 AM7/24/03
to
So does this make it illegal to do your own electrics or not, forgetting the
problem of selling your house.

John

"northern_relayer" <northern...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb932b52.03072...@posting.google.com...

RichardS

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 4:25:30 AM7/24/03
to
"Ed Sirett" <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3F1F915D...@makewrite.demon.co.uk...


And that's about it - the cost of (legal) electrical work will surely go up
as a result of a restricted supply (as if it's easy to get decent sparks at
the moment!) due to barriers to entry and higher operating costs.

This will make it less likely that electrical maintenance work will actually
be done, and that DIY work that is allowed will probably stray into the
bounds of less safe practise as a result of the regulations (e.g. simply
extending a ring from an old fused CU rather than a nice new ring on a new
split CU). I suspect that the situation will actually worsen as a result of
this.

Of course, if you're sat in your Islington house, a government residence, or
a rented London flat whilst you're creating these rules and regs, none of
this cost stuff has any relevance to you at all, and you'd never dream of
lifting a screwdriver and doing it yourself. Talk about detatched from
reality - this lot make the Tories seem down to earth...

As for the poster that suspected that 90% of the accidents that did happen
were due to DIY work on FIXED electrical installations - I'd defy you to
produce any evidence to back that up. Even the cost/benefit in the proposal
was very vague in this area - neatly ignoring that glaring question
completely. Ban non-licensed use of ladders - that'll save some lives.

Time for more action methinks. Emailing MP and opposition members
today......


cheers
Richard

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk


John Laird

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 5:21:39 AM7/24/03
to
On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:22 -0700, northern...@hotmail.com
(northern_relayer) wrote:

>Tough, new controls on electrical work in the home will reduce deaths,
>injuries and fires caused by defective installations and save the

>economy an estimated Ł93m over ten years, the Office of the Deputy
>Prime Minister announced today.

We could probably save Ł93m over ten years by abolishing the "Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister", whatever the f that is. To think we used to
consider the admittedly barking Mrs T to be hectoring and nannyish. She was
an amateur compared with the bunch in power now.

--
John

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 7:16:04 AM7/24/03
to
In article <bfo4vk$gbnh4$3...@id-61610.news.uni-berlin.de>,

Trade qualifications in the form of C&G exams have existed for ages.
However, this isn't about improving the quality of electrical
installations, so they aren't in the picture. It's about the trade
bodies boosting their membership, so that's the 'qualification'
required.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 7:13:22 AM7/24/03
to
In article <jr2uhvs9c3l01r45g...@4ax.com>,

Andrew McKay <E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> writes:
> On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:22 -0700, northern...@hotmail.com
> (northern_relayer) wrote:
>
>>extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133
>
> Thanks for drawing attention to this, it has been expected for a
> while. I notice the link at the bottom of the page to the DTLR web
> site doesn't work.
>
> Something that draws my attention:
>
> "4. Each year an average of 30 people die and about 1150 are seriously
> injured in accidents involving defective fixed electrical
> installations in the home, including fires caused by such
> installations."

The government's own regulatory impact statement on these new
regulations preducted the new regulations would reduce the deaths
by less than one person per year, and it's easy to predict the
side effects will increase deaths by more than this.

They have nothing to do with safety whatsoever. They were pressed
by the trade bodies. The justifications were easy to tear to bits.

> Besides which, I reckon that probably 90%+ of the fatalities occur
> from work carried out by the DIYer rather than the tradesman, and I
> don't somehow see Joe Public taking the slightest bit of notice.

No one knows, because no one bothered to find out before drafting
the new regulations which means the new regulations were unlikly to
have the desired effect, but in the Gas installation area, the opposite
is the case.

You can see my response to the original consultation here:
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf

--
Andrew Gabriel

BigWallop

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 8:31:58 AM7/24/03
to

"Andrew McKay" <E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9squhvopo7sgs9kpl...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:48:49 GMT, "BigWallop"
> <spamguard@spam_guard.com> wrote:
>
> >ROFLMAO !!!! With my luck, B&Q would open a warehouse next door.
>
> You do seem to have a fascination with B&Q - are you considering a new
> career as one of their ever-so-helpful-helpers? <g,d&rvvf>
>
> Andrew
>

I just can't stand the places and I think they should invest in some people
that know what the job is like from the inside. They're actually getting
just as bad as my local wholesalers. :-))

James

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 11:02:02 AM7/24/03
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:1vbuhvcme36tuo1gu...@4ax.com...

>>
> b) people will apply for regularisation at the local authority. This
> costs typically 20% more than if a Building Notice had been requested
> in the first place. However, since there is no VAT on the
> regularisation fee, the difference in cost is minimal.
>
> Both of these will be technically breaking the law, but my estimation
> is that it will be as widespread as speeding.
>

It may be cheaper to apply for regularisation of electrical work rather than
pay for it to be approved by building control at the time the work is
undertaken. The fees generally go in bands, with a minimum fee for say 1000
pounds of work. Several small jobs undertaken at different times could be
put together as a single job for regularisation and still fall within the
minimum band. It would cost considerably more if the minimum fee was paid
for each job at the time it was undertaken.

