Part-P Inspection - How does it work?

169 views
Skip to first unread message

Rob Convery

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:55:24 AM3/31/05
to
Can someone explan how the Council commisioned inspection works?

If I have put a new kitchin in which involved moving a few socked and
connecting up the new cooker i would be falling foul of PartP - How and when
is it inspected?
I presume it can't be when its finished as you will not be able to see
behind the cosmetics to see how the damage is done.


Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 5:45:24 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:55:24 +0100, "Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk>
wrote:


You ought to have submitted a building notice to them before starting.

Some minor electrical work is exempt from the full rigmarole, but
nothing in a kitchen is, so the two alternatives would have been to
employ an electrician who is a member of one of the designated
electrical contracting mediaeval guilds and who can therefore self
certify his work, or to go for the building notice with building
control at the local authority.

Your options now are:

- Do the building notice, which will now be in the form of a
regularisation. This could be nasty because the ensuing inspection
of the wiring could involve a jobsworth. While it is possible to do
some tests with instruments, there should be visual checks at first
fix (i.e. before plaster and tiles) that cables run in the right
places. There are requirements in the wiring regulations for them
only to run horizontally or vertically between sockets and switches or
in a band 150mm from a corner or top of a wall. A forgiving
inspector might let that go. One that is less so would not sign it
off without seeing it.

- Do nothing for the moment. Nobody from the council is going to
come round. They don't have detector vans. However, if you sell, or
possibly renew buildings insurance, you will/may be asked about works
in the house and perhaps specifically about wiring. If the project
started or "started" before the end of 2004, then you can
legitimately, or according to your conscience say no because part P
didn't apply on commencement. On the other hand, if there were a
fire or somebody was electrocuted because you had done something
wrong, then there could be unfortunate consequences.

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 5:56:16 AM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:2hkn41thg9i8jl06o...@4ax.com...

The council do not check, they get someone else to check and charge you the
cost of the submission and the check. The councils had adequate warning of
what was to happen and 99% of them did nothing. So, it is best to have a
self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.

If you do it and don't tell, then how would they know? Difficult. When
selling a house then you get it all checked out which gives you selling
edge.

The "unfortunate consequences" have always been there.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Rob Convery

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 6:58:45 AM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:2hkn41thg9i8jl06o...@4ax.com...

The first option is what I am looking to do. My local council charges £60+
VAT
for the inspection which will be carried out by a 3rd party who is
certified. Its this
process I was wondering about. Looks like no-one has actually got this to
happen yet.

The second option is not really there as I am just purchasing the house so
its obvious if i did it it would be after 2004


Rob Convery

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:00:04 AM3/31/05
to

"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424b...@news.usenetzone.com...

>
> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> news:2hkn41thg9i8jl06o...@4ax.com...

So, it is best to have a


> self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.
>

So they could sign it off rather than the council commisioned place even if
I did the work.


Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:10:04 AM3/31/05
to

"Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk> wrote in message
news:3b272bF...@individual.net...

Appears so. As long as you don't switch on the power and the tester does
that then you can do what the hell you like anywhere. If there is parts that
need inspecting, but you have tiled over, take a digital photo of the work
with time stamp.

RichardS

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:11:43 AM3/31/05
to

"Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk> wrote in message
news:3b26vmF...@individual.net...

>
> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> news:2hkn41thg9i8jl06o...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:55:24 +0100, "Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
<snip>

>
> > - Do the building notice, which will now be in the form of a
> > regularisation. This could be nasty because the ensuing inspection
> > of the wiring could involve a jobsworth. While it is possible to do
> > some tests with instruments, there should be visual checks at first
> > fix (i.e. before plaster and tiles) that cables run in the right
> > places. There are requirements in the wiring regulations for them
> > only to run horizontally or vertically between sockets and switches or
> > in a band 150mm from a corner or top of a wall. A forgiving
> > inspector might let that go. One that is less so would not sign it
> > off without seeing it.
> >
> > - Do nothing for the moment. Nobody from the council is going to
> > come round. They don't have detector vans. However, if you sell, or
> > possibly renew buildings insurance, you will/may be asked about works
> > in the house and perhaps specifically about wiring. If the project
> > started or "started" before the end of 2004, then you can
> > legitimately, or according to your conscience say no because part P
> > didn't apply on commencement. On the other hand, if there were a
> > fire or somebody was electrocuted because you had done something
> > wrong, then there could be unfortunate consequences.
> >
>
> The first option is what I am looking to do. My local council charges £60+
> VAT
> for the inspection which will be carried out by a 3rd party who is
> certified. Its this
> process I was wondering about. Looks like no-one has actually got this to
> happen yet.
>
> The second option is not really there as I am just purchasing the house so
> its obvious if i did it it would be after 2004
>
>
not necessarily - unless it's a new house there is unlikely to be any form
of wiring diagram. So the kitchen was changed.,.. "don't think the wiring
was touched, guv". But the accessories all have 2005 date stamps on them,
"yes, the accessories were changed - the old ones were decidedly grubby."
This is outwith the scope of Part P, AIUI.

And, at sale time "Don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer...

