Part P, making a difference....NOT...

54 views
Skip to first unread message

Ian_m

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 12:10:15 PM6/2/05
to
A neighbour of my mates just had a two sockets fitted outside, one near lawn
and other near water feature to replace the unsafe extension lead previously
there. Fitted non DIY (from what I understand) using SWA cable to separate
mini CU in garage, I peered over fence all looked terminated OK from what I
could see and cable buried underground in either gravel gap round house and
under flower bed.

But my mate in chatting to neighbour about this, and possibly wanting the
same, neighbour completely unaware of any BCO / Part P requirements, though
installer did mention something or other, but he's not too sure. Neighbour
not bothered, going to stay in house till he dies, happy it all works.

So has part P made any difference in the field................

Actually my mate had a good one in the house he moved into, 2.5mm white T&E
existing through hacked hole in side of double socket in his conservatory,
up wall, through "hacked" hole in polycarbonate roof, back down outside wall
to water proof socket. All holes smeared with masses of silicone sealant !!!
This has since been changed !!!


Uno Hoo!

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 12:26:23 PM6/2/05
to

"Ian_m" <ia...@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RM-dnX3JVMW...@tcp.co.uk...

My house has a waterproof socket on the rear wall of the house fed direct
from the back of an internal ring-main socket. Is this not 'legal' ?

Kev


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 1:17:29 PM6/2/05
to
In article <d7nbvb$5r1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,

"Uno Hoo!" <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> writes:
>
> My house has a waterproof socket on the rear wall of the house fed direct
> from the back of an internal ring-main socket. Is this not 'legal' ?

The socket must be RCD protected at no more than 30mA, either by itself,
or because the whole ring circuit is.

However, it's not a good idea to have circuits outdoors and indoors
sharing the same RCD as someone outside, or a leaky socket, can easily
trip the indoors supply, although this isn't contrary to the regs.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 1:23:25 PM6/2/05
to
Uno Hoo! wrote:

> My house has a waterproof socket on the rear wall of the house fed direct
> from the back of an internal ring-main socket. Is this not 'legal' ?

Why shouldn't it be ?

Where else are you going to take power from and why would another power
source/feed be safer?

Assuming the internal ring main is on RCD of course.

--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:17:20 PM6/2/05
to
Ian_m wrote:

> So has part P made any difference in the field................

No... people that do work that is outside of the regs are pretty much
never concerned about the now existence of prat p. Since the ones that
do this dont care about the 16th edn regs, why would they care about
pP? Its an obvious dud from start to finish.

NT

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 7:23:29 AM6/3/05
to
big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:

Might be worth pointing out the reverse is not true however ;-)

Just because you don't give a monkeys abut Part P does not mean you will
disregard the regs!

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Ian_m

unread,
Jun 3, 2005, 11:24:56 AM6/3/05
to
"Uno Hoo!" <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:d7nbvb$5r1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

Snip

>> Actually my mate had a good one in the house he moved into, 2.5mm white
>> T&E existing through hacked hole in side of double socket in his
>> conservatory, up wall, through "hacked" hole in polycarbonate roof, back
>> down outside wall to water proof socket. All holes smeared with masses of
>> silicone sealant !!! This has since been changed !!!
>
> My house has a waterproof socket on the rear wall of the house fed direct
> from the back of an internal ring-main socket. Is this not 'legal' ?
>

Actually this is what my mate converted his outside socket to from the 2.5mm
running up and over.


ElectriciansForum

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 5:30:45 AM6/4/05
to
Theres an interesting debate on this going on here
http://supplychain.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4


"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:42a03da5$0$15031$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 7:02:26 AM6/4/05
to
In article <d7rsc8$5p2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,

"ElectriciansForum" <fo...@nospam.supplychain.org.uk> writes:
> Theres an interesting debate on this going on here
> http://supplychain.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4

You'll find more discussions on Part P than you've had hot dinners
if you search this newsgroup, and a number of us here took part in
the consultation prior to the legislation coming in to force.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Lurch

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 8:16:14 AM6/4/05
to
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:30:45 +0100, "ElectriciansForum"
<fo...@nospam.supplychain.org.uk> strung together this:

>Theres an interesting debate on this going on here
>http://supplychain.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4
>

*plonk*

Also added your URL to the banned sites list.

Thanks for listening.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 8:40:25 AM6/4/05
to
In article <d7nbvb$5r1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Uno Hoo! <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote:
> My house has a waterproof socket on the rear wall of the house fed
> direct from the back of an internal ring-main socket. Is this not
> 'legal' ?