One difficulty with regularisation may be a need to expose the cables.
Where possible it may be a good idea to make them accessible.

As an aside I wonder if the above proposals will be result in a lower
respect for all the other building regulations. I have always sought the
correct approval for the work I have undertaken, but given that I do not
expect my home to be sold within my lifetime, I may decide to follow all
the regulations with respect to electrical work, but fail to get formal
approval. If I take this stand, I may have to consider why I bother to get
approval for any other work - unless it is externally visible or likely to
come to the attention of the authorities. (I would nonetheless strictly
work to the regulations - which in general represent good practice.)

James


---


Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003


Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 5:27:50 PM7/24/03
to
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:58:02 GMT, "Charles Fearnley"
<charles....@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Perhaps we should all be laying in stocks of T&E in the current colours?

I was pondering that very topic earlier today, as I've got a few reels
of the old colour knocking around (seems to me I used to buy a new
reel each time I went in a shed.....).

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 5:31:06 PM7/24/03
to
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:25:30 +0100, "RichardS" <noaccess@invalid>
wrote:

>This will make it less likely that electrical maintenance work will actually
>be done, and that DIY work that is allowed will probably stray into the
>bounds of less safe practise as a result of the regulations (e.g. simply
>extending a ring from an old fused CU rather than a nice new ring on a new
>split CU). I suspect that the situation will actually worsen as a result of
>this.

Sir John Harvey Jones (business pundit who used to run ICI) made that
very statement a while back - it went along the lines of "frequently
the introduction of new legislation has precisely the opposite effect
of what it was intended to counter".

Those aren't the exact words, but it was something along those lines
as I recall.

Donald MacLennan

unread,
Jul 24, 2003, 9:36:15 PM7/24/03
to

"RichardS" <noaccess@invalid> wrote in message
news:3f1f98a7$0$14547$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...

No "decent spark" would leave an installation without testing it to the
required standard anyway. The legislation for this already exists. Guidance
note 3 to BS 7671. The work you describe would require a full electrical
inspestion certificate which would only be valid if a "schedule of test
results" along with a "schedule of inspections" were to be appended to it.

The written part of this exam is "closed book" with a nationwide practical
exam to complete if you are succesful in the written part. The written part
really is written this time as distinct from BS 7671 which is "open book"
and multiple choice.

impvan

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:43:31 AM7/25/03
to
As with most things Whitehall, their definition of something is at
odds with what normal folk expect.

The overriding justification for the proposed new measures is that
it'll help prevent electrical fires in the home. Statistics
underpinning the fire figures are gathered from Fire Officers - not
exactly electrical experts.

The majority of electrical house fires are not caused by the house's
wiring (so the new rules would have no effect on these) but by the
appliances plugged into the house's wiring.

They're caused by damaged flexes, 2- and 3-way adaptor plugs, people
who wire two cables into one plug, plugtop fuses wrapped in foil,
cascaded extension leads, joints made with tape........

For the small number of incidents where the fixed wiring is the cause
it's more often down to old installations. The new rules will only
weed these out over a period of thirty years or more as they're
rewired.

The olny time I can see the new rules helping is for the 'whole job'
kind of kitchen fitters, where the joiner/plumber does the electrics,
so they can claim to offer 'a complete service'.......and I've seen
some right horrors here - worse than DIY.

A recent example. Last year called out to a local small hotel, with a
smell of electrical burning. On my way over the smell had got worse
so Fire Brigade called, I arrived first. The fault was due the
franchised Gym operator having home-made a steam generator for a steam
room, from a kettle element in a tank. The kettle-type plug had
clearly burned away months before so the wires were connected to the
element by connector blocks; result - the thermal overload which
forces the plug off couldn't do anything, hence the burning when it
ran dry of water. THIS WAS RECORDED BY FIRE OFFICER AS ELECTRICAL
FAULT IN BUILDING. Another one for Mr Prescott's list.

Also cost the hotel money to have a satisfactory report done on the
wiring in order to get public ent. cert., when the wiring was OK in
the first place!

James

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 3:11:17 AM7/25/03
to

"impvan" <carl....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:436c317.03072...@posting.google.com...

>
> The olny time I can see the new rules helping is for the 'whole job'
> kind of kitchen fitters, where the joiner/plumber does the electrics,
> so they can claim to offer 'a complete service'.......and I've seen
> some right horrors here - worse than DIY.
>
Of course if the electrical work is a part of other work coming within the
scope of building control (eg extension or loft conversion) this may be
included (at a marginal cost) with the building control application and
anyone can then do the work. It will then be the responsibility of building
control to certify the work.

It will be interesting to see what they do. They are unlikely to have the
necessary "in house" skills, so will presumably employ an electrician for
the task. Will they have problems finding someone within the required
timescales, at the rates they will be prepared to pay? Will the person
employed be motivated to properly check the work - or will they just regard
it as a burocratic form filling exercise to be completed as quickly as
possible? It would be interesting to know what currently happens when
someone deposits a building control notice for a controlled fuel burning
appliance.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 11/07/2003


Eric Dockum

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 3:49:50 AM7/25/03
to
Andrew McKay <E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote in message news:<toj0ivk7tgda8h4gk...@4ax.com>...

If fixed electrical works can only be carried out by certificated
people, what will the impact be on the sheds/lighting shops etc.?
Would they continue to sell light fittings, swiches, cable, trunking
etc in the knowledge that they were being sold to people who couldn't
use them? Or are we heading to a position where these things will
only be available for purchase via an electrician?

Of course cable etc will be available from e.g., France - perhaps P&O
will offer day trips to sheds in France from where you can smuggle in
some cable. I can just hear the customs now "is that a flourescent
light fitting I can see or are you just pleased to see me?"

Andy Hall

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 5:45:50 AM7/25/03
to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:11:17 +0100, "James"
<james141...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>
> Of course if the electrical work is a part of other work coming within the
>scope of building control (eg extension or loft conversion) this may be
>included (at a marginal cost) with the building control application and
>anyone can then do the work. It will then be the responsibility of building
>control to certify the work.
>
>It will be interesting to see what they do. They are unlikely to have the
>necessary "in house" skills, so will presumably employ an electrician for
>the task. Will they have problems finding someone within the required
>timescales, at the rates they will be prepared to pay? Will the person
>employed be motivated to properly check the work - or will they just regard
>it as a burocratic form filling exercise to be completed as quickly as
>possible? It would be interesting to know what currently happens when
>someone deposits a building control notice for a controlled fuel burning
>appliance.
>

Precisely. I can see the smart move becoming accumulating a
number of DIY activities over a period of time, and submitting a
building notice for them.

This of course, is not what the government intends. The series of
legislation and the stated policy in a number of building areas is to
steer people to using professionals from trade associations. The
real motivation for that, one can theorise about.

If people were to start submitting building notices for these areas
which have been "subcontracted" out of BC expertise on a wide scale,
then it would cause considerable problems of expertise and funding and
hopefully there would start to be complaints to central government
(not that that would do anything).


Regarding availability of materials, do I think that electrical
fittings would disappear from the shelves of B&Q? Not really,
although they may scale it down a bit. At least it would mean that
the intrusive "helpers" that they have who come and poke their noses
into what you are buying would be redeployed.

If you think about it, B&Q still sells gas fittings, fires and
windows.

In the studies relating to gas safety run by the HSE, limiting
availability of materials to trade outlets and selling only to card
carrying professionals was discussed. Very few "stakeholders"
thought it was a good idea or even practical.

On this one, because it has been common practice forever for people to
do their own electrical work, if legislation were to be introduced I
think that it would, quite rightly, be largely ignored.

Frisket

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 7:59:35 AM7/25/03
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:5it1ivk6ahd60kulq...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:11:17 +0100, "James"
> <james141...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding availability of materials, do I think that electrical
> fittings would disappear from the shelves of B&Q? Not really,
> although they may scale it down a bit. At least it would mean that
> the intrusive "helpers" that they have who come and poke their noses
> into what you are buying would be redeployed.
>
> If you think about it, B&Q still sells gas fittings, fires and
> windows.
> .andy

A couple of years ago when I was refitting the kitchen the local B&Q didn't
have any gas fittings (plenty of fires / boilers etc.). The assistant I
spoke to said it was because of the "regulations". Went last week for some
bits for the bathroom and lo and behold all the gas fittings had
re-appeared! Perhaps they found out that people still wanted to buy these
bits to make interesting wall hangings or something? Richard


RichardS

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 8:59:04 AM7/25/03
to
"Frisket" <Fri...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LY8Ua.60917$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

IME there are two reasons that assistants, assistant managers and managers
always give for not providing customer service:

1) Regulations
2) Insurance

Officious application of (1) once prevented me from taking safety razors on
board a SleazyJet flight, even though said items had been bought air-side at
Heathrow T4 the week before (and well after US attacks).

(2) prevented me from being able to get a long board cut down at one of the
sheds so that it would fit in the car. They wouldn't lend me one of their
saws, and wouldn't even let me cut it in the car park if I bought a cheap
saw. I got a refund immediately, and the next day was allowed to do exactly
what I wanted to do at a local timber yard.

