ODPM admits Part P consulation flawed

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Owain

unread,
Jan 1, 2005, 6:15:58 PM1/1/05
to
... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6 deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33 of
the RIA.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
...
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain


Broadback

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 5:00:19 AM1/2/05
to
Owain wrote:

I saw an item on yesterday's TV news in which a lady who had tragically
lost her daughter was used to support the new regs. There is no way
they would have helped her, as there is no retrospective testing. Also
she said the extra cost of £5 to £10 for the extra work involved was
well worth it. Who gave her the figures? I cannot believe them
accurate, while I have every sympathy with the lady I realy believe she
was being used for pure propaganda by cynical officials.

James

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 12:03:29 PM1/2/05
to

"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:110462199...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...

So are they going to drop part P.
well it was wishful thinking.

mind you it not often the government get misleading intelligence/information
is it.

I do agree that all trades people who carry out electrical work for money
should be fully qualified , like the Corgi gas people. How ever for DIYers
who are competent (what ever that means see the gas installation
conversations). I think DIY electrical work should be allowed, as long as
all standards are followed. Of course it would help if the government put
the standards on the internet for free even just the private house hold
sections.


John

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 4:49:51 PM1/2/05
to

"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:110462199...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...


It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our illustrious
PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
outcome.


Mike Harrison

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 11:56:30 AM1/3/05
to
<snip>

>So are they going to drop part P.
>well it was wishful thinking.

All they have to do is revise the definition of the word 'competent' - this would overcome most of
the objection to this nonsense.

James

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 1:54:48 PM1/3/05
to
"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
news:56uit0hvbnk5kj5qp...@4ax.com...

But what are the chances the Part P regs will be changed to allow DIY
electrical (to standards of course) work again (with out the need for
building control or part p certified electrician??? or building control).


One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified electrician do
you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up costs over
a year) to work on homes ? If so what is the incentive to sign up,
industrial work is far more lucrative


Lurch

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 2:11:17 PM1/3/05
to
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:54:48 -0000, "James" <noe...@this.address>
strung together this:

>One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified electrician do
>you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up costs over
>a year) to work on homes ?

Yes.

>If so what is the incentive to sign up,

There isn't one, unless you really really want to be an electrician,
which I don't anymore so I'm not.

>industrial work is far more lucrative
>

And, you still have to be registered for that don't you?
--

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

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 2:34:22 PM1/3/05
to
In article <v26jt098m31m5k7fk...@4ax.com>,

Lurch <theorigi...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:54:48 -0000, "James" <noe...@this.address>
> strung together this:
>
>>One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified electrician do
>>you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up costs over
>>a year) to work on homes ?
>
> Yes.
>
>>If so what is the incentive to sign up,
>
> There isn't one, unless you really really want to be an electrician,
> which I don't anymore so I'm not.

Yes, if you read the trade press, lots of electricians are now
dropping out of the industry, particularly if they were near
retirement age anyway. Apparently, almost none have signed up
for any of the Part P schemes. Expect a massive shortage of
electricians to undertake domestic work, even on the black
market. There was already a shortage before all this happened.

>>industrial work is far more lucrative
>>
> And, you still have to be registered for that don't you?

No. It is the responsibility of any company using your services
to be satisfied that you are competent. Some do this by requiring
NICEIC only (more fool them), others use other criteria. At a
former employer, after some poor work from NICEIC contractors,
the requirements were changed to require qualified electricians
only on-site (C&G certificates had to be presented on first
arriving on site by each person). That actually ruled out all the
NICEIC contractors we had been using, and most work was then done
by one-man-bands, from whom we got a much better quality of work.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Lurch

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 3:12:22 PM1/3/05
to
On 3 Jan 2005 19:34:22 GMT, and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Gabriel) strung together this:

>Yes, if you read the trade press, lots of electricians are now
>dropping out of the industry, particularly if they were near
>retirement age anyway. Apparently, almost none have signed up
>for any of the Part P schemes. Expect a massive shortage of
>electricians to undertake domestic work, even on the black
>market. There was already a shortage before all this happened.
>

I'm nowhere near retirement age though, I'm 26. I just don't want to
be associated with an industry that's fallen to pieces. I do data,
telecoms and security now, which I always preferred but stuck to
mainly doing electrical work as that was what I wanted to be from an
early age and it's what I am qualified to do. Unfortunately I'm now
not 'competent'.

>>>industrial work is far more lucrative
>>>
>> And, you still have to be registered for that don't you?
>
>No. It is the responsibility of any company using your services
>to be satisfied that you are competent. Some do this by requiring
>NICEIC only (more fool them), others use other criteria. At a
>former employer, after some poor work from NICEIC contractors,
>the requirements were changed to require qualified electricians
>only on-site (C&G certificates had to be presented on first
>arriving on site by each person). That actually ruled out all the
>NICEIC contractors we had been using, and most work was then done
>by one-man-bands, from whom we got a much better quality of work.

Ah, well I might carry on doing industrial work then, although there
are still plenty of rougharse electricians work on industrial
installations so I can't see the point. It's even more of a shambles
than I thought.

Andy Wade

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 3:23:59 PM1/3/05
to
James wrote:

> But what are the chances the Part P regs will be changed [...]

I've only noticed today that the ODPM has already issued what they are
calling "corrections" to Approved Document P - see
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_033693.pdf

This contains a clarification on what constitutes a kitchen for the
purpose of the Act:

"Kitchen is defined in the Building Regulations as 'a room or part of a
room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities'.

"As a guide only, in open plan areas the zone of a kitchen may be
considered to extend from the edge of the sink to a distance of 3m or to
a nearer dividing wall."

And also the statement that:

"Work not in a special location on: Telephone or extra-low voltage
wiring and equipment for the purposes of communications, information
technology, signalling, control and similar purposes"

need not be notified.

(So a building notice is still required if you want to install a phone
socket or coaxial aerial socket in the kitchen!)

> [...] to allow DIY electrical (to standards of course) work again


> (with out the need for building control or part p certified
> electrician??? or building control).

Approximately zero.

--
Andy

Andy Burns

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 3:53:58 PM1/3/05
to
Andy Wade wrote:

> "Kitchen is defined in the Building Regulations as 'a room or part of a
> room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities'.

So if I temporarily relocate the toaster I'm allowed to replace sockets
in the kit^H^H^Hroom next to the dining room to my heart's content?

Bruce Tanner

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 4:10:33 PM1/3/05
to
Personally I would be happy to take a test/exam to prove I am sufficiently
knowledgeable and "competent".

The trouble is, apart from costing a small fortune, you appear to have to be
employed in order to do this. This is clearly something that has been
cynically pushed by contractors/employers to further their own selfish cause
under the disguise of "safety".


"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:110462199...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...

Andy Burns

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 4:11:58 PM1/3/05
to
Andy Wade wrote:

> So a building notice is still required if you want to install a phone
> socket or coaxial aerial socket in the kitchen!

No, seems that telephone/elv work doesn't apply to kitchens, only to
special locations (which are bath, shower, pool or sauna)

Also the rule that repacing a single fire/rodent/impact damaged cable
cable is not notifiable, doesn't stipulate that it has to be accidental
damage, maybe I could hire out rats particularly partial to PVC.

Mike

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 4:28:41 PM1/3/05
to

"Andy Wade" <spamb...@ajwade.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41d9a968$0$21322$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

> James wrote:
>
> > But what are the chances the Part P regs will be changed [...]
>
> I've only noticed today that the ODPM has already issued what they are
> calling "corrections" to Approved Document P - see
>
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_bre
g_033693.pdf
>
> This contains a clarification on what constitutes a kitchen for the
> purpose of the Act:
>
> "Kitchen is defined in the Building Regulations as 'a room or part of a
> room which contains a sink and food preparation facilities'.

Great - that brings my garage and possibly the covered BBQ area under BC as
well then !!!!

Owain

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 4:13:52 PM1/3/05
to
"Lurch" wrote

| Ah, well I might carry on doing industrial work then, although
| there are still plenty of rougharse electricians work on industrial
| installations so I can't see the point. It's even more of a shambles
| than I thought.

It's really only an issue where there is no other notifiable work being
carried out, i.e. minor works and rewires. For extensions, new builds,
kitchens where there is a new connection to a sewer, or other notifiable
work, then the electrical work can simply be added to the building regs
application.

I expect most of the electricians on new build housing schemes are pretty
rougharse too though.

Owain


Lurch

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 5:26:20 PM1/3/05
to
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:13:52 -0000, "Owain"
<owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> strung together this:

>It's really only an issue where there is no other notifiable work being
>carried out, i.e. minor works and rewires. For extensions, new builds,
>kitchens where there is a new connection to a sewer, or other notifiable
>work, then the electrical work can simply be added to the building regs
>application.
>

It's not the notification that's the problem, it's the joining of the
rip off old boys clubs.

>I expect most of the electricians on new build housing schemes are pretty
>rougharse too though.
>

Yep, as are most of the the NICEIC members that I know of. I don't
want to be associated with it.

Mike

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 5:40:08 PM1/3/05
to

"Andy Burns" <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41d9b4ad$0$74276$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

All rats are particularly partial to PVC. Their only preference over it is
scented soap.


Andy Wade

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 6:11:57 PM1/3/05
to
Andy Burns wrote:

> Andy Wade wrote:
>
>> So a building notice is still required if you want to install a phone
>> socket or coaxial aerial socket in the kitchen!
>
> No, seems that telephone/elv work doesn't apply to kitchens, only to
> special locations (which are bath, shower, pool or sauna)

Bzzt. Yes you're quite right of course & I stand corrected.

--
Andy

N. Thornton

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 8:52:00 PM1/3/05
to
In message crc6nu$jbq$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com, Andrew Gabriel

(and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk) wrote:
In article <v26jt098m31m5k7fk...@4ax.com>,
Lurch <theorigi...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:54:48 -0000, "James" <noe...@this.address>
> strung together this:

>>>One interesting question though. If you are a fully qualified
electrician do
>>>you still need to pay to £1000 (estimated total part p up sign up
costs over
>>>a year) to work on homes ?

>> Yes.

>>>If so what is the incentive to sign up,

>> There isn't one, unless you really really want to be an
electrician,
>> which I don't anymore so I'm not.

>Yes, if you read the trade press, lots of electricians are now


>dropping out of the industry, particularly if they were near
>retirement age anyway. Apparently, almost none have signed up
>for any of the Part P schemes. Expect a massive shortage of
>electricians to undertake domestic work, even on the black
>market. There was already a shortage before all this happened.


Would I be correct in saying that domestic electricians do not need to
certify their work. Whose responsibility is it now, the householders
or the sparky's to apply to the local BCO or whatever it is?

Are there in fact any qualifications needed in a domestic sparky? I
know a while ago none were needed, but dont know if this has changed.

NT

Post a fowwow-up to dis message

BigWallop

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 9:28:53 PM1/3/05
to

"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.05010...@posting.google.com...

I always thought it was a necessity for any contractor to be responsible for
their work. If only to provide a timed guarantee period. If it was found to be
a faulty or un-safe installation (not up to current safety standards for the
industry), then you could be sued by the purchaser to redeem costs for any
remedial or replacement work. Liability insurance and all that. The Amendments
to Part P of the building regulations only reinforce this requirement. It won't
stop anyone doing their homers at the weekends.

The need for electricians to register for self testing and certifying of their
work is only bringing them more in to line with other trades likes gas fitters
and the likes. So why the sparkies are all shunning this registration, I don't
know. It could actually mean an increase in their work load, and maybe their
reputations, if they were able to qualify their own work and have jobs randomly
checked to see if they are keeping in line with all the good trade practices.

We have registration to NACOSS and the ACPO, SACPO schemes, and it means a
random check is carried out on some of the work we do in peoples homes or
offices. The tester will choose a customer at random from our invoice book and
call them to see if they can arrange a visit to see the work that was carried by
us. They also ask customers if they found our whole attitude and service polite
and courteous. We actually pride ourselves in giving customers good service,
and strive very hard to keep it that way. The independent check from an outside
body is one way of knowing that your work is still good, and can actually show
up any slackers in the den.

The need will soon be here for a seller to have a full survey done on their home
before a sale can go ahead. The survey will include all gas, electric and
structural design and safety Etc. Etc. so that a new buyer knows they aren't
walking in to a dump that going to blow up, burn down or fall over after they
move in. It will be down to the survey companies to keep a good reputation in
this field as well, because anyone found falsifying documents for a profit will
be shot at dawn.

Don't you think these changes would make a sound investment if buying a new
house? You'll already know that you're not moving in to a dangerous bodgit and
ham flung shack with your family. Even though some wrinkles do need ironed out
on the current amendments wording.


Andy Burns

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 9:42:48 PM1/3/05
to
N. Thornton wrote:

> Post a fowwow-up to dis message

wwotch owt thew wascawwy wabbit iws behwhind wou!

John

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 3:17:22 AM1/4/05
to

"Andy Burns" <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41d9b4ad$0$74276$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

Why bother with rats - use a small blowlamp with fire precations available


Andy Hall

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 5:28:36 AM1/4/05
to
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:28:53 GMT, "BigWallop"
<spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:

>
>
>I always thought it was a necessity for any contractor to be responsible for
>their work. If only to provide a timed guarantee period. If it was found to be
>a faulty or un-safe installation (not up to current safety standards for the
>industry), then you could be sued by the purchaser to redeem costs for any
>remedial or replacement work. Liability insurance and all that. The Amendments
>to Part P of the building regulations only reinforce this requirement. It won't
>stop anyone doing their homers at the weekends.
>
>The need for electricians to register for self testing and certifying of their
>work is only bringing them more in to line with other trades likes gas fitters
>and the likes. So why the sparkies are all shunning this registration, I don't
>know. It could actually mean an increase in their work load, and maybe their
>reputations, if they were able to qualify their own work and have jobs randomly
>checked to see if they are keeping in line with all the good trade practices.
>
>We have registration to NACOSS and the ACPO, SACPO schemes, and it means a
>random check is carried out on some of the work we do in peoples homes or
>offices. The tester will choose a customer at random from our invoice book and
>call them to see if they can arrange a visit to see the work that was carried by
>us. They also ask customers if they found our whole attitude and service polite
>and courteous. We actually pride ourselves in giving customers good service,
>and strive very hard to keep it that way. The independent check from an outside
>body is one way of knowing that your work is still good, and can actually show
>up any slackers in the den.

How big is the sample rate though? 2-3 jobs per year out of hundreds?


>
>The need will soon be here for a seller to have a full survey done on their home
>before a sale can go ahead. The survey will include all gas, electric and
>structural design and safety Etc. Etc. so that a new buyer knows they aren't
>walking in to a dump that going to blow up, burn down or fall over after they
>move in. It will be down to the survey companies to keep a good reputation in
>this field as well, because anyone found falsifying documents for a profit will
>be shot at dawn.

Who will police this and at what rate of policing?

There is something fundamentally flawed in a system where the seller
is commissioning and paying for the survey.


>
>Don't you think these changes would make a sound investment if buying a new
>house? You'll already know that you're not moving in to a dangerous bodgit and
>ham flung shack with your family. Even though some wrinkles do need ironed out
>on the current amendments wording.
>


No I don't. I would always arrange my own surveys and deduct the
cost from the purchase price.

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

N. Thornton

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 7:06:10 AM1/4/05
to
In message FbnCd.2839$GG1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk, BigWallop
(spam.guard@_spam_guard.com) wrote:
Subject: Re: ODPM admits Part P consulation flawed

>The need will soon be here for a seller to have a full survey done on
their home
>before a sale can go ahead. The survey will include all gas,
electric and
>structural design and safety Etc. Etc. so that a new buyer knows they
aren't
>walking in to a dump that going to blow up, burn down or fall over
after they
>move in. It will be down to the survey companies to keep a good
reputation in
>this field as well, because anyone found falsifying documents for a
profit will
>be shot at dawn.
>

>Don't you think these changes would make a sound investment if buying
a new
>house? You'll already know that you're not moving in to a dangerous
bodgit and
>ham flung shack with your family. Even though some wrinkles do need
ironed out
>on the current amendments wording.


That's just too tempting a question to ignore. No is the answer,
definitely not.

Firstly a survey on gas, electric, structural design etc costs a small
fortune at the very time a buyer can least afford it.

Secondly these surveys have anything but a satisfactory history, with
inappropriate nitpicking complaints being almost routine, and
recommendations for inappropriate works being common too.

Third they do not provide any kind of indication of how important each
issue is - or in fact whether its an issue at all, which it often is
not.

Fourth I can do a much better survey myself in 2 hours at no cost, as
can a substantial number of people.

Fifth such surveys are a waste of time and money for the many
properties that change hands with known assorted provlems in need of
repair: people that buy these properties are not clueless people that
need the above surveying doing for them.

Sixth such surveys are too often used to generate bogus faults, or to
exaggerate trivial faults out of so much proportion as to try to knock
the buyer's price down with no reasonable grounds, or they result in
evidently expertise-starved mortgage lenders making inappropriate
demands and restrictions.

Seventh and finally, and possibly most importantly, do you not think
that each of us is a grown up capable of deciding for ourselves when
and whether to have what kind of survey or paperwork exercise? Why
exactly would we need to force everyone to spend on a closed shop
service that almost none of us would choose of our own free will? Do
you not see the agenda there? The percentage of grown ups that choose
to have a full survey now is, trying to remember, something like 1% or
2%. We dont want them! And thanks nanny, but I think we can decide for
ourselves, dont you?


NT

PS I didnt pay for any survey when I moved here, and am glad I didnt.

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 9:35:12 AM1/4/05
to
In article <crccc9$kqb$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Bruce Tanner
<URL:mailto:som...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Personally I would be happy to take a test/exam to prove I am sufficiently
> knowledgeable and "competent".

But *are* you? http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Owain

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 9:45:57 AM1/4/05
to
"N. Thornton" wrote

| Would I be correct in saying that domestic electricians do not
| need to certify their work.

What do you mean by 'certify'? The point of Part P is that work must be
carried out either by a registered contractor or under the auspices of
Building Control

| Whose responsibility is it now, the householders
| or the sparky's to apply to the local BCO or whatever it is?

It is the householder's legal duty to ensure that all Building Control
applications and other statutory obligations are fulfilled. There may be a
contractual agreement that the contractor will make the application and
include the fees in his bill, but it remains the householder's legal duty to
ensure this is done.

| Are there in fact any qualifications needed in a domestic sparky? I
| know a while ago none were needed, but dont know if this has changed.

Of course not. This isn't about qualifications or competence.

Owain


Stefek Zaba

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 11:49:48 AM1/4/05
to
N. Thornton wrote:
>
> Seventh and finally, and possibly most importantly, do you not think
> that each of us is a grown up capable of deciding for ourselves when
> and whether to have what kind of survey or paperwork exercise? Why
> exactly would we need to force everyone to spend on a closed shop
> service that almost none of us would choose of our own free will? Do
> you not see the agenda there? The percentage of grown ups that choose
> to have a full survey now is, trying to remember, something like 1% or
> 2%. We dont want them! And thanks nanny, but I think we can decide for
> ourselves, dont you?
>
Prezactly. There's a huge range of choices we all make in doing a house
move / house purchase - balancing a hundred "nice to have" factors
against a basic "mortgage repayments exceeding gross income by a factor
of two" ;-) How comprehensive a survey to go for, whether to try to
cover the bulk of eventualities or to concentrate on a couple of worry
areas, balancing our own knowledge against what we believe we can pay
for. The interests of society at large are already catered for in
building regs and planning law, which work together to avoid the worst
excesses of an unregulated market; beyond that point, no bureaucracy can
anticipate the myriad of factors people want to take into account when
deciding on moving house (or choosing whether to buy at all).

As I'm sure I've wittered on about before, the best 100 quid or so we
ever spent in connection with a housemove was about 20 years ago, when
we were in our mid-twenties and keen on a quite pretty-looking little
detached cottagey place in North Oxford. It'd had its attic/loft built
into, and the job had been bodged such that the roof was squashing down
and pushing the tops of the walls out. The surveyor was smart enough to
phone us with this news within a day of doing the survey, offering us a
substantial saving off the cost of the survey if we were happy with his
verbal report rather'n a written one (sthg like 80 quid vs 140). Spies
in a place up the road confirmed the eventual purchasers spent most of a
winter in a caravan in the garden while the necessary structural
remediation was done. The kind of thoughtful flexibility extended to us
by that surveyor is impossible under the micro-regulated dreamworld
which brings us Part P...

Stefek

James

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 12:29:27 PM1/4/05
to

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:FbnCd.2839$GG1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

What do you mean it won't stop homers at the weekend, that's exactly what it
does. No one including sparkys can do hone electrical work with out part p
certification or building control.

I'm not a sparky so don't think I am standing up for them only, but if a
qualified sparkly cant do their own electronics what is this nanny state
coming to.

I agree with another poster that a minimal test should be put in place ,
where the local councils to allow DIYers (and non part p sparkys) to do work
on their own home, or that of friend but as long as no free is charged.

>
> The need for electricians to register for self testing and certifying of
their
> work is only bringing them more in to line with other trades likes gas
fitters
> and the likes.

I believe that you don't need to be corgi registered to do your own gas
work, just "competent" but that's another argument.

So why the sparkys are all shunning this registration,

How about approx £ 1000 pounds costs in the first year,

I agree with surveys, but when I purchased my home I was recommended to go
for the middle survey, steer clear of the basic one for obvious reasons. The
most comprehensive survey was only recommended or old houses.


It will be down to the survey companies to keep a good reputation in
> this field as well, because anyone found falsifying documents for a profit
will
> be shot at dawn.
>
> Don't you think these changes would make a sound investment if buying a
new
> house?

Not so sure, but I can se some reasons behind them, but mostly just a nanny
state and profit.

Mike Harrison

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 1:12:11 PM1/4/05
to

>
>
>>
>> The need for electricians to register for self testing and certifying of
>their
>> work is only bringing them more in to line with other trades likes gas
>fitters
>> and the likes.
>I believe that you don't need to be corgi registered to do your own gas
>work, just "competent" but that's another argument.

..and the biggest objection to Part P is that they redefined the word 'competent' to mean a member
of the appropriate cartel.

>So why the sparkys are all shunning this registration,
>
>How about approx £ 1000 pounds costs in the first year,

,..and the realisation that so many people will be ignorant of, or just not care about the new regs
that it won't get them any more business.

Nick Atty

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 12:55:09 PM1/4/05
to
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
<bo1l...@ASbtinternet.com> wrote:

>It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our illustrious
>PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
>everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
>outcome.

Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?

--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

Nick Atty

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 12:55:03 PM1/4/05
to
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:13:52 -0000, "Owain"
<owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:

>It's really only an issue where there is no other notifiable work being
>carried out, i.e. minor works and rewires. For extensions, new builds,
>kitchens where there is a new connection to a sewer, or other notifiable
>work, then the electrical work can simply be added to the building regs
>application.

Can someone explain this "kitchens" bit to me. I have two double
sockets and a light fitting in rooms outside my kitchen but closer to my
kitchen sink (and to all other sources of water etc in my kitchen) than
the lights at the other end of the room (the lights I installed myself a
few years ago, the rest was there before).

Access to the lights is through the floor of the room above.

Why is changing one of those light fittings in any possible, plausible
or credible way more dangerous, or leads to greater risk, than the
sockets outside the room?

Plus the fact that well before I moved in the kitchen was a kitchen a
dining room and the previous owner removed hte partition wall. Can I
put it back up, change the light fittings and then take it down again?

Andy Burns

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 2:36:18 PM1/4/05
to
Nick Atty wrote:

> Can I
> put it back up, change the light fittings and then take it down again?

Why bother changing walls ... since the corrections define a kitchen as

"a room or part of a room which contains a sink and food preparation
facilities"

Remove either the sink, or the food preparation facilities, do the
non-notifiable work, then replace ;-)

Bob Eager

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 3:03:47 PM1/4/05
to
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:12:11 UTC, Mike Harrison <mi...@whitewing.co.uk>
wrote:

> ..and the biggest objection to Part P is that they redefined the word 'competent' to mean a member
> of the appropriate cartel.

Indeed. Which locks out the majority of genuinely competent people.

> ,..and the realisation that so many people will be ignorant of, or just not care about the new regs

I see that B&Q have a small notice by the electrical bits...saying you
should consult Building Control or look at the OD{M website.

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

Andy Burns

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 4:16:52 PM1/4/05
to
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

Whooosh?

John

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 5:05:10 PM1/4/05
to

"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.05010...@posting.google.com...

That does of course depend on your definition of a small fortune!
A "full" electrical survey will be expensive but a simple outline survey
which would confirm a representative check of suitable current rating cables
being used, an earth loop impedance/confirmation of suitable earthing
measures, an insulation test and a report on the general condition of
accessible/visible parts should be sufficient to put a prospective buyers
mind at rest.
A gas safety inspection to the level of a landlords gas safety inspection
would not be particularly expensive.
A structural survey for most properties will depend on known local
conditions but two or three hundred ought to meet the needs of most small
dwellings.
>

> Secondly these surveys have anything but a satisfactory history, with
> inappropriate nitpicking complaints being almost routine, and
> recommendations for inappropriate works being common too.

As usual the surveyor uses lots of wriggles to avoid being sued if he has
missed anything

>
> Third they do not provide any kind of indication of how important each
> issue is - or in fact whether its an issue at all, which it often is
> not.

That can be addressed by asking for clarification when needed

>
> Fourth I can do a much better survey myself in 2 hours at no cost, as
> can a substantial number of people.

YUP but we are talking about the great unwashed here

>
> Fifth such surveys are a waste of time and money for the many
> properties that change hands with known assorted provlems in need of
> repair: people that buy these properties are not clueless people that
> need the above surveying doing for them.

YUP again

>
> Sixth such surveys are too often used to generate bogus faults, or to
> exaggerate trivial faults out of so much proportion as to try to knock
> the buyer's price down with no reasonable grounds, or they result in
> evidently expertise-starved mortgage lenders making inappropriate
> demands and restrictions.

Shit happens

>
> Seventh and finally, and possibly most importantly, do you not think
> that each of us is a grown up capable of deciding for ourselves when
> and whether to have what kind of survey or paperwork exercise? Why
> exactly would we need to force everyone to spend on a closed shop
> service that almost none of us would choose of our own free will? Do
> you not see the agenda there? The percentage of grown ups that choose
> to have a full survey now is, trying to remember, something like 1% or
> 2%. We dont want them! And thanks nanny, but I think we can decide for
> ourselves, dont you?
>

I can decide for myself but many people can't. We must keep those in mind
also. I do agree that it should be voluntary though or at least
non-compulsory if the buyer doesn't want the survey. Mortgage lenders only
have power over folks who need their money.


Ed Sirett

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 6:56:34 PM1/4/05
to

Joining fees, exam fees, calibrated and certified 16th Edition test kit.
Easily £1000.


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


Mike

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 6:57:04 PM1/4/05
to

"Nick Atty" <nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1smjt0tarsavaj6si...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
> <bo1l...@ASbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our
illustrious
> >PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
> >everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
> >outcome.
>
> Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
> Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
> notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?

Do you really think any of these departments are ready for part P at all?
I gather many of their staff have the same view of it as us.


N. Thornton

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 7:57:04 PM1/4/05
to
In message 110485175...@demeter.uk.clara.net, Owain
(owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk) wrote:
"N. Thornton" wrote

>| Would I be correct in saying that domestic electricians do not
>| need to certify their work.
>

>What do you mean by 'certify'? The point of Part P is that work must
be
>carried out either by a registered contractor or under the auspices
of
>Building Control
>

>| Whose responsibility is it now, the householders
>| or the sparky's to apply to the local BCO or whatever it is?
>

>It is the householder's legal duty to ensure that all Building
Control
>applications and other statutory obligations are fulfilled. There may
be a
>contractual agreement that the contractor will make the application
and
>include the fees in his bill, but it remains the householder's legal
duty to
>ensure this is done.
>

>| Are there in fact any qualifications needed in a domestic sparky? I
>| know a while ago none were needed, but dont know if this has
changed.
>

>Of course not. This isn't about qualifications or competence.
>
>Owain

If what you say is entirely correct, part P should not affect domestic
sparkies in any way at all, since its not their responsibility to do
the BCO bit.

NT

Mike Harrison

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 6:06:29 AM1/5/05
to

Has anyone tried to notify them of work yet...?
My reading of the regs is that your only obligation was to notify them - didn't say anything about
paying fees, co-operating, or even saying what was to be done.....

Is it legally possible for BCOs to just say ' OK, fine' without actually doing anything...?


Tony Bryer

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 6:07:10 AM1/5/05
to
In article
<pan.2005.01.04....@makewrite.demon.co.uk>, Ed
Sirett wrote:
> Joining fees, exam fees, calibrated and certified 16th
> Edition test kit. Easily £1000.

Arguably though (I know reality is otherwise), if you are in
business as an electrician you should already have the last of
these.

--
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


Owain

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 7:09:38 AM1/5/05
to
"N. Thornton" wrote

| If what you say is entirely correct, part P should not affect domestic
| sparkies in any way at all, since its not their responsibility to do
| the BCO bit.

But the trade organisations are starting to advertise heavily that *only*
their members are allowed to do electrical work (without BCO involvement).
This places non-members of a scheme at a commercial disadvantage, especially
when it comes to the jobbing works carried out by many smaller contractors.
There is also the probability that a householder will raise a stink of the
"you worked on my wiring when you're not allowed to" and complain to
Watchdog about unregistered electricians.

Owain


Owain

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 7:01:16 AM1/5/05
to
"Bob Eager" wrote
| I see that B&Q have a small notice by the electrical bits...saying
| you should consult Building Control or look at the ODPM website.

I shall have to look for that next time I'm in a (Scottish) B&Q ...

Owain


Ian White

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 11:26:03 AM1/5/05
to
Is it still called 'Part P' in Scotland? The scotland.gov.uk search
engine failed to reveal it.


--
Ian White
Abingdon, England

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 12:43:39 PM1/5/05
to
In article <dFaZIjVb...@ifwtech.co.uk>,

The Scottish part letters are out of sync with the English/Welsh ones,
e.g. I think English Part L is Scottish Part J, or some such. Scotland
did their Part P equivalent perhaps 4 years ago, but it doesn't have
all the inappropriate bureaucarcy and is stunningly sensible in
comparison. Can't remember what Scottish part it comes under, sorry.
The Scottish BCO I talked to during the Part P consultation seemed to
think theirs worked well, and thought Part P was completely barmey and
unworkable (as did my local English BCO).

--
Andrew Gabriel

Lurch

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 2:14:01 PM1/5/05
to
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:07:10 GMT, Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk>
strung together this:

>In article
><pan.2005.01.04....@makewrite.demon.co.uk>, Ed
>Sirett wrote:
>> Joining fees, exam fees, calibrated and certified 16th
>> Edition test kit. Easily £1000.
>
>Arguably though (I know reality is otherwise), if you are in
>business as an electrician you should already have the last of
>these.

Not the joining and exam fees.
--

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

Ed Sirett

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 4:13:25 PM1/5/05
to
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:07:10 +0000, Tony Bryer wrote:

> In article
> <pan.2005.01.04....@makewrite.demon.co.uk>, Ed
> Sirett wrote:
>> Joining fees, exam fees, calibrated and certified 16th
>> Edition test kit. Easily £1000.
>
> Arguably though (I know reality is otherwise), if you are in
> business as an electrician you should already have the last of
> these.

Yes but not 'certified', they could be a bit out but more than a few
percent I would think.

raden

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 5:25:00 PM1/5/05
to
In message <1smjt0tarsavaj6si...@4ax.com>, Nick Atty
<nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:49:51 +0000 (UTC), "John"
><bo1l...@ASbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our illustrious
>>PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them know
>>everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
>>outcome.
>
>Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
>Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
>notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the inspectors?
>
Didn't you mean April 1st ?

--
geoff

raden

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 5:39:06 PM1/5/05
to
In message <41dad28c$0$16586$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, James
<noe...@this.address> writes

>
>I'm not a sparky so don't think I am standing up for them only, but if a
>qualified sparkly cant do their own electronics what is this nanny state
>coming to.
>
Sorry, you can't have electricians invading my domain thank you very
much
--
geoff

Mike

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 5:41:38 PM1/5/05
to

"John" <bo1l...@ASbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:crf3ul$1ce$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

I think that should just about cover the liability insurance but the guy
wants to make a living as well. I think it's usually nearer six hundred up.
Ours was quoted as £1500 (large semi-derilict farmhouse) so I asked the
vendor for a weekend access (not a happy bunny) and did it all myself.
Haven't found anything major I missed yet, though everything was a bit worse
than at first glance of course.


Mike

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 5:49:13 PM1/5/05
to

"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bbint0dnnv3t8vp3s...@4ax.com...

> >> >It "might" have some effect if everyone emailed their MP and our
> >illustrious
> >> >PM and his babbling deputy. Its easy enough and at least lets them
know
> >> >everyone isn't just rolling over to play dead even if no effect is the
> >> >outcome.
> >>
> >> Don't we just have to give the building contol people 48 hours notice?
> >> Can't we designate a day in March, say, as Part P day and all do our
> >> notifiable work on the day, causing complete meltdown of the
inspectors?
> >
> >Do you really think any of these departments are ready for part P at all?
> >I gather many of their staff have the same view of it as us.
>
> Has anyone tried to notify them of work yet...?
> My reading of the regs is that your only obligation was to notify them -
didn't say anything about
> paying fees, co-operating, or even saying what was to be done.....

Notifying them involves a fee unforunately and they will ask "for plans of
what you are doing". Presumably that means some form of diagram.


> Is it legally possible for BCOs to just say ' OK, fine' without actually
doing anything...?

If he's confident you are doing it properly then yes. If not then he can
ask for calculations (you pay) or testing (he pays out of your fee - at
least in theory)

Owain

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 5:46:37 PM1/5/05
to
"Ian White" wrote

| >| I see that B&Q have a small notice by the electrical bits...saying
| >| you should consult Building Control or look at the ODPM website.
| >I shall have to look for that next time I'm in a (Scottish) B&Q ...
| Is it still called 'Part P' in Scotland? The scotland.gov.uk search
| engine failed to reveal it.

It doesn't exist in Scotland, so isn't called anything. The equivalent is
Part N:

N2.1* An electrical installation must be constructed, installed and
protected to minimise the risk of fire in the building or elsewhere.
In normal operation, taking into account the surroundings, it must not
create the risk of burns, shock or other injury to people.
It must -
a. safely accommodate any likely maximum demand;
b. incorporate suitable automatic devices for protection against
overcurrent or leakage; and
c. have switches, or other means of isolating parts of the installation
or equipment connected to it, as are necessary for safe working and
maintenance.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/br/brn-03.asp#n2

And in the Technical Standards:

(N2.1) The requirements of N2.1 will be met where an installation complies
with the relevant requirements of BS7671: 1992.

This does not restrict the housholder to IEE Regs as long as he can
demonstrate an equivalent alternative way of complying with the legislation.

At the moment.

The IEE Wiring Matters magazine was insinuating there'll be a similar scheme
in Scotland soon, as it's such a good idea.

Owain


Andy Hall

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 7:13:20 PM1/5/05
to


Perhaps they could be taken to the Advertising Standards Authority.


--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Mike Harrison

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 7:27:22 PM1/5/05
to

Lets just hope they wait and see the increase in deaths and injuries part P will inevitably cause.
Have you seen how crappy most extension leads you can but on the high street are these days..?


N. Thornton

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 7:30:41 PM1/5/05
to
Fwom:Owain (owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk)
"N. Thornton" wrote

>| If what you say is entirely correct, part P should not affect
domestic
>| sparkies in any way at all, since its not their responsibility to
do
>| the BCO bit.

>But the trade organisations are starting to advertise heavily that
*only*
>their members are allowed to do electrical work (without BCO
involvement).
>This places non-members of a scheme at a commercial disadvantage,
especially
>when it comes to the jobbing works carried out by many smaller
contractors.
>There is also the probability that a householder will raise a stink
of the
>"you worked on my wiring when you're not allowed to" and complain to
>Watchdog about unregistered electricians.


This isnt making sense in my small brain. If I'm correct, you said

1. domestic electricians are not responsible for getting works
cetrified under part P, the house holder is.
2. they dont need any qualifications to operate

but now you say that for some reason theyre not allowed to work on
house wiring. Where am I cornfused?


NT

Mike

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 7:48:39 PM1/5/05
to

"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:110496876...@dyke.uk.clara.net...


That's an interesting point actually. If I wanted to wire my house to the
German standards (definitely a higher quality solution) surely EU
regulations prohibit anybody stopping me.

Don Spumey

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 8:53:49 PM1/5/05
to
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:13:20 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
wrote:

Similarly, there are certain 'adverts' on TV offering "free" K-glass
when buying D/G......strange.....I thought (due to recent legislation)
it's bog standard nowadays!


Don.

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 8:40:45 PM1/5/05
to
In article <cri1s7$vi0$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,

"Mike" <nos...@bt.com> writes:
>
> That's an interesting point actually. If I wanted to wire my house to the
> German standards (definitely a higher quality solution) surely EU
> regulations prohibit anybody stopping me.

I think that might be right, providing it is a national standard which
has been brought in line with the EU harmonised standard, as BS7671 has
(there was a vague hint at this somewhere in the Part P consultation).
Certainly, France doesn't seem to object to ex-pats/holiday homes
who've wired the houses as per BS7671.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Mike

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 9:26:34 PM1/5/05
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cri4ut$fb2$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...

Well if I don't finish before April and it is confirmed that I do have to
get them in even though I started before Part P was a twinkle in some
bureaucrats eye, I think I'll shove in a few continental sockets on
dedicated radials from the CU to see what they say.

Perhaps I'll even leave the earth off one and call it an Italian socket :-)

Paul Barker

unread,
Jan 6, 2005, 3:06:40 AM1/6/05
to

I'm corgi reg'd and our heads are in a spin with this. Last discussion I
had with corgi was "plug your boilers into a 3 pin socket that already
exixts and use a wireless thermostat". There's going to be a hell of a
lot of wander leeds running up through the loft hatch....

Fitted a replacement domestic hot weater cylinder (what most people
seem to call their boiler) as an emergency yesterday. She didn't
previously have an immersion heater, and no way she's getting one from
me, and all the sparky's in our town are smuggly turning down any of
this kind of work I offer them.

s'pose I'll just have to bang boilers on the wall, pipe up the gas,
tightness test and then say to customer, let me know when you've found
a sparky to give it a shock and I'll come back to commission it.

Customer looks like the looser once again.

What the heck why should I buy a grands worth of electrical test gear
when I already spend that kind of money frequently in my own trade...
flue gas analyser... powerflush...


--
Paul Barker

Andy Hall

unread,
Jan 6, 2005, 5:50:52 AM1/6/05
to
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:53:49 +0000, Don Spumey
<Don.S...@psuedonym.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:13:20 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>

>>


>>Perhaps they could be taken to the Advertising Standards Authority.
>
>Similarly, there are certain 'adverts' on TV offering "free" K-glass
>when buying D/G......strange.....I thought (due to recent legislation)
>it's bog standard nowadays!
>

It is.

That's pretty borderline too, but is only slightly misleading rather
than a downright lie.

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jan 6, 2005, 5:58:29 AM1/6/05
to
In article <Paul.Bark...@news.diybanter.com>,

Paul Barker <Paul.Bark...@news.diybanter.com> writes:
>
> Fitted a replacement domestic hot weater cylinder (what most people
> seem to call their boiler) as an emergency yesterday. She didn't
> previously have an immersion heater, and no way she's getting one from
> me, and all the sparky's in our town are smuggly turning down any of
> this kind of work I offer them.
>
> s'pose I'll just have to bang boilers on the wall, pipe up the gas,
> tightness test and then say to customer, let me know when you've found
> a sparky to give it a shock and I'll come back to commission it.
>
> Customer looks like the looser once again.
>
> What the heck why should I buy a grands worth of electrical test gear
> when I already spend that kind of money frequently in my own trade...
> flue gas analyser... powerflush...

I was in a wholesalers yesterday trying to buy a T5 fluorescent tube.
There were two electricians ahead of me in the queue, and Part P was
the topic of discussion. Both have now dropped all domestic work, and
have already found themselves fully booked up with commercial work
for many weeks. One was buying lots of modular ceiling lighting with
which he was obviously not too familiar, the other was buying parts
to relamp a car park. I imagine they both used to do immersion heaters...

--
Andrew Gabriel

Tony Bryer

unread,
Jan 6, 2005, 7:12:40 AM1/6/05