--
Richard Sampson

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


Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:13:21 AM3/31/05
to
"Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk> wrote in message
news:3b26vmF...@individual.net...

> The first option is what I am looking to do. My local council charges £60+


> VAT for the inspection which will be carried out by a 3rd party who is
> certified.

Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:24:40 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:56:16 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>

>
>The council do not check, they get someone else to check and charge you the
>cost of the submission and the check. The councils had adequate warning of
>what was to happen and 99% of them did nothing. So, it is best to have a
>self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.

This is not an option.

The two choices, if the work is not exempt as a minor work are:

- Use a contractor who is a member of one of the approved
organisations to do the work and self certify it.

- Do the work yourself and submit a building notice.

The second of these triggers an inspection.

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2


You are suggesting that a contractor who didn't do the work inspects
and signs it off. This is not one of the allowed options and would
not produce the necessary paper trail if anybody ever checked. There
wouldn't be an invoice for the work and there wouldn't be a building
notice.


>
>If you do it and don't tell, then how would they know? Difficult. When
>selling a house then you get it all checked out which gives you selling
>edge.


This is always an option, but does not get past a question in a
vendor's solicitor's questionnaire about work subject to building
control having been done. At that stage it would be a case of
telling lies or getting the application regularised.

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:25:25 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:00:04 +0100, "Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk>
wrote:

>

No they can't unless they are willing to falsify that they did the
work.

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:39:23 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:58:45 +0100, "Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk>
wrote:


>The first option is what I am looking to do. My local council charges £60+
>VAT
>for the inspection which will be carried out by a 3rd party who is
>certified. Its this
>process I was wondering about. Looks like no-one has actually got this to
>happen yet.

If you look at the flow chart

http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

you are only required to submit the building notice. The council, if
they were doing their job properly, should arrange for an inspection.
I am not certain that it is your responsibility if they don't do it.

I don't think that getting a contractor in and asking only for an
inspection is a realistic option. They are supposed to have done the
work if they self certify it. At best, you would get a certificate,
but there is the risk anyway that any electrician inspecting will have
an issue with the cables now being hidden.

To get the paperwork coverage, you really need to have the building
notice or the invoice from the work having been done by an approved
contractor.

Is this all unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense? Yes.

Are you likely to get caught? No.

Could you run into problems when selling? Possibly.

At the least, you might have to do a regularisation exercise with the
council. I am sure that this will happen a lot, and you could simply
plead ignorance at that point.

Provided you didn't falsify statements for conveyancing I am sure that
a council, given the situation of the legislation being recent, would
just take your money (which is very little more for regularising vs.
original notice), organise an inspection (perhaps) and issue the
paperwork.


The only other problem is if an application for building insurance had
similar questions. Then you have a moral question about what you want
to say.

>
>The second option is not really there as I am just purchasing the house so
>its obvious if i did it it would be after 2004
>


Unfortunately, the thing you can't easily undo is the wiring being
plastered and tiled over.

So it seems to me that the choices are between doing nothing and
perhaps delaying a future sale through having to clean up required
paperwork and risking whatever outcome through going the building
notice route.

On balance, I think I'd address it now, but it is a bit devil and deep
blue sea.

Lobster

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 7:38:06 AM3/31/05
to
Andy Hall wrote:
>
> No they can't unless they are willing to falsify that they did the
> work.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Dead link apparently - could you post the original?
Thanks

Rob Convery

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 8:30:31 AM3/31/05
to

"RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3b27o9F...@individual.net...

>>
>>
> not necessarily - unless it's a new house there is unlikely to be any form
> of wiring diagram. So the kitchen was changed.,.. "don't think the wiring
> was touched, guv". But the accessories all have 2005 date stamps on them,
> "yes, the accessories were changed - the old ones were decidedly grubby."
> This is outwith the scope of Part P, AIUI.
>
> And, at sale time "Don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer...
>
> --
> Richard Sampson
>
> mail me at
> richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
>
>

Ah just double checked on http://www.niceic.org.uk/consumers/ppnotify.html
and if you
use an existing connection for the cooker you can do it yourself. I thought
it was virtually anything
in the kitchen and you were screwed - the cooker being the one I expected to
fall over on as it would
not be a socket in the wall


Rob Convery

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 8:40:05 AM3/31/05
to

"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424b...@news.usenetzone.com...

http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159

On second reading it looks like is £60 + someone else inspecting or £290 all
in


RichardS

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:06:21 AM3/31/05
to
"Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk> wrote in message
news:3b2ctmF...@individual.net...

>
> "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:424b...@news.usenetzone.com...
> > "Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3b26vmF...@individual.net...
> >
> >> The first option is what I am looking to do. My local council charges
> >> £60+
> >> VAT for the inspection which will be carried out by a 3rd party who is
> >> certified.
> >
> > Is that all they charge? No Building notice fee then the £60 on top?
> >
>
> http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2159
>
> On second reading it looks like is £60 + someone else inspecting or £290
all
> in
>
>

It'd be a lot of money to pay if all you wanted to do was stay on the right
side of the law and add a couple of extra sockets to the kitchen!

Obviously far safer, legal and cheaper just to keep using that 4 way
extension cable, next to the sink..... ;-)

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:17:03 AM3/31/05
to

Strange

Works for me.

Try this one instead.

http://tinyurl.com/3lfo6

and click on the PDF link

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:18:27 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:10:04 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>


>"Rob Convery" <r...@convery.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b272bF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:424b...@news.usenetzone.com...
>> >
>> > "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>> > news:2hkn41thg9i8jl06o...@4ax.com...
>>
>> So, it is best to have a
>> > self certified electrician to check it out and sign it off.
>>
>> So they could sign it off rather than the council commisioned place even
>if
>> I did the work.
>
>Appears so. As long as you don't switch on the power and the tester does
>that then you can do what the hell you like anywhere. If there is parts that
>need inspecting, but you have tiled over, take a digital photo of the work
>with time stamp.
>
>

You're making things up.

Where is the basis for that suggestion in the legislation or the
published guidelines?

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:38:09 AM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:jj1o415q8n56o3k4m...@4ax.com...

If you install your own ring and run it back to the CU and don't connect to
the mcb, get an electrician to connect at the CU, he then has done work on
the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then a that is totally within the
law, even if it is in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy at sockets or
any other point which could have endangered life. Everything he did was
cold.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:45:00 AM3/31/05
to

"RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3b2ef7F...@individual.net...

In the kitchen, if you had MDF as the tile back above the worktops and leave
a cable space behind, insert sockets and run flex down into the space under
the units and have each socket plugged into an extension, then would this be
legal? Just like having a 4 or 6 way extension in the kitchen.

Mike Harrison

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:47:11 AM3/31/05
to

A while ago someone claimed it was illegal for the council to demand additional payment above the
building approval fee - is this true or not ?

Mike Harrison

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 9:46:01 AM3/31/05
to

What evidence would there be that it wasn't done (or started..) by the previous owner ?

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 10:05:56 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:38:09 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>

>> >


>> >Appears so. As long as you don't switch on the power and the tester does
>> >that then you can do what the hell you like anywhere. If there is parts
>that
>> >need inspecting, but you have tiled over, take a digital photo of the
>work
>> >with time stamp.
>>
>> You're making things up.
>>
>> Where is the basis for that suggestion in the legislation or the
>> published guidelines?
>
>If you install your own ring and run it back to the CU and don't connect to
>the mcb, get an electrician to connect at the CU, he then has done work on
>the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then a that is totally within the
>law, even if it is in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy at sockets or
>any other point which could have endangered life. Everything he did was
>cold.
>

This is not what the legislation or the guidelines say at all.

You are pulling ideas out of the air.

The contractor needs to have done the work in order to self certify
it. How can he do that legally if part was not done by him?

The legislation is poorly drafted as a result of government
incompetence and doesn't have the latitude that is in comparable
legislation relating to other areas of building regulation.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 10:16:55 AM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:7v3o41tnde8uc8evk...@4ax.com...

> > If you install your own ring and run it back
> > to the CU and don't connect to
> > the mcb, get an electrician to connect at
> > the CU, he then has done work on
> > the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then
> > a that is totally within the law, even if it is
> > in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy
> > at sockets or any other point which could
> > have endangered life. Everything he did was
> > cold.
>
> This is not what the legislation or the guidelines say at all.
>

> The contractor needs to have done
> the work in order to self certify
> it. How can he do that legally if part
> was not done by him?

Does it say "all" of it has to be done by him? By connecting the ring to the
CU he has worked on that ring. He installed some wire to the installation.

Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

> The legislation is poorly drafted as
> a result of government
> incompetence

More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been told about
making things up. Having safe electrical systems and eliminating cowboy
operators is a great idea.

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 10:43:18 AM3/31/05
to

"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424c...@news.usenetzone.com...

>
> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> news:7v3o41tnde8uc8evk...@4ax.com...
>
<snip>

>
> > The legislation is poorly drafted as
> > a result of government
> > incompetence
>
> More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been told
about
> making things up. Having safe electrical systems and eliminating
cowboy
> operators is a great idea.
>

But Part P does neither, all it does do is drive up the costs of the
lagit' company and that of the 'duty-full' / competent DIYer ! :~(

It would be nice to think that come the morning of the 6th of May a
lot of Prescott's follies would be instantly repealed, well we are
still allowed to day dream - I think...


John Rumm

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:10:48 AM3/31/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
> and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
> and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
> eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

No not really. The underlying requirement of the gas legislation is that
of "competence" (even if it does not go on to define it), the secondary
requirement for guild membership kicks in only for work done for reward.

With part P there is not requirement that the work be carried out
competently - only that it be certified by someone who is a member of a
relevant organisation, or that it is allowed by exemption.

>>The legislation is poorly drafted as
>>a result of government
>>incompetence
>
>
> More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been told about
> making things up.

Since the government itself had to come clean and acknowledge that the
basis they used as justification for the whole mess was actually flawed
(i.e. because they did not understand the distinction in their own stats
between fixed wiring and portable appliance accidents), you can't
really hold out much hope for the rest.

> Having safe electrical systems and eliminating cowboy
> operators is a great idea.

Yes indeed I agree. Alas part P does none of those things. It does
however encourage dangerous practices that will result in more casualties.

The cowboy will ignore it. The semi competent DIYer who may have in the
past contemplated a safe but now outlawed modification is offered the
choice of make the problem fit a "minor work" solution (at potentially
reduced safety), or spend loads of extra money either "getting a man in"
(of unknown competence), or having a building control office sprinkle
holy water on it.

If the stated aim of the legislation is to reduce deaths and injuries
due to electrical fixed wiring, and it in fact achieves the opposite
then I would suggest that "poorly drafted" and "incompetent" are perhaps
being a little too kind. Criminally negligent would be closer to the mark.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:05:42 AM3/31/05
to
In article <424c...@news.usenetzone.com>,

"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> writes:
> If you install your own ring and run it back to the CU and don't connect to
> the mcb, get an electrician to connect at the CU, he then has done work on
> the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then a that is totally within the
> law, even if it is in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy at sockets or
> any other point which could have endangered life. Everything he did was
> cold.

Sorry to say, but that alone does not satsify Part P.
Specifically it is missing the inspection at first fix,
which for most domestic wiring installations could not
be done restrospecively after final fix.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andy Wade

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:24:22 AM3/31/05
to
Andy Hall wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/52kq2

Bwahhhhhhh - that's a neon screwdriver in use on the front page of that.
Nice to see the ODPM encouraging safe working practices, not.

--
Andy

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:19:01 AM3/31/05
to
In article <cf3o41pqr06veft43...@4ax.com>,

Mike Harrison <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> writes:
> A while ago someone claimed it was illegal for the council to demand
> additional payment above the building approval fee - is this true or not ?

I didn't claim it, but I do remember reading it on one LA's
website. It didn't actually use the word 'illegal', but did
say something like the fee paid to BCO had to be inclusive
of all inspections. I also recall reading the ODPM caps all
the BCO fees, which combined with above would imply total
cost including inspection is capped. (Anyone know what the
cap is?)

Also I noted the inspection performed by/for BCO does not
have to be performed by a Part P registered person/company;
that's only the case for self-certified inspections.
It seemed to me the BCO could choose to accept your own
inspection, if they were sufficiently satisfied you were
compitent.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Stuart

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:28:40 AM3/31/05
to

And I see we are to have nice new colours for cables to match flex ...
Stuart


Shift THELEVER to reply.

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:32:44 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:16:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>


>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:7v3o41tnde8uc8evk...@4ax.com...
>
>> > If you install your own ring and run it back
>> > to the CU and don't connect to
>> > the mcb, get an electrician to connect at
>> > the CU, he then has done work on
>> > the wiring, test, inspect and sign off then
>> > a that is totally within the law, even if it is
>> > in wet areas. The DIYer did not have energy
>> > at sockets or any other point which could
>> > have endangered life. Everything he did was
>> > cold.
>>
>> This is not what the legislation or the guidelines say at all.
>>
>> The contractor needs to have done
>> the work in order to self certify
>> it. How can he do that legally if part
>> was not done by him?
>
>Does it say "all" of it has to be done by him? By connecting the ring to the
>CU he has worked on that ring. He installed some wire to the installation.


>
>Any Tom Dick and Harry can connect up a boiler on a site, even the gas runs,
>and leave the gas pipe unconnected at the meter. A Corgi man comes connects
>and tests and all is fine. It is done regularly on sites, mainly using
>eastern European labour. The same thing applies.

Unfortunately not. It is not written in the same way as that
relating to gas.

In definition 0.6 of the Approved Document for part P it clearly says
*all* electrical installation work. There are the clear exemptions
for minor works and for extra low voltage, but that's all.

>
>> The legislation is poorly drafted as
>> a result of government
>> incompetence
>
>More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this?

The evidence is plain to see.

- There was no reason to do anything legislative in the first place.
The government decided that it wanted to put regulation in place and
deliberately ignored any comments and evidence to the contrary.
The reality is that the whole thing was pushed by the trade
associations and commercially interested players and power brokers,
and the power drunken idiots in central government fell for yet
another opportunity to legislate.


- The whole thing was totally mismanaged in that it took two attempts
at Statutory Instrument Amendment to remove some of the completely
ridiculous things that would have been included such as installing a
battery doorbell. Local authorities were equally disorganised and
unprepared and proper guidelines on how to operate the scheme were not
given in good time. There is a whole raft of hastily constructed and
ill thought out memos from central government departments as the
stupidity of the whole thing was realised.

-

> You have been told about
>making things up. Having safe electrical systems and eliminating cowboy
>operators is a great idea.
>

Your inconsistency amazes me.

On the one hand you think that this is a great idea and by implication
the trade associations associated with it; while on the other you are
daming of CORGI at every opportunity.

Do you have a short memory or do you imagine that people are unable to
recognise that you are speaking from both sides of your mouth?

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:40:43 AM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:24:22 +0100, Andy Wade
<spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote:


I know, I noticed that too.

There's the stranded earth in the T&E as well.

It really does demonstrate the lack of knowledge on the part of the
producers of this nonsense legislation and/or their contempt in the
assumption of stupidity on the part of the reader.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:50:30 AM3/31/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424c1e81$0$63436$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.

> The semi competent DIYer who may have in the
> past contemplated a safe but now outlawed modification is offered the
> choice of make the problem fit a "minor work" solution (at potentially
> reduced safety),

Minor works involves Building Control. This "potentially reduced safety",
you are on about. Can you elaborate?

> or spend loads of extra money either "getting a man in"
> (of unknown competence), or having a building control
> office sprinkle holy water on it.
>
> If the stated aim of the legislation is to reduce deaths and injuries
> due to electrical fixed wiring, and it in fact achieves the opposite

"in fact achieves the opposite" Any facts to back this up?

> then I would suggest that "poorly drafted"
> and "incompetent" are perhaps
> being a little too kind. Criminally negligent
> would be closer to the mark.

The Tories are going to lose you know. Just as well as you will be better
off.

Andy Wade

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:54:44 AM3/31/05
to
Andy Hall wrote:

> There's the stranded earth in the T&E as well.

Well, if it's 6mm^2 or larger it will be stranded - but you have a
point: the picture shows an _equal_size_ CPC that is distinctly off the
centre line of the cable. It's obviously been done by a marcomms or PR
agency and no one's thought it necessary to have it checked by anyone
with a molecule of electrical knowledge.

--
Andy

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 12:01:33 PM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:lr7o41lljt2a9hk4o...@4ax.com...

< snip Lord Halls opinions with no evidence. >

> > You have been told about
> > making things up. Having safe electrical
> > systems and eliminating cowboy
> > operators is a great idea.
>
> Your inconsistency amazes me.

It seems many things amaze Lord Hall.

> On the one hand you think that this is
> a great idea and by implication
> the trade associations associated with
> it; while on the other you are
> daming of CORGI at every opportunity.

I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now out
by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully experienced. I
would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 11:53:35 AM3/31/05
to

":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3b2k26F...@individual.net...

>
> "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:424c...@news.usenetzone.com...
> >
> > "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:7v3o41tnde8uc8evk...@4ax.com...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > > The legislation is poorly drafted as
> > > a result of government
> > > incompetence
> >
> > More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been told
> about
> > making things up. Having safe electrical systems and eliminating
> cowboy
> > operators is a great idea.
> >
>
> But Part P does neither,

Any evidence to prove this?

Tony Bryer

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 12:13:53 PM3/31/05
to
In article <424c...@news.usenetzone.com>, Doctor Evil wrote:
> > The cowboy will ignore it.
>
> And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.

No deterrent at all IMO. No doubt you could use the Freedom of
Information Act to find out how many people have been prosecuted for
failure to comply with Building Regulations - my guess would be that
it is a few hundred a year at most. Has anyone been prosecuted for a
DIY window replacement since 2002 - my Wickes has plenty of windows
and I doubt whether more than a few of those bought are installed
following a notification to the LA.

In my 8 years in Building Control I was responsible for taking two
people to court. It takes a huge amount of time and is likely to
result in an award of costs to the LA that does not begin to cover the
real cost, and in the meantime you've not been doing what you're meant
to be doing, out inspecting work.

The people I would expect to be caught by Part P are kitchen - and to
a lesser extent, bathroom - installation firms who are not renowned
for the quality of their work in this department. If you have a
dispute with one of them afterwards then Part P may well give you a
useful stick to beat them with if they've ignored it.

But generally I think that the aim of Part P - greater safety - is
laudable, but the means of achieving it is doubtful at best. Requiring
inspection reports on electric and gas if you are selling a property
would make far more sense. In rented properties gas has to be
recertified every year, and IIRC electrics every 5 years in Scotland.
Privately owned dwellings may go uninspected from decade to decade.

--
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


:::Jerry::::

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 12:26:33 PM3/31/05
to

"Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424c...@news.usenetzone.com...
>
> ":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:3b2k26F...@individual.net...
> >
> > "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:424c...@news.usenetzone.com...
> > >
> > > "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
> > > news:7v3o41tnde8uc8evk...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The legislation is poorly drafted as
> > > > a result of government
> > > > incompetence
> > >
> > > More Lord Hallisms. Have you any proof of this? You have been
told
> > about
> > > making things up. Having safe electrical systems and
eliminating
> > cowboy
> > > operators is a great idea.
> > >
> >
> > But Part P does neither,
>
> Any evidence to prove this?
>

How about reading the said regulations ?... Doh!


John Rumm

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 12:42:56 PM3/31/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

>>The cowboy will ignore it.
>
>
> And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.

How exactly?

Given that it is going to be rare for their poor standard work to
actually burst into flames or cause an acute problem. Most will go
unnoticed. Even if they are fingured they will be unlikely to have left
much in the way of a paper trail anyway.

> Minor works involves Building Control.

No they don't - minor works do not need to be notified.

> This "potentially reduced safety",
> you are on about. Can you elaborate?

It is easy to think of a multitude of examples...

You are builing a loft conversion. The "correct" way to run its power
would be on a new circuit taken back to the CU. The "minor work" route
would be to add a few spurs to the existing 1st floor ring. Result:
complient work, but at more risk of overload, and less discrimination
between circuits.

You currently have to use an extension lead in your kitchen to run your
blender on the worktop. This creates a trip hazard amoung other things.
The correct solution would be to install new sockets. The minor works
one is to keep on using the extension lead.

You convert your shed into a workshop, but then notice the pre-existing
power feed is not protected by a RCD. The correct thing to do would be
to install one. The "staying within the rules of part taking the pee"
one is to ignore it or cough up 400 quid for a sparks to add a 40 quid
RCD. What do you suppose a good number of householders will do?

Your leccy shower goes tits up, so you replace like for like with a new
one... only the new one is "slightly more powerful". Upgrade the cable
or leave alone? (i.e. £90 for the new shower or £400")

Lights keep turning themselves on and off. Fuses are blowing.
Householder thinks the rubber sheathed insulation is getting a bit past
it (being 50 years old and all) better get this sorted PDQ. Since he
knows naff all about electrics he decideds he will get a "pro" in. Shame
is pros were scarce. Now they are almost non existent since half have
decided to jack in domestic work since it does not pay as well and has
extra (expensive) hoops to jump through, and some of the rest have been
poached by local council BC departments to carry out inspections. How
long is PDQ now?

>>or spend loads of extra money either "getting a man in"
>>(of unknown competence), or having a building control
>>office sprinkle holy water on it.
>>
>>If the stated aim of the legislation is to reduce deaths and injuries
>>due to electrical fixed wiring, and it in fact achieves the opposite
>
>
> "in fact achieves the opposite" Any facts to back this up?

Common sense. Human Nature. See above.

John Rumm

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 12:49:22 PM3/31/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

> I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
> letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
> His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now out
> by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully experienced. I
> would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.

Yup and as a result he can now pay for their scheme that will allow him
to self certify electrical work under part P...

Don't you feel safer already?

That's part P for you.

Mike Harrison

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:05:45 PM3/31/05
to

I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control legislation - apparently it was
long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it, before anyone at the ODPM
was told that testing an installation was any more involved than plugging something into a few
sockets.....


Lobster

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:39:42 PM3/31/05
to
Andy Hall wrote:

> At best, you would get a certificate,
> but there is the risk anyway that any electrician inspecting will have
> an issue with the cables now being hidden.

<snip>

> At the least, you might have to do a regularisation exercise with the
> council. I am sure that this will happen a lot, and you could simply
> plead ignorance at that point.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, LA inspectors will want
to inspect the first-fix as part of their checking; my worry is the
worst-case scenario of having to re-expose everything to prove it was OK
(like BCOs are known to do with footings and lintels which have been
buried to quickly by over-enthusiastic builders). That would be a big
'ouch'. I don't know how likely that scenario is - maybe some leeyway
would be given dependent on the competence of the visible wiring; how
naughty you'd been in avoiding building control; whether the guy trusted
what you said you'd done with the hidden stuff; which side of bed he'd
gotten out of that morning...

David

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:38:45 PM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:01:33 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message

>> On the one hand you think that this is


>> a great idea and by implication
>> the trade associations associated with
>> it; while on the other you are
>> daming of CORGI at every opportunity.
>
>I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
>letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
>His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now out
>by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully experienced. I
>would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.
>

So why do you imagine that this sham would be any different?

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:19:52 PM3/31/05
to

"Tony Bryer" <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.0000301...@delme.sda.co.uk...

> The people I would expect to be caught by Part P are kitchen - and to
> a lesser extent, bathroom - installation firms who are not renowned
> for the quality of their work in this department. If you have a
> dispute with one of them afterwards then Part P may well give you a
> useful stick to beat them with if they've ignored it.

That is pretty well the aim. Getting Jack of all trades away from lecky.

> But generally I think that the aim of Part P
> - greater safety - is laudable, but the
> means of achieving it is doubtful at best.

People said the same thing about corgi, but overall it is a success despite
the problems with it.

> requiring inspection reports on electric


> and gas if you are selling a property
> would make far more sense.

I believe this is coming read the bits and bobs.

> In rented properties gas has to be
> recertified every year, and IIRC electrics
> every 5 years in Scotland.
> Privately owned dwellings may go
> uninspected from decade to decade.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:08:24 PM3/31/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424c359b$0$42298$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> > I know one kid who went on a Corgi course. To get your badge you need a
> > letter from a company to say you have a had I think 6 months experience.
> > His dad was self employed and took him along for 6 months. He is now
out
> > by himself. Some unsuspecting person will think he is fully
experienced. I
> > would never allow him near my house. That is corgi for you.
>
> Yup and as a result he can now pay for their scheme that will allow him
> to self certify electrical work under part P...
>
> Don't you feel safer already?
>
> That's part P for you.

The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out. It is geared for the pro to do
the work, but does specifically state where DIYers can operate. It is quite
specific. While corgi allows any Tom Dick or Harry operate with limited
experience. The DIYers can be "competent" with gas, whatever that means.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:14:54 PM3/31/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:424c3419$0$94544$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> Doctor Evil wrote:
>
> >>The cowboy will ignore it.
> >
> >
> > And when caught prosecuted. The deterrent.
>
> How exactly?
>
> Given that it is going to be rare for their poor standard work to
> actually burst into flames or cause an acute problem. Most will go
> unnoticed. Even if they are fingured they will be unlikely to have left
> much in the way of a paper trail anyway.

The aim of corgi was to eliminate the cowboy, and to a large extent it does.
There are still unqualified operator, although these tend to be plumbers and
general builders who do all the work themselves and usually fit combi's
badly.

> > Minor works involves Building Control.
>
> No they don't - minor works do not need to be notified.

So, declare minor works and no test then.

What you highlighted was incompetence. Part P did nor say do things in an
incompetent manner.

> >>or spend loads of extra money either "getting a man in"
> >>(of unknown competence), or having a building control
> >>office sprinkle holy water on it.
> >>
> >>If the stated aim of the legislation is to reduce deaths and injuries
> >>due to electrical fixed wiring, and it in fact achieves the opposite
> >
> >
> > "in fact achieves the opposite" Any facts to back this up?
>
> Common sense. Human Nature. See above.

So, no facts.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:25:19 PM3/31/05
to

"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s0fo419ersl950pua...@4ax.com...

> I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
legislation - apparently it was
> long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
before anyone at the ODPM
> was told that testing an installation was any more involved than plugging
something into a few
> sockets.....

Who advises them on the technical aspects.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 1:21:39 PM3/31/05
to

":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3b2q7vF...@individual.net...

Those I have read do aim at safety and eliminating cowboys. What regs were
you reading?

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 2:47:06 PM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>


>"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:s0fo419ersl950pua...@4ax.com...
>
>> I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
>legislation - apparently it was
>> long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
>before anyone at the ODPM
>> was told that testing an installation was any more involved than plugging
>something into a few
>> sockets.....
>
>Who advises them on the technical aspects.
>

The industry associations who have been pushing for this.

It further demonstrates that the whole thing was a house built on sand
from the outset and has nothing to do with improving quality of work
or safety and everything to do with the notion of exerting ever more
control over people's lives.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 2:50:31 PM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:roko4117iipj55jls...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:s0fo419ersl950pua...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
> >legislation - apparently it was
> >> long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
> >before anyone at the ODPM
> >> was told that testing an installation was any more involved than
plugging
> >something into a few
> >> sockets.....
> >
> >Who advises them on the technical aspects.
> >
> The industry associations who have been pushing for this.

So, the ministry was not to blame.

> It further demonstrates that the whole thing was a house built on sand
> from the outset and has nothing to do with improving quality of work
> or safety and everything to do with the notion of exerting ever more
> control over people's lives.

More Lord Hallisms of utter shite.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 2:42:31 PM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:hsgo41983en9tnb2h...@4ax.com...

Read other posts.

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 3:30:04 PM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:50:31 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:roko4117iipj55jls...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:25:19 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:s0fo419ersl950pua...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> I spoke to someone recently who is very involved in building control
>> >legislation - apparently it was
>> >> long while after the whole part P idea started, and too late to sop it,
>> >before anyone at the ODPM
>> >> was told that testing an installation was any more involved than
>plugging
>> >something into a few
>> >> sockets.....
>> >
>> >Who advises them on the technical aspects.
>> >
>> The industry associations who have been pushing for this.
>
>So, the ministry was not to blame.
>

That's pretty thin.

This is exactly like the six stages of a project:

1 - Enthusiasm
2 - Disillusionment
3 - Panic
4 - Hunt the guilty
5 - Blame the innocent
6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it

This government is responsible for implementing a piece of legislation
that nobody wanted apart from commercially interested industry
activists.

They chose to ignore anybody who suggested that the whole thing was
ill thought out and would never work properly. Several people in this
NG wrote to the ODPM, including me. I wrote to Raynsford, my MP wrote
to Raynsford, as did numerous others qualified to do so. All of this
was ignored for what they obviously thought was easy political
capital.

The first attempt at the amending legislation was a balls up. The
second was little better and then there are hasty departmental memos
attempting to clarify.

As to the government department involved, there is culpability also.
Plenty of information was provided to them that addressing fixed
wiring installation would achieve virtually nothing because virtually
all electrical accidents and problems relate to appliances. This was
ignored, and in the final figures was finagled to ignore inconvenient
data.

Either this was incompetence or it was doing the bidding of their
political masters. None of them can claim that they weren't told.
They very definitely were and I have letters, copies of letters
between MPs and ministers and proof of delivery of letters to
demonstrate that.

They most certainly can't claim that they didn't know. They most
certainly did.

It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign. Actually he should
resign anyway.

Bob Eager

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:02:00 PM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:08:24 UTC, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

> The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out.

No. It's to make sure no work is done without taxes etc. being paid.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:02:10 PM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:tfmo41d15e6qcde5f...@4ax.com...

Lord Hall, I have ran many projects and never had any of those 6 above.

> This government is responsible for
> implementing a piece of legislation
> that nobody wanted apart from commercially
> interested industry activists.

The government introduced it to save lives and improve quality. They are
supposed to introduce legislation to protect us. That is why we vote for
them, and a fine
government they are.

I suppose you want to take away the restrictions on medicine and law as
well. Let's do the lot while we are at it.

< snip Lord Hallism opinionations >

> It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign.
> Actually he should resign anyway.

It is not a shambles at all. Prescott is the best deputy PM we have ever had
and a great left hooker. My hero.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:11:57 PM3/31/05
to

"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:08:24 UTC, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out.
>
> No. It's to make sure no work is done without taxes etc. being paid.

Lord Hallism is catching. There must be therapy available on then NHS.

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:26:54 PM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:11:57 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>


>"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:08:24 UTC, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The aim of Part P is to keep cowboys out.
>>
>> No. It's to make sure no work is done without taxes etc. being paid.
>
>Lord Hallism is catching. There must be therapy available on then NHS.
>

It certainly is a "then" organisation....

Andy Hall

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:31:27 PM3/31/05
to
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:02:10 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message

>>


>> This is exactly like the six stages of a project:
>>
>> 1 - Enthusiasm
>> 2 - Disillusionment
>> 3 - Panic
>> 4 - Hunt the guilty
>> 5 - Blame the innocent
>> 6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it
>
>Lord Hall, I have ran many projects and never had any of those 6 above.

That thought would scare me.


>
>> This government is responsible for
>> implementing a piece of legislation
>> that nobody wanted apart from commercially
>> interested industry activists.
>
>The government introduced it to save lives and improve quality.

That's what they told you, and you believe it. Unfortunately the
evidence doesn't support this belief.

>They are
>supposed to introduce legislation to protect us.

I don't need to be protected by any government, in most aspects of
life thank you. I'd prefer to make my own arrangements.


>That is why we vote for
>them, and a fine
>government they are.

You may have done.


>
>I suppose you want to take away the restrictions on medicine and law as
>well. Let's do the lot while we are at it.

Don't get me started on my views on government involvement in
healthcare or law.


>
>< snip Lord Hallism opinionations >
>
>> It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign.
>> Actually he should resign anyway.
>
>It is not a shambles at all. Prescott is the best deputy PM we have ever had
>and a great left hooker. My hero.
>

I can certainly believe the last sentence.

Doctor Evil

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:46:24 PM3/31/05
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:tpqo4158jslo0667r...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:02:10 +0100, "Doctor Evil" <Min...@nospam.com>
> wrote:

> >"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message

> >> This is exactly like the six stages of a project:
> >>
> >> 1 - Enthusiasm
> >> 2 - Disillusionment
> >> 3 - Panic
> >> 4 - Hunt the guilty
> >> 5 - Blame the innocent
> >> 6 - Reward for those who had nothing to do with it
> >
> >Lord Hall, I have ran many projects and never had any of those 6 above.
>
> That thought would scare me.

All on time and on budget.

> >> This government is responsible for
> >> implementing a piece of legislation
> >> that nobody wanted apart from commercially
> >> interested industry activists.
> >
> >The government introduced it to save lives and improve quality.
>
> That's what they told you, and you believe it. Unfortunately the
> evidence doesn't support this belief.

Lord Hallisms is not evidence of anything.

> >They are
> >supposed to introduce legislation to protect us.
>
> I don't need to be protected by
> any government, in most aspects of
> life thank you. I'd prefer to make
> my own arrangements.

More rambling Lord Hallisms.

> >That is why we vote for
> >them, and a fine
> >government they are.
>
> You may have done.

I voted for Tone.

> >I suppose you want to take away the
> >restrictions on medicine and law as
> >well. Let's do the lot while we are at it.
>
> Don't get me started on my views on
> government involvement in
> healthcare or law.

I suppose we must have to be healthless and lawless in Lord Halls utopia.

> >< snip Lord Hallism opinionations >
> >
> >> It's a total shambles and Prescott should resign.
> >> Actually he should resign anyway.
> >
> > It is not a shambles at all. Prescott is the best
> > deputy PM we have ever had
> > and a great left hooker. My hero.
>
> I can certainly believe the last sentence.

That is true.

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:53:55 PM3/31/05
to
Doctor Evil wrote:

>
> What you highlighted was incompetence. Part P did nor say do things in an
> incompetent manner.
>

No. John gave detailed, specific, plausible, real-world examples of how
the Part P regs create a strong incentive for the householder to
*bodge*, by using an alternative which - while not actively and
immediately dangerous - is less safe, competent, and satisfactory than
doing the job properly. It does this by rating the 'proper' job as
needing building-control or membership-of-trade-body, while letting the
lashup through as a minor work.

In the world of regulation, this is called 'perverse incentives'. It's a
concept well-known to policy wonks, whether Tory or Labour. However,
Prescott's department was in this case acting only as the enforcement
arm of the Treasury, who want to reduce the amount of cash-in-hand
tradesmen; the actual effect on householder safety and quality of
building stock was well down their list of priorities.

Not that a single word of the above will shake your simple faith in the
lily-whiteness of all things (New) Labour...

Ian Stirling

unread,
Mar 31, 2005, 4:51:28 PM3/31/05