My local electrical warehouse say they're not unduly worried about the
effects of the new regs, and will continue to sell anything to anyone unless
they are specifically prohibited from doing so by law.

Alan James

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 10:19:34 AM7/25/03
to

"RichardS" <noaccess@invalid> wrote in message
news:3f212a48$0$2874$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...

> (2) prevented me from being able to get a long board cut down at one of
the
> sheds so that it would fit in the car. They wouldn't lend me one of their
> saws, and wouldn't even let me cut it in the car park if I bought a cheap
> saw.

How were they going to manage that? Bigger saw? More saws? I don't
believe there would be enough hands in the shed. Couldn't you relocate to
the next store's parking area? And if the worst came to the worst it would
still need to be cut down to fit in the police car. Otherwise no evidence.

Alan


RichardS

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 10:50:51 AM7/25/03
to
"Alan James" <alanREMOVE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f21...@212.67.96.135...

perhaps I wasn't too clear in that sentence.

Couple of years ago bought a long board. got out to car park, discovered
couldn't fit it in car.

went back in store...
Me: "Is there anyone that can cut this down for me?" Them: "no -
insurance and health & safety".
Me: "can I borrow a saw and cut it myself?" Them: "no - insurance and
health & safety".
Me: "ok, I'll buy a cheap saw and cut it myself in the car park." Them:
"no - insurance and health & safety".
Me: "here's the board back. I'll have a refund please."

quite frankly the officious person that I was arguing with would have
probably followed me out if I'd bought a saw. However, I wasn't about to
waste time, expense and effort in finding out at the time.

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 12:26:00 PM7/25/03
to
On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:22 -0700, northern...@hotmail.com
(northern_relayer) wrote:

>extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133

For what it's worth I printed that web document and have just written
to my MP, making a few salient points about the probabilities relating
to electrical casualties which take place:

* Consumers who insist on using adaptors, allowing multiple appliances
to be plugged into a single socket, thus overloading the circuit.

* Damaged or badly maintained appliance cabling.

* Consumers who jury-rig their electrical installations without having
a clue nor caring about 'the wiring regulations'.

* Consumers who use improperly protected or unsuitable equipment in
the garden.

I made several other points as well, for good measure offering the
following:

* The chancellor is going to be pleased to find that I can no longer
pay as much tax to him, due to being prevented from working on simple
electrical enhancements (add a new light fitting, add a spur, etc).

* Consumers are going to have to wait a lot longer to get hold of an
electrician.

* Consumers are going to have to pay a lot more in order to take
advantage of this charter for registered electricians to charge more.

I would encourage others to write to their MP. It will almost
certainly achieve very little, but like a trained dog the more times
an MP hears something the more obedient he becomes towards sorting
something out. Don't forget that MP's aren't persuaded so much by the
quality of the mail they receive, but by the weight of the postal sack
containing the same message over and over again.

parish

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:43:04 PM7/25/03
to
Eric Dockum wrote:

> Andrew McKay <E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote in message news:<toj0ivk7tgda8h4gk...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:58:02 GMT, "Charles Fearnley"
>> <charles....@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps we should all be laying in stocks of T&E in the current colours?
>>
>> I was pondering that very topic earlier today, as I've got a few reels
>> of the old colour knocking around (seems to me I used to buy a new
>> reel each time I went in a shed.....).
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
>> web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk
>
> If fixed electrical works can only be carried out by certificated
> people, what will the impact be on the sheds/lighting shops etc.?

Good question. I believe that DIY electrical work is already banned in
Scotland (can anyone confirm this?). So what has been the impact on the
sheds up there?


parish

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:59:35 PM7/25/03
to
RichardS wrote:

> (2) prevented me from being able to get a long board cut down at one of the
> sheds so that it would fit in the car. They wouldn't lend me one of their
> saws, and wouldn't even let me cut it in the car park if I bought a cheap
> saw. I got a refund immediately, and the next day was allowed to do exactly
> what I wanted to do at a local timber yard.
>

Like those hand-pumped hydraulic shears they have for cutting chain. The
blades are surrounded by a perspex shield (so you can only just get the
chain in) and a big sign saying that it is a dangerous machine and it is
only to be operated by staff.

When I wanted some chain I couldn't see any staff around (no surprise
there) so set about doing it myself. A memeber of staff appeared then
(how do they do that?) and told me I couldn't do it myself (so why are
they called DIY stores?). I pointed out that I have setup 100-ton power
presses and 3-metre long shears capable of cutting 6mm plate so I reckon
I can handle these glorified tin-snips. But no, he had to do it. OK
then. Could he work out how to use the machine? Could he fck. Whilst he
went off to find someone who knew, I did it myself and by the time he
returned I was at the checkout.


RichardS

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:02:37 PM7/25/03
to
"Andrew McKay" <E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote :

>
> For what it's worth I printed that web document and have just written
> to my MP, making a few salient points about the probabilities relating
> to electrical casualties which take place:
>
> * Consumers who insist on using adaptors, allowing multiple appliances
> to be plugged into a single socket, thus overloading the circuit.

Only if they make "trees" with unfused 2-way adaptors. All three-ways
(since I can remember) and trailing gangs are protected by a 13A max fuse.

>
> * Damaged or badly maintained appliance cabling.
>
> * Consumers who jury-rig their electrical installations without having
> a clue nor caring about 'the wiring regulations'.
>
> * Consumers who use improperly protected or unsuitable equipment in
> the garden.

This regs change won't make a blind bit of difference to that. In fact, it
could exacerbate the problem as (as I read the proposal) DIYers are
specifically prohibited from circuit modifications that involve RCDs or
similar protective devices. This prohibits a DIYer from adding an
RCD-protected spur to a non-RCD downstairs ring feeding an external socket
with the purpose of discouraging outside use of non-protected inside
sockets.

>
> I made several other points as well, for good measure offering the
> following:
>
> * The chancellor is going to be pleased to find that I can no longer
> pay as much tax to him, due to being prevented from working on simple
> electrical enhancements (add a new light fitting, add a spur, etc).

Eh? Don't quite follow the logic or relevance here. You'll still be able
to add new sockets and spurs to the ring, and you'll still be able to
change/add light fittings.

If you have to pay a spark to do this then your payment to him/her will come
out of already taxed income. The spark will have to pay tax on the profits
of this work, so the Chancellor will probably be quids in. Oh, and if you
have to go to a larger firm (as a result of the certification requirements &
expense) then you'll be paying VAT on the transaction as well.

>
> * Consumers are going to have to wait a lot longer to get hold of an
> electrician.
>
> * Consumers are going to have to pay a lot more in order to take
> advantage of this charter for registered electricians to charge more.
>
> I would encourage others to write to their MP. It will almost
> certainly achieve very little, but like a trained dog the more times
> an MP hears something the more obedient he becomes towards sorting
> something out. Don't forget that MP's aren't persuaded so much by the
> quality of the mail they receive, but by the weight of the postal sack
> containing the same message over and over again.
>
> Andrew

However, glad you've written to your MP though.

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:11:34 PM7/25/03
to
In article <0rl2iv0i5cug2ldgb...@4ax.com>,

Andrew McKay <E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> writes:
>
> I would encourage others to write to their MP. It will almost
> certainly achieve very little, but like a trained dog the more times
> an MP hears something the more obedient he becomes towards sorting
> something out. Don't forget that MP's aren't persuaded so much by the
> quality of the mail they receive, but by the weight of the postal sack
> containing the same message over and over again.

I wrote to mine again a couple of days ago.
(I wrote originally during the consultation last year.)

--
Andrew Gabriel

Tony Bryer

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:44:17 PM7/25/03
to
In article <3f215dad$0$46000$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net>, Parish
wrote:

> Good question. I believe that DIY electrical work is already
> banned in Scotland (can anyone confirm this?). So what has been
> the impact on the sheds up there?

I don't know the details but AIUI you have to be a card carrying
electrician to work on fixed wiring in Australia. IIRC there are
two grades: one can do all the roughing in of cables, but only the
higher grade is allowed to do the terminating at fittings.

The reality is that there are people out there (both DIY and
'professional') who should not be let anywhere near electrics but
this does all look like sledgehammers to crack nuts. If it is
really thought that there are lurking hazards it would make more
sense to insist on a safety test when a property is sold.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 1:59:01 PM7/25/03
to
In article <3f215dad$0$46000$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net>,

parish <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> Good question. I believe that DIY electrical work is already banned in
> Scotland (can anyone confirm this?). So what has been the impact on the
> sheds up there?

Not unless they've changed it recently.
They did what we should have done -- brought it under building
control so BS7671 becomes mandatory, but not imposed all the
stupid paperwork and cost overheads.

--
Andrew Gabriel

John Armstrong

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 2:21:15 PM7/25/03
to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:59:04 +0100, "RichardS" <noaccess@invalid>
wrote:


>(2) prevented me from being able to get a long board cut down at one of the
>sheds so that it would fit in the car. They wouldn't lend me one of their
>saws, and wouldn't even let me cut it in the car park if I bought a cheap
>saw. I got a refund immediately, and the next day was allowed to do exactly
>what I wanted to do at a local timber yard.

My cordless circular saw has come in useful for this. Get some funny
looks off other customers though.


--
John

Ed Sirett

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 3:03:07 PM7/25/03
to
Donald MacLennan wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> No "decent spark" would leave an installation without testing it to the
> required standard anyway. The legislation for this already exists. Guidance
> note 3 to BS 7671. The work you describe would require a full electrical
> inspestion certificate which would only be valid if a "schedule of test
> results" along with a "schedule of inspections" were to be appended to it.

I already have and use test equipment. I would have to purchase
certified/calibrated equipment were I requird to fill in certificates.

--

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 3:42:17 PM7/25/03
to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:44:17 +0100, Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk>
wrote:

>I don't know the details but AIUI you have to be a card carrying
>electrician to work on fixed wiring in Australia.

That is correct. When I attended the C&G2381 certification course a
short time ago there was an electrician (cum gas fitter and any other
skilled trade you can think of....) who had just returned from living
and working in Australia (personally I feel the guy must either be
barmy, or Aus is a lot worse than it is made out to be....) where he
practiced as an electrician.

He said it is mandatory that anyone who works on electrical
installation is an approved contractor.

Andy Hall

unread,
Jul 25, 2003, 4:45:59 PM7/25/03
to
On 25 Jul 2003 17:11:34 GMT, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:


Likewise. I also spoke to mine recently and put it to him that this
succession of legislation in different areas to do with building and
home improvement is rapidly becoming an infringement of the
"Englishman's home is his castle" principle and getting quite close to
the civil liberties area. He certainly agreed that this was yet
another piece of overkill legislation that would likely be
unenforceable and therefore virtually pointless.

abuse@localhost Hugo Nebula

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 5:48:02 AM7/26/03
to
From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, Andrew McKay
<E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote on Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:29:38
+0100:

>On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:22 -0700, northern...@hotmail.com
>(northern_relayer) wrote:
>
>>extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133
>

>Thanks for drawing attention to this, it has been expected for a
>while. I notice the link at the bottom of the page to the DTLR web
>site doesn't work.

The consultation paper is at
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=173&l=2
or http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1F832565
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

abuse@localhost Hugo Nebula

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 6:00:50 AM7/26/03
to
From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, parish

<parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:43:04 +0000:

>Good question. I believe that DIY electrical work is already banned in
>Scotland (can anyone confirm this?). So what has been the impact on the
>sheds up there?

Are there any Scottish BCOs in this group (even if you're lurking)?
There are a number of Eng&W BCOs here, but it would be useful to get
an insight into how the Scottish system of control differs. This IS a
UK group after all.

BigWallop

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 10:20:55 AM7/26/03
to

"Hugo Nebula" <Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost> wrote in message
news:5rj4ivg7gc7apnp7j...@4ax.com...

> From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, parish
> <parish_AT_ntlworld.com> wrote on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:43:04 +0000:
>
> >Good question. I believe that DIY electrical work is already banned in
> >Scotland (can anyone confirm this?). So what has been the impact on the
> >sheds up there?
>
> Are there any Scottish BCOs in this group (even if you're lurking)?
> There are a number of Eng&W BCOs here, but it would be useful to get
> an insight into how the Scottish system of control differs. This IS a
> UK group after all.
>
> Hugo Nebula
>
>

The BCO's I've met up here are just ordinary guys who know the jobs and let
you do yours. I find them pretty consistent with the methods of regulation
and what they'll let you get away with. They also seem to be on the same
page as to what needs and has to be done before they'll let the job through
to the next stage. Yes, all in all, I find them easy to work with on all
our projects.


S Viemeister

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 4:00:50 PM7/26/03
to
BigWallop wrote re Scottish BCOs:

>
> The BCO's I've met up here are just ordinary guys who know the jobs and let
> you do yours. I find them pretty consistent with the methods of regulation
> and what they'll let you get away with. They also seem to be on the same
> page as to what needs and has to be done before they'll let the job through
> to the next stage. Yes, all in all, I find them easy to work with on all
> our projects.
>
Would you know anything about BCOs in Sutherland? We're considering some
major work.

Sheila

tim

unread,
Jul 26, 2003, 4:51:36 PM7/26/03
to

"John Greenwood" <j...@womewhere.com> wrote in message
news:3f1f97f6$0$964$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> So does this make it illegal to do your own electrics or not, forgetting the
> problem of selling your house.

The original proposals allowed 'small' works to be done without
involving the BI. Small works is things like adding a new spur
to a ring.

I think that it is this that has caused other posters to suggest that
the effect of the rules will be the oppoisite of that intended
(improved safety) as

a) people will simply do lots of 'small' jobs to their electrics adding lots
of spurs rather than adding a complete new ring.
b) This work is now more likely to be done by an incompetent person
than before as the cost of having it done by a 'regulated' sparks will
go up and you'll get an odd job man to do instead.

Tim


>
> John
>
> "northern_relayer" <northern...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eb932b52.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133
> >
> > page/announcement dated 15 July 2003
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Tough, new controls on electrical work in the home will reduce deaths,
> > injuries and fires caused by defective installations and save the
> > economy an estimated Ł93m over ten years, the Office of the Deputy
> > Prime Minister announced today.
> >
> > CRACKDOWN ON DANGEROUS ELECTRICAL WORK SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT'S FIRE
> > PREVENTION AGENDA
> >
> > Tough, new controls on electrical work in the home will .......
> >
> > <NB the word 'tough'>
> >
> > The Government wants to curb the rising number of electrical accidents
> > and fires in the home by bringing electrical safety within the scope
> > of the building regulations for the first time.
> >
> > But the success of the new controls, which could come into force by
> > next spring 2004, depends on the electrical industry coming forward
> > with trade certification schemes to test the competence of installers.
> > ........
> >
> > .....Government, ......... now wants national safety standards
> > reinforced by redefining work on fixed electrical installations in the
> > home as building work to bring them within the control of building
> > regulations...........
> >
> > Notes to Editors
> > 1. These regulatory proposals have been developed in response to the
> > Construction Industry Deregulation
> >
> > <O Orwell! Thine spirit lives!>
> >
> > Task Force&#8217;s 1995 report which recommended amongst other things
> > that the Building Regulations should address electrical safety
> > ............
> >
> >
> > 2. The current Building Regulations for England & Wales (2000) do not
> > address the safety of fixed electrical systems in buildings. For the
> > purposes of Building Regulations a fixed electrical system means those
> > parts of the wiring and appliances that are fixed to the building
> > fabric e.g. sockets, switches, fuse-boxes, immersion heaters and
> > ceiling fittings.............
> >
> >
> > 8. Regulations are considered necessary to bolster the existing
> > voluntary schemes because:
> >
> > Existing voluntary schemes have attracted less than one quarter of
> > electrical
> >
> > Large numbers of jobbing electricians and the DIY market are beyond
> > the reach of voluntary controls
> >
> > <NB last line - it is aimed at us!>
> >
> >
> >
> > 10. The Building Regulations 2000: Proposals for amending Schedule 1
> > to introduce electrical safety requirements is available on the DTLR
> > website
> >
> > northern relayer
>
>

abuse@localhost Hugo Nebula

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 8:29:25 AM7/27/03
to
From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, "BigWallop"

<spamguard@spam_guard.com> wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:20:55 GMT:

>The BCO's I've met up here are just ordinary guys who know the jobs and let
>you do yours. I find them pretty consistent with the methods of regulation
>and what they'll let you get away with. They also seem to be on the same
>page as to what needs and has to be done before they'll let the job through
>to the next stage. Yes, all in all, I find them easy to work with on all
>our projects.
>

I'm sure that Scottish BCOs are as professional as their Southern
colleagues, that they have a similar proportion of good-guys vs.
cowboys, etc., and know the ins-and-outs of the Scottish Building Act
& Regulations. It's just that they differ from the Building Act and
Building Regulations in England & Wales. AFAIK, they don't have
Approved Inspectors or Building Notices; building work can't start
until a Warrant has been issued; and (the thing that sparked it off in
my mind (no pun intended)), they have some regulations relating to
electrical installations. From the perspective of an English BCO,
these things are foreign, so I was wondering if any Scottish BCOs
would like to chip in with how such matters work North of the border.

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 9:47:59 AM7/27/03
to
In article <tbg7iv80lvitdf9bm...@4ax.com>,

Hugo Nebula <Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost> writes:
> I'm sure that Scottish BCOs are as professional as their Southern
> colleagues, that they have a similar proportion of good-guys vs.
> cowboys, etc., and know the ins-and-outs of the Scottish Building Act
> & Regulations. It's just that they differ from the Building Act and
> Building Regulations in England & Wales. AFAIK, they don't have
> Approved Inspectors or Building Notices; building work can't start
> until a Warrant has been issued; and (the thing that sparked it off in
> my mind (no pun intended)), they have some regulations relating to
> electrical installations. From the perspective of an English BCO,
> these things are foreign, so I was wondering if any Scottish BCOs
> would like to chip in with how such matters work North of the border.

I can tell you how it worked for someone I know who does work
there. BS7671 is called up by the building regs and therefore
all electrical work must conform to it. However, there is no
requirement to notify BCO's of any electrical work, and no
requirement for them or anyone else to inspect it, although
they may inspect it if they want to. Typically, it gets
inspected by the BCO if it's part of a job where other things
are being inspected, i.e. part of some construction work, and
not otherwise. If the work was done by an electrical company,
the BCO will usually just ask for the completion certificate,
and if it was DIY, the BCO will check it themselves, but they
can't demand that you get it check/tested by someone else.