If the ring is RCD protected, then it's ok.

I did exactly this, but mounted a single RCD alongside the socket I'd
picked up from. Since the external socket is in the front of the house -
for car hoovering, etc, I wanted to be able to switch it off when not in
use to prevent passing film crews etc stealing my power. ;-)

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Message has been deleted

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 11:22:18 AM6/4/05
to
In article <d7sd9s$n92$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <d7nbvb$5r1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> Uno Hoo! <k...@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> My house has a waterproof socket on the rear wall of the house fed
>>> direct from the back of an internal ring-main socket. Is this not
>>> 'legal' ?
>>
>>If the ring is RCD protected, then it's ok.
>>
>>I did exactly this, but mounted a single RCD alongside the socket I'd
>>picked up from.
>
> <AOL>
> Me too.
> </AOL>
>
> An "RCD Spur" to be exact.

I did it using a dedicated radial circuit for the outdoor
sockets. That circuit is TT earthed, and is protected with
a 10mA RCBO in the CU. It starts in the garage where there
is a cooker point with integral socket for plugging in
things being used just outside the garage (pressure washer
is the most common), and the cooker switch is the isolator
for front and back garden outdoor sockets which are used
for the lawn mower. This seemed like the ideal use for a
cooker switch with integral socket, as they are not actually
suitable for cookers in my view.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 1:48:01 PM6/4/05
to
ElectriciansForum wrote:
> Theres an interesting debate on this going on here
> http://supplychain.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4
>
Na. The *interesting* debate - actually, it's a little one-sided - is
over at

< http://www.iee.org/OnComms/sector/letters_partp.cfm >

40 IEE members calling Part P a waste of space (and an affront to their
semi-cherished CEng status ;-), one Forensick Inspector sitting on the
fence.

Stefek

Bob Eager

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 3:42:56 PM6/4/05
to
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 17:48:01 UTC, Stefek Zaba <s-nilne...@zaba.com>
wrote:

> Na. The *interesting* debate - actually, it's a little one-sided - is
> over at
>
> < http://www.iee.org/OnComms/sector/letters_partp.cfm >
>
> 40 IEE members calling Part P a waste of space (and an affront to their
> semi-cherished CEng status ;-), one Forensick Inspector sitting on the
> fence.

I might go over there and make it 41......!


big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 4:49:34 PM6/4/05
to
ElectriciansForum wrote:
> Theres an interesting debate on this going on here
semi-spam addy snipped

surprisingly, there is, despite it being spam, with IIRC 3 threads on
PP. Admittedly with only 3 or 4 people, but a good point or two made
nonetheless. Other than that its a fairly dead forum.

I only mention it cos there is some good part p material there I've not
seen here... but not a lot, and thats pretty much all thats there.

Owains & Grunff's posts are the best though :) Lets hope they learn.


NT

John

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 5:46:40 PM6/4/05
to

"Stefek Zaba" <s-nilne...@zaba.com> wrote in message
news:6bSdnZFo1oX...@pipex.net...

> Na. The *interesting* debate - actually, it's a little one-sided - is over
> at
>
> < http://www.iee.org/OnComms/sector/letters_partp.cfm >
>
> 40 IEE members calling Part P a waste of space (and an affront to their
> semi-cherished CEng status ;-), one Forensick Inspector sitting on the
> fence.
>
> Stefek

When you consider the tremendous effort and discussion which the
Institutions have spent over the last ten years or more regarding the
improvement/recognition of the status of Engineers then see how part P has
effectively dismissed all this effort the reaction is only to be expected.
Still what else can you expect from our PMs fat buffoon of a deputy?


Andy Hall

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 7:53:51 PM6/4/05
to

I think I might re-join just to join the fun.

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Lurch

unread,
Jun 4, 2005, 9:02:56 PM6/4/05
to
On 4 Jun 2005 14:19:40 GMT, hu...@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) strung together
this:

>>for car hoovering, etc, I wanted to be able to switch it off when not in
>>use to prevent passing film crews etc stealing my power. ;-)
>

>I was more concerned about burglars thinking "Kewl, somewhere to plug the
>electric chainsaw in so I can cut open the front door."

Mine are isolated so passing pikeys don't set up camp on the drive
while I'm not looking. The one on the front is a BS4343 socket so most
people don't even know what it is.

Ed Sirett

unread,
Jun 5, 2005, 7:40:09 AM6/5/05
to


...and were ignored.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://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


Ian_m

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 11:08:23 AM6/6/05
to
"Ian_m" <ia...@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:baWdndUmVIU...@tcp.co.uk...
Oh, and my mate bought his house without the FENSA (?) window certificate as
the previous occupiers undergoing a divorce couldn't find it and installers
who had changed names many times since installation couldn't be bothered/had
lost it as well. Didn't want to loose buying the house so had to buy house
as "seen".

I can see the same happening with Part P during sales.

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 11:46:57 AM6/6/05
to
Ian_m wrote:

> Oh, and my mate bought his house without the FENSA (?) window certificate as
> the previous occupiers undergoing a divorce couldn't find it and installers
> who had changed names many times since installation couldn't be bothered/had
> lost it as well. Didn't want to loose buying the house so had to buy house
> as "seen".
>
> I can see the same happening with Part P during sales.

I'm puzzled, why would one want fensa certificates? Houses are always
sold as seen, no?

NT

Joe

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 4:04:07 PM6/6/05
to
To 'confirm' that the legally-required thermal standard has been met.

Mike

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 3:14:45 PM6/6/05
to

> big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > I'm puzzled, why would one want fensa certificates? Houses are always
> > sold as seen, no?

No - it's become nearer to 'sold as described'. If the purchaser asks a
question during the contract period (may have to be in writing) you are
required to answer that question truthfully (or not at all). Replying
inaccurately could allow the purchaser to go to court after purchase and
claim damages or even force you to buy the house back off of them.


big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 7:47:22 PM6/6/05
to
Joe wrote:
> big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:

> > I'm puzzled, why would one want fensa certificates? Houses are always
> > sold as seen, no?
> >
> To 'confirm' that the legally-required thermal standard has been met.

I guess I hadnt thought that the buyer might get hauled over the coals
about a non thermal standard window later in the houses history, but I
suppose its poss in relatively new houses. Guess I'm more familiar with
Victorian than modern houses, the era of 'thermal whats?'.

NT

Ian_m

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 5:47:03 AM6/7/05
to
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118101641.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
When I sold my house in 2000, one of the solicitors questions (sellers
report ?) was, "Have you had double glazing fitted since 199x (can't
remember exact date) ?" "If yes the please supply copy of Fensa document".

Also as the buyers survey also identified the date of glazing installation
(from date inside sealed panes) we were also requested by the buyer
solicitors to supply the Fensa document.

One assumes similar questions will now be asked about Part P.


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 6:12:23 AM6/7/05
to
In article <af2dnbYx35s...@tcp.co.uk>,

"Ian_m" <ia...@tcp.co.uk> writes:
> When I sold my house in 2000, one of the solicitors questions (sellers
> report ?) was, "Have you had double glazing fitted since 199x (can't
> remember exact date) ?" "If yes the please supply copy of Fensa document".

That didn't start until April 2002.
It was no accident I had my windows replaced in February 2002,
it saved me a lot of money which I put into worthwhile energy
saving measures rather than Pilkington K glass.

> Also as the buyers survey also identified the date of glazing installation
> (from date inside sealed panes) we were also requested by the buyer
> solicitors to supply the Fensa document.
>
> One assumes similar questions will now be asked about Part P.

For about a year after Part L, solicitors seemed to be asking
about it. None of the people I know who've moved recently have
been asked, although that's not a large enough sample size for
me to claim this is a general trend. The questions they were
asked were specifically if they'd done any structural changes
or changes to underground drainage, IIRC.

--
Andrew Gabriel

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 7:55:27 AM6/7/05
to
Ian_m wrote:
> <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message

Probably. The buyers solicitor is looking for any excuse that might
possibly result in a reduced sale price, primarily because if they
dont, something could come back and bite them on the rear, even when
their fees would outweight any effect on house value that the item
might have. Secondly they do it because it creates them more work that
they can justify charging for.

The simple antidote to such game is to not answer the questions. If I
want to know about a house its upto me to survey it, search, and find
out. This is far more sensible than asking the seller, foolishly
relying on their answers, then paying a solicitor later for a case you
might or might not win, and even if you do it was unlikely to be worth
paying the legal fees for. The only person that benefits from such
failure to take responsibility is the solicitors. Going in with your
eyes open and spending the time and money on fixing any problems is
much better sense.

The only case where it is worth pursuing is something serious and
major, and those things any sensible person would check out before
buying. If they dont, they know theyre taking a risk.


NT

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages