The clear success of Part P

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Andy Wade

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 4:35:25 AM11/23/06
to
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061106/text/61106w0038.htm#dpthd_18

--
Andy

Andy Burns

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 4:40:23 AM11/23/06
to
Andy Wade wrote:

> Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
> misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations
>

> 2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
> 2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
> 2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
> 2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
> 2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Hrrrmph!

Staffbull

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 4:50:12 AM11/23/06
to

My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

Andy Cap

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 5:17:53 AM11/23/06
to
On 23 Nov 2006 01:50:12 -0800, "Staffbull" <st...@staffbull.net> wrote:


>My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
>some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
>have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
>part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
>tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
> So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
>electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

It was always likely that it would deter many people from updating their gear,
which the vast majority did reasonbly safely and force them back towards using
adapters and extension leads or worse still ignore deterioration indefinitely,
which is all far more dangerous.

Andy

Staffbull

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 5:35:33 AM11/23/06
to

You never know they might backpedal on Part P like the CSA!!!, But part
P hasnt cost them hunderds of millions, oh and there is the NHS
centralised computer system that cost umpteen millions thats in the
process of being scrapped.
All exellent government decisions, Monster Raving Loony party gets my
vote next time as the UK is screwed under the so called intellectual
parties!!
I long for the day Wales is devoluted from the bloody idiots who have
governed our country sine October 2, 1283.

d...@gglz.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 5:47:35 AM11/23/06
to
Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 5:55:56 AM11/23/06
to

Its a success because the govt is now taking more money of the people.
Which is all it was for in the first place.

dom wrote:
> Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

That would be risky, it might tell the real story.


NT

MikeH

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 6:36:19 AM11/23/06
to
Staffbull wrote:
> I long for the day Wales is devoluted from the bloody idiots who have
> governed our country sine October 2, 1283.

You have my sympathies, but I suspect that Welsh politicians and
bureaucrats will screw things up just as much as those of any other
nationality.

Mike

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 6:54:57 AM11/23/06
to

Oh
>
wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.


Stuart

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 6:59:31 AM11/23/06
to
On 23 Nov 2006 02:47:35 -0800, "d...@gglz.com" <d...@gglz.com> wrote:

>Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

Exactly .They could all have been things that Part Pee has nothing to do with .

Stuart

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 7:01:22 AM11/23/06
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:35:25 +0000, Andy Wade <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk>
wrote:

He should have left this part out of his question .

Andy Wade

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 7:17:05 AM11/23/06
to
Andy Hall wrote:

> wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
> of pointless over-regulation.

Would that be the Rt. Hon. member for Wokingham, by any chance?

--
Andy

unop...@mail.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 7:26:29 AM11/23/06
to

Andy Wade wrote:

The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

dennis@home

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 7:32:22 AM11/23/06
to

"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45656bb9$0$1391$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

> From Hansard:
>
> Communities and Local Government
> Accidents (Electrical Equipment)
>
> Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
> Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
> due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment and
> electrical installations. [98144]
>
> Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.
>
> The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
> following table.
>
> Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or misuse
> of electrical equipment and electrical installations
>
> Number of home accidents
>
> 2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
> 2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
> 2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
> 2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
> 2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.
It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.


Staffbull

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 7:48:48 AM11/23/06
to

While we are at it why not get local authorities to check each
household once a year for electrical safety and charge us a few hundred
quid each, any anomalies need to be rectified within seven days through
a registered electrician from a list in the LA or a fine will be
issued.

I might run for election, I can come up with draconian crap useless
legislation ideas as well :-)

unop...@mail.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 8:33:02 AM11/23/06
to

dennis@home wrote:

> Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

> It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
> done on the side.

Not ostensibly

>
> I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.
>
> The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
> tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 10:38:17 AM11/23/06
to
unop...@mail.com wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:

> > Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

> But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.


> > It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
> > done on the side.

> Not ostensibly

see above


> > I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.
> >
> > The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
> > tax increases by a few million.

> A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
> by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
> railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
> deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
> government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
> more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
> uk.d-i-y.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sid

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.


NT

Clive George

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 10:44:23 AM11/23/06
to
<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:1164296297.1...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
> presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
> in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
> causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

Andy Cap

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 11:01:34 AM11/23/06
to
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:44:23 -0000, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
>presenting is completely bogus.
>
>cheers,
>clive

Surely, if people are forced to use professional labour, for something they can
quite well do themselves, then they ARE being forced to pay unnecessary VAT !

Andy

Guy King

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 11:20:33 AM11/23/06
to
The message <4565c200$0$8746$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
from "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:

> I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
> safer.

Yes they have. Where before you could do the work yourself, and thereby
not pay tax on the work 'cos it's DIY, now you have to[1] employ someone
else to do it. Income tax, National Insurance and VAT are then payable
on the money that changes hands.

[1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
through Building Control but many people either don't know that or can't
be arsed.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

unop...@mail.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 11:30:06 AM11/23/06
to

Clive George wrote:

> <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:1164296297.1...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
> > presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
> > in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
> > causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.
>
> I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
> safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
> tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.
>

Preventing tax evasion at the (alleged) cost of more lives lost is not
a lot different - I think it is just semantics, though.


>
> I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
> presenting is completely bogus.

I think an argument (valid or not) against Part P is that it encourages
people to neglect their electrical safety as Part P makes the cost of
complying higher than many people wish to pay.

If the government paid all the costs of an electrician testing domestic
installations + the cost of any remedial works for faults found, and
paid you £100 for being a good citizen every time you requested such
services, it would be very popular indeed. It would also be very
expensive for the government, and therefore, us.

Part P was brought in on the (possibly spurious) grounds of improving
the electrical safety of fixed domestic installations. The fact that it
had the (offically) completely unexpected side effect of reducing tax
evasion is (officially) neither here nor there, but the Treasury are
not unhappy.

Just be glad that the European Court decided that we couldn't by
toboacco and alcoholic beverages online and by mail order from other EU
countries at their duty rates today. If the decision had been
otherwise, the government would have been looking at creative methods
of filling a £12 billion hole in the public finances.

Sid

dennis@home

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 12:11:21 PM11/23/06
to

<unop...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1164288782.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

8<

>> The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as
>> the
>> tax increases by a few million.
>
> A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
> by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
> railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
> deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
> government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
> more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm.

They already do that by taking money from road schemes to make rail safer.
This saves about 4 deaths a year but would save about 500+ if spent on the
roads.

> Off topic for
> uk.d-i-y.

Most of the stuff is OT AFAICS.


Fred

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 1:27:04 PM11/23/06
to

"Stuart" <stu...@xpozureSPAMTRAP4u.plus.com> wrote in message
news:583bm21bbfm4iddb3...@4ax.com...

Possible but if it's difficult to extend your fixed wiring in your kitchen
or lay an armoured cable to your shed, the alternative becomes trailing
sockets or extension leads using Part P approved socket outlets from B&Q.

I would actually expect more deaths from "non-fixed" installations instead.

It is crass and sad that you can't easily fit an RCD to your own system.

Hey that's progress in a Nanny state.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 2:05:09 PM11/23/06
to

I couldn't possibly comment.....


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 2:51:48 PM11/23/06
to
On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, meow...@care2.com said:

> unop...@mail.com wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>> Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.
>
>> But that was presented as part of the justification for it.
>
> of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
> gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
> it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.
>

In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction. I made my submissions about it, as did a number of others
here to the government department at the time as well as writing to my
MP about it and discussing it with him.

A set of letters came back from the minister at the time (Raynsford)
from which it was pretty clear that he was not at all well informed on
the issues surrounding part P.

Overall, on the basis of the subject matter, it didn't get a lot of
governmental attention. However, it is hard to pinpoint whether or
not there was political influence behind the selective use of the
information presented to the civil servants and others involved in the
RIA. Certainly it wasn't well balanced at all, and it was very clear
that there had been extensive lobbying by the various trade
organisations who stood to gain financially as well as influentially.

Had it not been for the death of an MP's daughter as a result of a
wiring issue that would not have been addressed by part P; there would
have been little media attention either.

In the sense that this has been one of a series of measures where trade
associations of various types have been invited to or have pushed for
being the framework for self certification in respect to various
construction industry; one can suspect that a motivation for Part P has
been as a means of control and tax take; although no more than any of
the other self certification schemes.

In the meantime, Mr Raynsford has become somewhat more disengaged
politically, but is chairman of the Construction Industry Council and
of the NHBC foundation, so continues to make his mark on the sector.
Nevertheless he did find time to attend, with his wife, a performance
of the Barber of Seville and dinner as guest of Arup Group earlier this
year.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 2:59:45 PM11/23/06
to

Actually it isn't. In terms of whether somebody in Westminster sat
down and specifically decided that introducing regulation around fixed
electrical installation as a means of tax take, probably not.

From letters that I have had from the minister of the time, via my MP,
it is pretty clear that the minister was not versed to any level of
detail at all about what was going on.

However..... this is one of a series of measures for the construction
industry whereby there is some form of self certification via members
of various trade associations. Since there is registration of work
done, in addition to membership of said trade organisations, it does
form a vehicle by which a proportion of construction industry
tradespeople are brought into a framework in which they can be tracked
for tax and other purposes.

I am sure that the industry will always have the cowboys and the tax
evaders; but in terms of the tax take, it will have certainly
contributed to the exchequer. There is certainly a political
motivation to do that.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 3:01:17 PM11/23/06
to

The two are not connected directly. Whether or not a contractor has
to register for and charge VAT is determined on a mandatory level by a
certain level of revenue in his business, or at levels below that,
voluntarily.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 3:13:13 PM11/23/06
to
On 2006-11-23 16:20:33 +0000, Guy King <guy....@zetnet.co.uk> said:

> The message <4565c200$0$8746$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
> from "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses safer.
>
> Yes they have. Where before you could do the work yourself, and thereby
> not pay tax on the work 'cos it's DIY, now you have to[1] employ someone
> else to do it. Income tax, National Insurance and VAT are then payable
> on the money that changes hands.

In respect of VAT, not necessarily.

I agree that someone operating outside the system would not want to
register for VAT any more than join a trade association in order to
self certify - either or both brings him into contact with officialdom.

However, if he purchased materials, he would have paid VAT then, just
as now, and would pass that on to the end customer.

The difference would be that if his annual revenue is greater than the
VAT threshold, he would now have to register for VAT (whereas before he
might have ducked it). The effect to the customer would be the VAT on
his labour.

OTOH, if he is below the threshold, it won't have made a difference.

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 3:44:15 PM11/23/06
to

If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.


NT

Fred

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 6:33:22 PM11/23/06
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:4565...@nt1.hall.gl...

Ironically for new builds there is no need for any self certification and
any cowboy can do the work. Yes I know there is the CIS framework but that
doesn't stop a jack of any trades to do the wiring.

Building control will be needed for a new build so the wiring can just be
added to that at no extra cost.


Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 7:24:03 PM11/23/06
to
In article <1164314655.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

<meow...@care2.com> wrote:
> If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
> pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.

Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
workmanship checked by a professional.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

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

unop...@mail.com

unread,
Nov 23, 2006, 9:04:15 PM11/23/06
to
>
> Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
> workmanship checked by a professional.
>
On the scale of quality of result, there is an overlap between amateur
and professional. At least some amateurs are capable of better quality
than at least some professionals - there is no hard and fast dividing
line. The problem is that all amateurs are regarded officially as
incompetent, and all professionals competent, which is demonstrably not
the case.

To give some analogous examples:

I am not a professional cook. I have sampled the output of
professionally qualified cooks, and quality has varied wildly, from the
nearly inedible to the sublime. The meals I produce are indubitably
better than the worst I have sampled produced by professionals.

I am not a professional nurse. I have both experienced the care of
professional nurses, and seen those close to me cared for by
professional nurses. I have also seen non-professional nursing of the
long-term ill. I would say the non-professional care I have seen was
of higher quality - including ensuring the correct dosage of
mediacation was supplied and taken; and taken at appropriate times.

I am not a professional driver. The standard of driving on the roads is
such that I prefer not to be driven by professional minicab drivers,
having feared for my life on several occaisions due the appaling
quality of their driving. Bus drivers vary wildly from the excellent to
the appalling, as do heavy goods vehicle drivers.

In the above cases the amateur often has a lower workload, and is not
constrained by economic considerations, so can take the time and
trouble to do a good job. Obviously, there are utterly incompetent
amateurs for all of the above examples. Please note that I am not
trying to equate the difficulty of performing as a professional
electrician with any of the above jobs, merely illustrating the point.

The main thing that engaging a professional does is provide a means of
comeback if a substandard job is performed. It certainly does not
guarantee a minimum standard of performance, contrary to the claims of
many people.

In other European countries, if you make a modification to your
domestic fixed electrical installation, and your house burns down as a
result, your insurance is invalid. If an electrician had made exactly
the same modification, and the house burns down as a result, you claim
against the electrician's insurance. Competence does not come in to
it.

Competent amateurs are in a bind because they have no way of mitigating
the risk of having done a substandard job.

Sid

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 4:05:25 AM11/24/06
to
unop...@mail.com wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>
>
>> Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.
>
> But that was presented as part of the justification for it.
>
>> It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
>> done on the side.
>
> Not ostensibly
>
>> I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.
>>
>> The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
>> tax increases by a few million.
>
> A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
> by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
> railways and the roads.

You are joking surely?

Most "road safety" measures are their to incerease revenue and add to
congestion, so they can justify a further 'congestion charge'

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 4:03:46 AM11/24/06
to
NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 4:12:36 AM11/24/06
to
In article <1164333855....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,

<unop...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
> > workmanship checked by a professional.
> >
> On the scale of quality of result, there is an overlap between amateur
> and professional. At least some amateurs are capable of better quality
> than at least some professionals - there is no hard and fast dividing
> line. The problem is that all amateurs are regarded officially as
> incompetent, and all professionals competent, which is demonstrably not
> the case.

Indeed. However, there's no need to 'catch' the competent amateur. There
may be if he isn't. And the same applies to so called pros. That's the
theory behind certification. Of course like many theories it doesn't quite
do what it's meant to in practice.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 4:46:12 AM11/24/06
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <1164314655.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <meow...@care2.com> wrote:

> > If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
> > pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.

> Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
> workmanship checked by a professional.

(At excessive rates.) This is a tax because there is no reason to do
such work checks. Why? One might imagine there is need, but the death
rates show there is not. The death stats really are that plain (bear in
mind nearly all those quoted died from appliance faults, not fixed
wiring faults).

Whether someone works for money or for themselvs and how competent
someone is are 2 different things. I've lost count of the number of
professional sparks I've asked simple questions, only to hear how
little they really know.

There is of course also the question of why able and sometimes well
qualified people would need their work to be checked by the variably
capable and sometimes less qualified, esp in an area where death rate
tends to zero, and the work done by jo public has been shown by these
numbers to be not a safety problem in practice. Really its not
justified.

Lastly there is the reality that people greatly improving the safety of
their older installs will have significant costs added on for no
real-world gain, and this will result in less people doing the work,
thus greater dangers. You can couch it in terms that make it sound like
a check to improve safety, but the disappointing reality is more people
will die as a result of it, not less. Thus its nothing more than a tax
with occasionally fatal results. Ie a tax on safety.


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 4:49:47 AM11/24/06
to
Andy Hall wrote:
> On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, meow...@care2.com said:
> > unop...@mail.com wrote:
> >> dennis@home wrote:

> >>> Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

> >> But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

> > of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
> > gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
> > it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.

> In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
> direction.

This is because public acceptance was manufactured by misrepresenting
it as a safety policy. Had the truth been told people woud have shouted
'no way.'


NT

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:05:50 AM11/24/06
to

Basically the same could be said of any Nu Laber policy.

>
> NT
>

edgar

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:12:14 AM11/24/06
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8><----

> NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
> unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.
>
8><----

Then the masses will need 5 science A levels - and they can't be denied.
So the A level certificates will come with the appliance and ID cards will
be updated at the checkout. Of course the checkout operator will ask three
testing questions to validate these qualifications:
Do you want to pay Cash? y/n
Do you want to take it with you? y/n
Do you want our extra warranty? y/n

And for foreigners (and those without an id card) the checkout operator has
an Anybody@Anywhere card which also confers VAT exemption.

Edgar

Mike

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:18:07 AM11/24/06
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e8a88b...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <1164314655.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <meow...@care2.com> wrote:
>> If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
>> pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.
>
> Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
> workmanship checked by a professional.
>

In my case, I'm about as qualified as you can be to re-wire a house etc.
Most professionals haven't a clue why the rules are made out the way they
are. Most of the committee sanctioning the rules are no longer allowed to
put safety devices or add extra circuits to their houses.

If it was just about qualifications then I would agree with you, but it's
not. It's about self interested associations receiving lots of money from
their membership and certainly not safety.

Miraculously deaths associated with fixed wiring are very rare. Therefore
the investment vs cost could be better put elsewhere.

The sad thing for me is this death of an MP's daughter: The principle
published error is that the wiring was sunk into a bathroom wall was in a
diagonal fashion. But in fact a number of things have gone wrong.

1 The old regs allowed metal channelling to be used which need not be
earthed. Newer regs insist that metal channelling is earthed, the principle
result is that PVC channelling is used. A masonry drill will stop at
galvanised steel channelling whereas it will go straight through PVC. How
many deaths were related to unearthed channelling. I'd put money on it
being very few.

2 The person fitting the towel rail didn't check for power under the
surface. In my eyes he's the main culprit for drilling into a wall where he
hadn't got a clue what was underneath the plaster. Bit like doing 70 in
thick fog.

3 A tingling sensation was felt on the rail but no one thought to
question it! - Astounding - and in a bathroom!

4 If an RCD was fitted it might have saved her life.

Ironically I can't fit an RCD to my wiring because of Part P without paying
exorbitant fees from either Building Control, or a professional cowboy.

You're not someone who would call that progress are you?

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:41:14 AM11/24/06
to
On 2006-11-24 10:18:07 +0000, "Mike" <mik...@nowhere.com> said:

>
>
> The sad thing for me is this death of an MP's daughter:

You mean because it wasn't the MP? ;-)


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:44:41 AM11/24/06
to

I think that even if the truth had been told, it the global scheme of
things this is of so little importance that the politicians were
disinterested, as were the press (until there was the death of an MP's
daughter) and the public were and have remained blissfully ignorant.

I suspect that in the field of DIY, little has changed in practice.
If people did their own wiring before and didn't involve bureaucracy or
do comprehensive testing, they will continue to do so.


The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 5:45:34 AM11/24/06
to
edgar wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 8><----
>> NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
>> unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.
>>
> 8><----
>
> Then the masses will need 5 science A levels - and they can't be denied.
> So the A level certificates will come with the appliance and ID cards will
> be updated at the checkout. Of course the checkout operator will ask three
> testing questions to validate these qualifications:
> Do you want to pay Cash? y/n
> Do you want to take it with you? y/n
> Do you want our extra warranty? y/n
>
Do you want fries with that?

Guy King

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 6:10:43 AM11/24/06
to
The message <1164361787.2...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
from meow...@care2.com contains these words:

> This is because public acceptance was manufactured by misrepresenting
> it as a safety policy. Had the truth been told people woud have shouted
> 'no way.'

Just like ID cards and longer licensing hours, Iraq and many other
recent Labour fiascos then.

How long before we import DieBold voting machines?

Andy Wade

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 7:28:23 AM11/24/06
to
Mike wrote:

> In my case, I'm about as qualified as you can be to re-wire a house etc.

Your subsequent comments rather bring that statement into question.

> The sad thing for me is this death of an MP's daughter: The principle

principal

> published error is that the wiring was sunk into a bathroom wall was in a
> diagonal fashion. But in fact a number of things have gone wrong.

This accident took place in a kitchen. The live metalwork was a plate
rack, IIRC.

> 1 The old regs allowed metal channelling to be used which need not be
> earthed. Newer regs insist that metal channelling is earthed,

That's quite incorrect. Metal channelling does not need to to be
earthed when used over a sheathed cable like "twin-and-earth." See
regulation 471-09-04.

> result is that PVC channelling is used. A masonry drill will stop at
> galvanised steel channelling whereas it will go straight through PVC.

Nonsense. A masonry drill will go through thin steel channelling almost
as easily as PVC. Channelling/capping is not intended to give impact
protection to wiring in a completed installation. Its purpose is the
hold the cables in place prior to plastering, and to give some
protection against damage by the plasterers trowel and other building
operations. Metal channelling does not constitute protection for the
purposes of regulation 522-06-06, whether earthed or not.

> 2 The person fitting the towel rail didn't check for power under the
> surface. In my eyes he's the main culprit for drilling into a wall where he
> hadn't got a clue what was underneath the plaster.

Absolutely. Moreover the present "safe zones" concept in wiring dates
from an amendment to the 15th edition regs in 1987. Before that
unprotected diagonal cable runs were quite permissible, so the
electrician can't be blamed unless the installation is newer than that.
(Also I notice that when the 17th edition comes into force in 2008
unprotected runs outside the safe zones will again be permitted - but
only if the circuit is RCD protected and the methods of the present reg.
522-06-06 cannot be employed.)

> 3 A tingling sensation was felt on the rail but no one thought to
> question it! - Astounding - and in a bathroom!

Or kitchen, even - but, yes, I agree entirely.

> 4 If an RCD was fitted it might have saved her life.

True, but not a necessarily a particularly relevant point without
knowing what the particular cable drilled into was for.

--
Andy

Andy Wade

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 7:29:27 AM11/24/06
to
Andy Hall wrote:

> I couldn't possibly comment.....

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

--
Andy

Fred

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 7:49:20 AM11/24/06
to

"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4566e5c5$0$18048$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

I disagree from experience about metal channelling and masonry drills. It's
more difficult than you think to drill through even thin sheet steel with a
masonry bit, particularly if the edge is slightly blunted.

The person perhaps should be shot is the husband for putting up the utensil
rack. Also the cable was only 5 degrees from vertical, not really diagonal
as suggested elsewhere.

It was cable for an extractor fan. I've no idea where they took the feed
off but I would imagine, from the description, it would be from a mains ring
and so now would ordinarily be protected with an RCD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3735928.stm

In any case I find it surprising the regs allow "open" lighting sockets
which need not be protected by a low current RCD.


Joe

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 8:38:15 AM11/24/06
to
Guy King wrote:
> The message <4565c200$0$8746$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
> from "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
>> safer.
>
> Yes they have. Where before you could do the work yourself, and thereby
> not pay tax on the work 'cos it's DIY, now you have to[1] employ someone
> else to do it. Income tax, National Insurance and VAT are then payable
> on the money that changes hands.
>
> [1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
> through Building Control but many people either don't know that or can't
> be arsed.
>
You then pay the tax to the council...

On a wider scale, tax is not necessarily money paid to the government,
but payment required by it. The government does not receive the tax on
televisions, but will enforce payment. The self-certification bodies
receive money that they would not otherwise receive because of the
existence of part P. This money buys nothing but a piece of paper, a
licence, which is another name for tax.

Licenced electricians can charge more because of the existence of this
law, not because they are providing a better service. Again, this extra
money is paid purely to comply with the law, and therefore is taxation.
No additional skill is bought with this money, as is the case with the
driving licence. This is also a tax, but a very small one, and is linked
to a higher standard of driving skill than would otherwise exist, at
least in many cases. It can be argued that it is a standards-supporting
measure rather than a revenue-raising one, though that doesn't stop it
being a tax paid by people who drive.

Neither theory nor, so far, practice, suggests that part P will bring
any improvement in standards in exchange for its costs.

Guy King

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 9:32:07 AM11/24/06
to
The message <ek6skb$cq1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>
from Joe <j...@jretrading.com> contains these words:

> > [1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
> > through Building Control but many people either don't know that or can't
> > be arsed.
> >
> You then pay the tax to the council...

Ah, but they're not allowed to charge you for that bit!

Fred

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 9:51:17 AM11/24/06
to

"Guy King" <guy....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303034323...@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message <ek6skb$cq1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>
> from Joe <j...@jretrading.com> contains these words:
>
>> > [1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
>> > through Building Control but many people either don't know that or
>> > can't
>> > be arsed.
>> >
>> You then pay the tax to the council...
>
> Ah, but they're not allowed to charge you for that bit!
>

Eh, a payment to Building Control is a tax. Any payment for which you get
no or minimal direct return is a tax.


John Rumm

unread,
Nov 24, 2006, 9:29:14 PM11/24/06
to
Fred wrote:

> I disagree from experience about metal channelling and masonry drills. It's
> more difficult than you think to drill through even thin sheet steel with a
> masonry bit, particularly if the edge is slightly blunted.

Depends a bit on how you are drilling. Using rotation only, or perhaps
even hammer action on an "ordinary" hammer drill, then you are correct -
you would probably feel a difference as you drill (assuming you are
experianced enough drilling holes to know what to expect!)

A SDS masonry drill however will romp through most things without much
regard for what they are made of.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Stephen Dawson

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 12:46:05 PM11/25/06
to

"Fred" <Fr...@n0spam.c0m> wrote in message
news:45663017$0$2439$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

I don't think you are quite right there.

--

Steve
www.foxelectrical.co.uk ( has the sig sep worked) still not sure what it
is for though


Fred

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 1:25:02 PM11/25/06
to

"Stephen Dawson" <stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xj%9h.58393$Ib....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Building control have been specifically told they cannot charge for the
inspection of an electrical installation over and above their standard
charge. Their standard charge covers everything associated with building a
house beyond planning. If wiring is done by someone who cannot self
certify, then building control must be notified, which of course for a new
build has already been done.

Where do you think I'm going wrong?


robgraham

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 5:31:57 PM11/25/06
to

Andy Burns wrote:

> Andy Wade wrote:
>
> > Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
> > misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations
> >
> > 2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
> > 2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
> > 2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
> > 2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
> > 2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13
>
> Hrrrmph!

It would be interesting to know what percentage of these were in
Scotland where the Part P doesn't apply and whether there has been an
equivalent percentage increase.

My understanding is that we just have to be satisfied that we are
'competent'!

Rob

John Rumm

unread,
Nov 25, 2006, 7:54:01 PM11/25/06
to
Fred wrote:

>>>Ironically for new builds there is no need for any self certification and
>>>any cowboy can do the work. Yes I know there is the CIS framework but
>>>that doesn't stop a jack of any trades to do the wiring.
>>>
>>>Building control will be needed for a new build so the wiring can just be
>>>added to that at no extra cost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't think you are quite right there.
>>
>
>
> Building control have been specifically told they cannot charge for the
> inspection of an electrical installation over and above their standard
> charge. Their standard charge covers everything associated with building a
> house beyond planning. If wiring is done by someone who cannot self
> certify, then building control must be notified, which of course for a new
> build has already been done.
>
> Where do you think I'm going wrong?

The "any cowboy" bit... If building control are on the ball and
subcontracting the inspection work to skilled electricians, then the
work will have to be of a reasonable quality in order for the BCO to be
given the nod to pass it.

Andy Wade

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 5:44:39 AM11/26/06
to
John Rumm wrote:

> The "any cowboy" bit... If building control are on the ball and
> subcontracting the inspection work to skilled electricians, then the
> work will have to be of a reasonable quality in order for the BCO to be
> given the nod to pass it.

Also the DNO will expect to see a signed-off electrical installation
certificate before they'll connect a new installation to the public
supply for the first time. BS 7671 isn't explicitly quoted in the
building regulations, but it is in the ESQC regulations (where it is
referred to as the "British standard requirements"):

25(2) A distributor shall not give his consent to the making or altering
of the connection referred to in paragraph (1), where he has reasonable
grounds for believing that -

a) the consumer's installation, street electrical fixture or other
distributor's network fails to comply with British Standard Requirements
or these Regulations; or
[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022665.htm#25]

--
Andy

Fred

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 6:24:12 AM11/26/06
to

"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45697074$0$2443$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

OK - I was over the top with "any cowboy" bit. However as long as
everything looks alright then it will be signed off by building control and
may never be tested. Aren't the tests building control do discretionary?

Similarly as long as the installation looks OK it will be connected as long
as there aren't reasonable grounds for not doing so. Are you aware of
installation passing building control but failing the DNO's requirements?

In theory to obtain a certificate the complete installation ought be carried
out by someone who is a member of the appropriate body. He shouldn't issue
a certificate if someone who has no such professional membership completes
part of the job. Am I wrong here? Just that some of the menial tasks such
as installing the wiring and clipping the wiring is sometimes not done by a
"professional" electrician, so they'd have to fall back to building control
to sign things off.


Andy Wade

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 7:51:13 PM11/26/06
to
Fred wrote:

> OK - I was over the top with "any cowboy" bit. However as long as
> everything looks alright then it will be signed off by building control and
> may never be tested. Aren't the tests building control do discretionary?

If the work is done by a competent qualified person, either a member of
a Part P scheme or a person qualified to conduct inspection and testing,
the building control body should accept the EIC provided to them
(although in the case of the qualified non-scheme-member the Approved
document gives them discretion to decide "what (if any) further action
needs to be taken..." In the case of the non-qualified installer "the
amount of inspection and testing needed is for the building control body
to decide, based on the nature and extent of the electrical work." Some
level of inspection and testing should always be required for notifiable
work, although the Approved doc does acknowledge that this may be
minimal in simple cases.

> Similarly as long as the installation looks OK it will be connected

That's not meant to be the case, but I've no recent experience as to how
DNOs are interpreting the rules in practice .

> In theory to obtain a certificate the complete installation ought be carried
> out by someone who is a member of the appropriate body. He shouldn't issue
> a certificate if someone who has no such professional membership completes
> part of the job. Am I wrong here?

Yes. BS 7671 itself only requires competence, not qualifications /per
se/ and certainly not membership of a scheme or any trade body. However
Approved Document P, read literally, implies that building control
should not accept a certificate from an unqualified person. Again, how
that works in practice may be another matter, given that the ADs are
only there as guidance.

> Just that some of the menial tasks such as installing the wiring and
> clipping the wiring is sometimes not done by a "professional"
> electrician, so they'd have to fall back to building control to sign
> things off.

That's not a particularly relevant point, it's the electrician or a
qualified supervisor in the employing firm who signs the certificates
and takes responsibility. The full EIC has the option for three
separate signatures for design, installation ("erection") and inspection
& testing.

--
Andy

Lightman

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 4:29:36 AM11/27/06
to
The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong
as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new
installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100%
compliance with part P!!)

In reality, even if all new "cowboy" installations were stopped from
day 1 of the legislation, the vast bulk of installations with all of
the past legacy "cowboy" work are still in existance. It would take
30 years or more before all old installations were finally rewired (as
houses are bought and sold and finally end up having a major
refurbishment).

Therefore even if the legistaltion was effective (and in practice it is
largely ignored by DIY'ers - just look at what B&Q sells including
consumer units etc!!!) I would expect a gradual decline over 10 -30
years

In actual fact there was no problem and as there is not a detailed
record of every installation (especially older installations) therefore
one can add circuits with no risk of being "caught".

Lumping fixed wiring deaths (a non-problem) with other appliance deaths
has obviously been chosen by the useless civil servants to hide what is
probably an upturn in deaths from fixed wiring!!

In other countries increased regulation caused more deaths due to
forcing up prices and encouraging more "mates from the pub" having a
go.

Lightman

Guy King

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 5:50:24 AM11/27/06
to
The message <1164619776.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
from "Lightman" <carrier-pr...@hotmail.co.uk> contains these words:

> The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong
> as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new
> installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100%
> compliance with part P!!)

It doesn't mean they're "wrong", just not presented in a suitable
context. This is true of most statistics.

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 6:39:55 AM11/27/06
to
Lightman wrote:

> The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong
> as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new
> installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100%
> compliance with part P!!)

I've reread the post, and no such things are stated or implied.


> In reality, even if all new "cowboy" installations were stopped from
> day 1 of the legislation, the vast bulk of installations with all of
> the past legacy "cowboy" work are still in existance. It would take
> 30 years or more before all old installations were finally rewired (as
> houses are bought and sold and finally end up having a major
> refurbishment).
>
> Therefore even if the legistaltion was effective (and in practice it is
> largely ignored by DIY'ers - just look at what B&Q sells including
> consumer units etc!!!) I would expect a gradual decline over 10 -30
> years

This is the final problem with part p, that deaths can be expected to
decline over time regardless of whether pp is in place or not. Without
pp they'd decline quicker, since rewiring would be avoided less often,
and there would be less inclination to do illegal jobs. But since it
should decline either way, future statistics will not tell us much.

In fact unqualified working is common today, but is not a signficant
problem, as confirmed by the near zero death rate stats. Often one
hears 'ooh thats dangerous cos its not regs compliant' but IRL the risk
level is miniscule. If only other areas of daily life were as
super-safe as electrical installations.

In the 80s I saw an installation still in daily use from around WW1 (in
retail premises as well) so I reckon it'll take an awful long time for
our historic installs to disappear. HMG might want us all to give our
money to business every 20 years for a rewire, but many arent that
easily taken in.


> In actual fact there was no problem and as there is not a detailed
> record of every installation (especially older installations) therefore
> one can add circuits with no risk of being "caught".

blue & brown

> Lumping fixed wiring deaths (a non-problem) with other appliance deaths
> has obviously been chosen by the useless civil servants to hide what is
> probably an upturn in deaths from fixed wiring!!
>
> In other countries increased regulation caused more deaths due to
> forcing up prices and encouraging more "mates from the pub" having a
> go.
>
> Lightman

But bear in mind most countries have lower standards to start with. UK
wiring has so many layers of protection designed in that errors here
and there dont normally get through all those protection layers, thus
no incident occurs. Hence our wiring system is much more cowboy-proof
than in most countries.


NT

Frank Erskine

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 6:46:53 AM11/27/06