I don't know how well that agrees with what's supposed to
happen, but I'm told this is what happens in practice.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Rich Williams

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 10:24:07 AM7/28/03
to
Very interested in this topic - I am involved in this on behalf of a group
of companies who perform minor electrical work as an "add on" to their main
activity. There must be thousands of such firms who will be in the sh** when
this proposal becomes law. Only those firms who are "accredited" will be
authorised to issue the required Competion Certificate - otherwise the
Building Inspector will have to test the work. Does the Gov realise what a
hole they are digging. Of the 65,000 electrical contractors in the UK,
only about 13,000 are currently "accredited/certified". The rest will be
out in the cold. The IEE is setting up a Certification Scheme to address
this. Given the scale of the problem with actual Electrical Contractors,
and that they will also have to address the myriads of other trades who also
fiddle with electrics (eg kitchen fitters) twill be a long time undeed
before they send their enforcers to check on the DIY chaps. Crazy wot?
All correspondence on this with the oFfice of the Deputy Prime Minister,
NET, CITB etc seems to be happily ignored.

"Hugo Nebula" <Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost> wrote in message
news:0gj4ivg3o3m6d34mo...@4ax.com...

Rich Williams

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 10:41:17 AM7/28/03
to
Just another interesting observation - The electricity companies did not
relax their controls on electrical work as a result of privatisation - they
did it simply to save money - it was some years before privatisation - I was
involved at the time. It resulted in many lost jobs ie, the Electrical
Inspectors who were retired or redeployed. In essence they simply shifted
the legal responsibility directly onto the installer.
"tim" <52006149590...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:bfupng$tvp$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > > economy an estimated £93m over ten years, the Office of the Deputy

BigWallop

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 11:11:11 AM7/27/03
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bg0l6f$7bi$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...

The only time I've had them check that electric's are OK, i.e. that there is
an isolator for servicing and it's not fouled by other works, is when it's
connected to a SaniFlo, a Cooker Hood or an Extraction Unit, otherwise, they
leave the electric's to the electricity supply companies. Any check that
the cables are the correct size and are fully earthed or what ever other
aspects need checked, is down to the service supplier, a bit like the
telephone companies I suppose, and if it don't pass their test, then it
don't get connected. That's what I like about the Scottish ways of doing
things. Each to his own, as they say.


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/03


Andy Hall

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 11:31:30 AM7/27/03
to
On 27 Jul 2003 13:47:59 GMT, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:


>
>I can tell you how it worked for someone I know who does work
>there. BS7671 is called up by the building regs and therefore
>all electrical work must conform to it. However, there is no
>requirement to notify BCO's of any electrical work, and no
>requirement for them or anyone else to inspect it, although
>they may inspect it if they want to. Typically, it gets
>inspected by the BCO if it's part of a job where other things
>are being inspected, i.e. part of some construction work, and
>not otherwise. If the work was done by an electrical company,
>the BCO will usually just ask for the completion certificate,
>and if it was DIY, the BCO will check it themselves, but they
>can't demand that you get it check/tested by someone else.
>
>I don't know how well that agrees with what's supposed to
>happen, but I'm told this is what happens in practice.

Are Scottish BCOs qualified in electrical inspection, Andrew?

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jul 27, 2003, 1:19:30 PM7/27/03
to
In article <g1s7ivokts88ommdg...@4ax.com>,

No idea, but I would doubt it.
My impression was that it was a visual inspection only and not
a full inspection and test, but I wasn't there and I can't
recall if the person who told me was explicit about it. I know
from talking with a number of BCO's when I did my response to
the original consultation that most English council Building
Control departments would not have anyone qualified in full
electrical inspection and test.

A quick visual inspection is not really unreasonable as you can
get a very good idea if the installer knew what they were doing
just by looking at the quality of the workmanship and some
obvious things like service bonding correct, etc. Whenever I've
done any work which required the electricity supplier to visit
and change the supply afterwards, I've never been asked for any
test certificates or similar. Again, I assume this is because
the workmanship they see is to professional standards. However,
I have heard of a number of other cases where they have asked
for certificates or similar (some in this newsgroup), and I
suspect that's what happens when they arrive and see something
which doesn't look like a job to a professional quality level.
Training BCO staff to perform a quick visual inspection on an
installation would be easy to do given their background, and
very effective in practice.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew McKay

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 3:05:34 AM7/30/03
to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:26:00 +0100, Andrew McKay
<E-7B777...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:22 -0700, northern...@hotmail.com
>(northern_relayer) wrote:
>
>>extracted from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0133
>
>For what it's worth I printed that web document and have just written
>to my MP, making a few salient points about the probabilities relating
>to electrical casualties which take place:

I received a friendly reply from my MP this morning. He basically
agrees with my synopsis of this legislation and is going to take the
matter up with the appropriate minister. His words were "yet another
example of over regulation".

Just to reiterate, my main focus of attack was that implementing this
new scheme "to save lives" would do nothing of the sort, as the vast
majority of fatalities and injuries which had implications for the
electrical supply actually involve appliances and customer-side
wiring, not the behind-the-wall installation. It wasn't ever going to
stop someone being electrocuted because they drove their electric
lawnmower over the power cable.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages