U NEED 2 KNOW PART P

93 views
Skip to first unread message

dms1.go-plus.net

unread,
Nov 18, 2004, 3:34:40 PM11/18/04
to
The nanny state of this government are introducing Part P Electrical into
the building regs. This means that every job will have to be registered with
building control apart from very minor works such as changing a socket
front. Part P will not only force up the cost of electrical work it will
also force people doing DIY to break the law.
I have been an electrician for 20 years and have very high qualifications
but see this as a money making scam. Companies offering Part P registration
to us "sparks" will net 200 billion a year. The cost has to be past on and
will force most small companies into the VAT bracket and of course other
costs.

We are petitioning against Part P please go to our website and if you agree
join the petition. Why should they know exactly what you are having done and
why should they put so much extra on both Electricians and DIY?

www.a2znorthants.co.uk

John Stanton Tel 07940 856745


Steven Briggs

unread,
Nov 18, 2004, 4:57:21 PM11/18/04
to
In message <FH7nd.9$AM....@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, dms1.go-plus.net
<dm...@dms1.go-plus.net> writes
Perhaps you should sort that website first, the Part P link points to
your C: drive.

And 200 billion what? Volts? Amps? Electrons?
Certainly not POUNDS!

--
Steve

deck...@hotmail.com

unread,
Nov 18, 2004, 5:55:47 PM11/18/04
to

Yeah, like two jags is going to take any notice!!! Actually, if you ARE
an electrician with very high qualifications, you have a golden
opportunity to make money doing inspections for diyers. In my view, the
majority of competent people who use this group will continue as
before, without any threat of legal action and more importantly the
adventurous, but incompetent(like the guy, I bought my house from) will
be discouraged. So once all the bleating is over, which won't change
anything, we will probably live in a slightly safer world.

Dave Jones

unread,
Nov 18, 2004, 7:18:15 PM11/18/04
to
Maybe that should be http://www.a2znorthants.co.uk/PartP.html then!


BigWallop

unread,
Nov 18, 2004, 7:28:43 PM11/18/04
to

<deck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1100818546.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
<<<snipped>>>

> dms1.go-plus.net wrote:
> Electricians and DIY?
> >
> > www.a2znorthants.co.uk
> >
> > John Stanton Tel 07940 856745
>
> Yeah, like two jags is going to take any notice!!! Actually, if you ARE
> an electrician with very high qualifications, you have a golden
> opportunity to make money doing inspections for diyers. In my view, the
> majority of competent people who use this group will continue as
> before, without any threat of legal action and more importantly the
> adventurous, but incompetent(like the guy, I bought my house from) will
> be discouraged. So once all the bleating is over, which won't change
> anything, we will probably live in a slightly safer world.
>

Hear Hear!!! I would agree with all that you say. The amount of house
fires in the UK, caused by faulty DIY electrical installations, has
increased by nearly 34% in the passed three years. That's an increase of
over 10% per year. So something has to be done now to prevent this rising
any further. I'm all for tighter regulation on all major services, even if
it is just for the public safety sake.


Lobster

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 3:01:32 AM11/19/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:%6bnd.18029$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> <deck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1100818546.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hear Hear!!! I would agree with all that you say. The amount of house
> fires in the UK, caused by faulty DIY electrical installations, has
> increased by nearly 34% in the passed three years. That's an increase of
> over 10% per year. So something has to be done now to prevent this rising
> any further. I'm all for tighter regulation on all major services, even
> if
> it is just for the public safety sake.

Where do these stats come from? How many actual fires are we talking about?
I was under the impression - maybe wrongly - that faulty electrical
installations are really not an issue; and that it is dodgy appliances that
caused problems.

David


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 5:18:14 AM11/19/04
to
In article <wLhnd.14$YJ2...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>,

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Where do these stats come from? How many actual fires are we talking about?
> I was under the impression - maybe wrongly - that faulty electrical
> installations are really not an issue; and that it is dodgy appliances that
> caused problems.

True.
I put the figures in my response to the original consultation document,
which came from a variety of sources (Home Office mainly from what I
recall)... http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 6:35:56 AM11/19/04
to
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:28:43 GMT, "BigWallop"
<spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:


>
>Hear Hear!!! I would agree with all that you say. The amount of house
>fires in the UK, caused by faulty DIY electrical installations, has
>increased by nearly 34% in the passed three years.

Oh come on..... DId they give figures? Maybe there were four rather
than three. As Disraeli said "There are lies, damned lies and
statistics"/

According to the government's own figures, during the consultation
process, virtually all home fires connected with electricity were
related to faulty appliances and appliance wiring and people over
using adaptors - virtually nothing with fixed wiring.

This nonsense legislation will do nothing to assist with the major
causes and actually will make it worse if anybody takes notice because
people would tend to add adaptors rather than using proper outlets to
save money.

The data used was demonstrably thin and massaged to produce the
"justification".

It should be seen for what it is, which is unnecessary and unjustified
interference.

I'm surprised that they didn't invoke the Parliament Act to make it
happen.

>That's an increase of
>over 10% per year. So something has to be done now to prevent this rising
>any further.

No it doesn't and this certainly isn't it anyway

Unfortunately this hasn't had quite the press coverage of fox hunting
but comes from the same mind set. I don't have a view either way on
the practice of the latter issue, but I strongly object to
parliamentary time being wasted on both as well as a bunch of other
unnecessary legislation.

Since my MP is the shadow minister for deregulation, I have written to
him asking him to put part P on his list for repeal.

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Tony Bryer

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 6:53:13 AM11/19/04
to
In article <FH7nd.9$AM....@news-1.opaltelecom.net>,
Dms1.go-plus.net wrote:
> Companies offering Part P registration to us "sparks" will net
> 200 billion a year.

With arithmetic like this, I'd rather not trust your calculations
for required cable size.

> The cost has to be past on and will force
> most small companies into the VAT bracket and of course other
> costs.

You have to be VAT registered if your turnover is Ł58K. How many
competent electricians are turning over less than this? I'd expect
an electrician to be billing Ł250 a day x 45 weeks. Add (say) Ł100
per day for materials supplied and fitted and you get a turnover
of Ł78,750.

--
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


MBQ

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 7:04:41 AM11/19/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message news:<%6bnd.18029$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> <deck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1100818546.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <<<snipped>>>
> > dms1.go-plus.net wrote:
> > Electricians and DIY?
> > >
> > > www.a2znorthants.co.uk
> > >
> > > John Stanton Tel 07940 856745
> >
> > Yeah, like two jags is going to take any notice!!! Actually, if you ARE
> > an electrician with very high qualifications, you have a golden
> > opportunity to make money doing inspections for diyers. In my view, the
> > majority of competent people who use this group will continue as
> > before, without any threat of legal action and more importantly the
> > adventurous, but incompetent(like the guy, I bought my house from) will
> > be discouraged. So once all the bleating is over, which won't change

No, they'll be even more encouraged to DIY and avoid the extra costs.

> > anything, we will probably live in a slightly safer world.
> >
>
> Hear Hear!!! I would agree with all that you say. The amount of house
> fires in the UK, caused by faulty DIY electrical installations, has
> increased by nearly 34% in the passed three years. That's an increase of
> over 10% per year. So something has to be done now to prevent this rising
> any further. I'm all for tighter regulation on all major services, even if
> it is just for the public safety sake.

Those caused by fixed wiring which Part P addresses? It's 34% of a
*very* small number in the overall scheme of things and is still a
*very* small number.

MBQ

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 8:23:51 AM11/19/04
to
In article <VA.00002d1...@delme.sda.co.uk>,
Tony Bryer <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> writes:
> You have to be VAT registered if your turnover is £58K. How many
> competent electricians are turning over less than this? I'd expect
> an electrician to be billing £250 a day x 45 weeks. Add (say) £100
> per day for materials supplied and fitted and you get a turnover
> of £78,750.

I think it's quite common for sole traders to get the customer
to pay the supplier directly for materials, so they don't end
up going through the trader's books. Of course, you can't then
make a profit on the materials themselves.

--
Andrew Gabriel

David Robinson

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 9:28:34 AM11/19/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message news:<%6bnd.18029$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

> Hear Hear!!! I would agree with all that you say. The amount of house
> fires in the UK, caused by faulty DIY electrical installations, has
> increased by nearly 34% in the passed three years. That's an increase of
> over 10% per year. So something has to be done now to prevent this rising
> any further. I'm all for tighter regulation on all major services, even if
> it is just for the public safety sake.

I think we had this discussion before, but surely the _last_ people
who are going to take any notice of a building regulation telling them
they can't do their own electrics _at_all_, are the people who ignored
the existing electrical guidelines and installed unsafe wiring!

So the bodgers will continue to bodge, while the good DIYers will have
the hassle of having everything inspected. Surely one of the big
advantages of DIY electrics is that you don't have to have
_everything_ open, on show, at the same time, but can work room by
room as re-decorating allows. Surely that'll go right out of the
window in order to allow a meaningful inspection?

Where are the figures for house fires in the UK caused by faulty DIY
electrical installations?

A more useful move from the government might be a mandatory "health
check" for houses as they are sold. Not the meaningless rubbish that
counts as a mortgage survey, but something that (as far as possible in
a days - rather than minutes - work) guarantees that the place is safe
and sound.

Cheers,
David.

dms1.go-plus.net

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 1:21:49 PM11/19/04
to
The whole point is that Part P is NOT about safety? The white paper has more
to say about VAT TAX and small local firms who provide a better service.
What is going to happen is that the present system means that decent
electricians have to spend an extra £1,000.00 plus per year passing the cost
on. And the way it is being done every job will be registered. So changing a
batton holder in a bathroom I would charge you £35.00 locally. To cover my
costs under part P I would have to charge in the region of £75.00 and
probably plus VAT because the yearly charges would increase to over
£4,000.00 for me to stay legally in business.
Instead the government is making 200,000 businesses pay the price. At the
moment there are only about 13,000 registered with either the NICEIC or The
ECA. So these groups are going to be onto a nice little earner at assessment
charge of £450.00 + VAT per day let alone the renew fee every year. Plus the
fee for each job certificated.
The system in Australia is much simple with only those who have a card
holder can BUY electrical items and install them. They are checked but do
not have to pay all these high fees etc as it is. As an approved electrician
with the City & Guilds 2400 "The design erection and verification of
electrical installations" the person who will be having to assess me is LESS
qualified than ME! To tell me how to do my job. I know there are cowboys out
there they are in every trade. But lets face it if you wanted 3 new sockets
in your kitchen and I said to you yes okay £80.00 but you will have to
upgrade your consumer unit as well at a cost of £300.00 what would you do? I
know most people would either do it themselves or get a man who can for cash
and not do the job properly. Any electrician should have a test meter
costing about £1,000.00 if not then he is breaking the law even when putting
an additional socket in.
There are enough laws in place to prosecute the cowboys as it is. But people
do not look at the cost and as the above job quote happens quite a lot (and
I do not get them) [apart from the phone calls when something is wrong and
they cannot get hold of the chap] what can I do. Part P is not going to
solve this.
With regards to fires and the increase there is a lot of houses with old
re-wireable fuses in them. These do not offer correct protection and working
for an insurance company I see appliance fires where the whole house has
been damaged because these types of fuses do not offer good enough
protection.
The point is The Good Qualified Electrician is going to suffer the price and
have to pass the cost on. The fact that B&Q were consulted in the white
paper about Part P says it all. A house holder is not going to get his work
checked full stop. And things hidden behind cupboards in kitchens etc (quite
common) cannot always be picked up by a periodic inspection.

What we need is to make it law that every house is checked every five years
as per BS7671 and the installation up-dated. It may cost people money but if
this was done then the cost to both insurance companies who have to pay out
[AND WERE NOT CONSULTED] about Part P could reduce their costs. As to saving
lives the upgrading of fuse boards to split load RCD protected boards would
decrease electric shock down by 90%, and if the house had its 5 year
inspection this would be picked up and the house holder made to do the work.
Baring in mind that this will save some ones life this is a much better
approach to electrical safety in the home than anything else.
Go to Europe and you can use a hair dryer in the bathroom there is always a
socket by the mirror, and there standards are lower than ours. So why have
they not done some thing like Part P?
They have insisted more on RCD's etc.
Knowing the dangers that electricity can bring I have long seen people in
this newsgroup attempt things that would make me loose sleep like fitting
showers, changing consumer units and the like. The tests have to be done for
safety and even the RCD's have to be tested. My meter does this both time
and current full and half phase. If above certain readings then it can fail
a test and be have to be replaced. I have never yet had one faulty, and they
must be tested every 3 months.

Again where is the advertising about Part P that starts on January 1st 2005?
Who knows about it?
Part P and some regulation is needed but it is not been thought about
properly. Only organizations who will make money out of it and also big
chains that sell DIY have been consulted. What about the 200,000
electricians and associated trades this affects? NO they don't matter but
have to pay the price, and pass the cost on to you.

I have nothing to hide and see no reason for a simple card registration
system where you can only purchase electrical items if you are suitably
qualified and keep up to date.
Any electrician by law has to have liability insurance to cover him and
anyone he employs. Part P as it stands should stand for BIG BROTHER is
watching you, we want every ounce of VAT and TAX we can get from you because
this is really what the Part P is about.
NICEIC I know of 3 firms who use young trainees unsupervised who do things
wrong that are hidden for life. This is how many the large companies can
make their money or pay "just"qualified electricians. I work for TWO NICEIC
registered companies who come to ME when they have a technical problem that
their "electricians" cannot solve!

To review it should be made law that every electrician is registered and has
a card. Yes we should be checked but not at a price that is going to push
many out of the trade or under ground and increase DIY work. Houses should
be checked by law every five years this should be legal. And if an
installation is un-safe we should have the power to disconnect it. After all
a CORGI registered plumber can do this with a gas fire but we cannot with an
electrical installation that is a danger to life.

You can contact me personally by FREEPHONE 0800 0745795 about any of these
items or email me.My website www.a2znorthants.co.uk goes into part P as
well. (And no I am not advertising the site for work I am working 7 days a
week as it is!)

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wLhnd.14$YJ2...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

Tony Bryer

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 1:33:53 PM11/19/04
to
In article <PQqnd.1$Bt2...@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, Dms1.go-plus.net
wrote:

> What is going to happen is that the present system means that decent
> electricians have to spend an extra £1,000.00 plus per year passing
> the cost on. And the way it is being done every job will be
> registered. So changing a batton holder in a bathroom I would charge
> you £35.00 locally. To cover my costs under part P I would have to
> charge in the region of £75.00

If Part P is going to cost you £1000p.a. that translates to about £5 per
day. So if you're going to tell some householder that what was £35 is
now £75 because of Part P then we can draw our own conclusions.
Especially since handymen who do nothing more than replace light
fittings won't be affected by Part P anyway.

> The system in Australia is much simple with only those who have
> a card holder can BUY electrical items and install them.

I don't think you'll find many members of this group supporting this.

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 3:08:46 PM11/19/04
to

"Tony Bryer" <to...@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.00002d2...@delme.sda.co.uk...

> In article <PQqnd.1$Bt2...@news-1.opaltelecom.net>, Dms1.go-plus.net
> wrote:
<snip>

>
> > The system in Australia is much simple with only those who have
> > a card holder can BUY electrical items and install them.
>
> I don't think you'll find many members of this group supporting this.
>

Not to mention totally unworkable, the authorities can't stop people trading
under the counter hard drugs, what hope a light fitting ?!


BigWallop

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 6:17:17 PM11/19/04
to
" In Surrey, electrical wiring and appliances are the second largest cause
of domestic fires. We all know that electricity can cause fire but we may
not always understand why. "

" Electricity is often overlooked as a possible fire hazard. Maybe this is
because there is no flame. However some 8,000 fires in the home are reported
each year as being caused by electrical faults, accidents or by misuse of
electrical appliances and equipment. The following advice will help to
prevent a fire in your home due to electricity. "

" Electricity is often overlooked as a possible fire hazard. This may be
because there is no flame. However, some 28,000 fires in the home are
reported each year as being caused by electrical faults, accidents or misuse
of electrical equipment.

Over 2,500 people are killed or injured as a result of electrical fires
every year.

This page looks at the main areas of electrical hazard in your home and
explains how you can stop fire starting. "

" http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=130&id=186162004 "


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 7:34:55 PM11/19/04
to
In article <1avnd.18745$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
> " In Surrey, electrical wiring and appliances are the second largest cause
> of domestic fires. We all know that electricity can cause fire but we may
> not always understand why. "
>
> " Electricity is often overlooked as a possible fire hazard. Maybe this is
> because there is no flame. However some 8,000 fires in the home are reported
> each year as being caused by electrical faults, accidents or by misuse of
> electrical appliances and equipment. The following advice will help to
> prevent a fire in your home due to electricity. "
>
> " Electricity is often overlooked as a possible fire hazard. This may be
> because there is no flame. However, some 28,000 fires in the home are
> reported each year as being caused by electrical faults, accidents or misuse
> of electrical equipment.
>
> Over 2,500 people are killed or injured as a result of electrical fires
> every year.

Which is complete bollocks. Where on earth did you dig that up?
The number of people killed in all fires in the UK is somewhere around
600-800 per year IIRC, and only a tiny percentage of fires are electrical
anyway (and this figure includes fires outside the home too).

Averaged over last 10 years, there were (per year):
5 electrocutions from electrical installations,
14 electrocutions from electrical appliances,
25 deaths due to electrical fires (not broken down into installation
verses appliances, but vast majority are appliances).
These figures have been steadily dropping over the last 30 years.

Compare this to some other sources of accidental death in dwellings:
slips, trips, falls, non-electrical fires, carbon monoxide, explosions,
and collisions with glass account for 2350 fatalities. Electrical causes
of fatalities in dwellings, including electrical installation fires,
account for only 1.8% of the total.

> This page looks at the main areas of electrical hazard in your home and
> explains how you can stop fire starting. "
>
> " http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=130&id=186162004 "

--
Andrew Gabriel

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 19, 2004, 9:39:57 PM11/19/04
to

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cnm3ff$8v9$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...

> In article <1avnd.18745$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
<<<snipped>>>

>
> Which is complete bollocks. Where on earth did you dig that up?
> The number of people killed in all fires in the UK is somewhere around
> 600-800 per year IIRC, and only a tiny percentage of
>
> Andrew Gabriel
>

http://www.firekills.gov.uk/electrical/01.htm

http://www.dorsetfire.co.uk/topic.asp?TopicID=21#491

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/fire/fsafety/fs01e.htm

http://houses.dsu.org.uk/info?i=6

http://www.glosfire.gov.uk/sections/safety_advice/downloads/safety_odpm_electrical_safety.pdf

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/ghfs-00.asp

And there are loads more if you look.

I work very closely with the fire brigade, police, medical and ambulance
folks on a daily basis, and it really did frighten me when I also found out
that these statistics are real, although are very seldom reported openly.

The new regulations and updated requirements, which are being sought now,
are being drawn up because the stats' are again showing an increase in fire
risk and death from electrical contact. This is only the tip of the 'berg
as it where, because the real events are still quite shadowy on the real
risks from the increased DIYers use of the open shelf markets that are
becoming ever more popular across the UK, and the world.

So, it isn't really bollocks. It's real statistics, from real organisations
that deal with the events if and when needed. I don't spout shite,
especially if the shite you think I spout is unfounded. :-))


Adrian Berry

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 3:48:14 AM11/20/04
to

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:18ynd.18823$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

None of your links give statistics involving fixed wiring (which are the
only ones conceivably preventable by the Part P provisions).

All of them stress the danger of overloaded sockets, poorly extended
flexible cables, overused socket multipliers, etc.
These are the type of half-cock measures that people could use to avoid
extra installation work that would be covered by the new regulations and
which, ironically, pose a far greater risk of fire.


Alistair Riddell

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 4:12:21 AM11/20/04
to
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, BigWallop wrote:

> http://www.firekills.gov.uk/electrical/01.htm

Did anyody else notice about a pile of mistakes and misinformations on
these pages?:

For some reason the flex cores in the pictures are all coloured red and
blue

They suggest using a 5amp fuse on a vacuum cleaner - I would have thought
that the surge from the motor in most vacuum cleaners would blow a 5 amp
fuse quite regularly

They use a kettle and a television as examples of appliances that use a
lot of power - my TV is rated at 80W

They suggest using "a dry powder" to extinguish an electrical fire - I
have visions of somebody chucking flour or sugar over their burning
toaster! I presume they meant to to say dry powder fire extinguisher...

There's also the free mix of the terms current, power, electricity, watts
and amps, which IMO can only serve to confuse the layman's understanding
of the relationship between these terms.

--
Alistair Riddell - BOFH
Microsoft - because god hates us

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 6:17:06 AM11/20/04
to
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:39:57 GMT, "BigWallop"
<spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cnm3ff$8v9$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
>> In article <1avnd.18745$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> "BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> writes:
><<<snipped>>>
>>
>> Which is complete bollocks. Where on earth did you dig that up?
>> The number of people killed in all fires in the UK is somewhere around
>> 600-800 per year IIRC, and only a tiny percentage of
>>
>> Andrew Gabriel
>>
>
>http://www.firekills.gov.uk/electrical/01.htm

This one talks only about appliances.

>
>http://www.dorsetfire.co.uk/topic.asp?TopicID=21#491

This one is vague.

>
>http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/fire/fsafety/fs01e.htm

This one does not talk about fixed wiring

>
>http://houses.dsu.org.uk/info?i=6

This one vaguely mentions "electrical faults".

>
>http://www.glosfire.gov.uk/sections/safety_advice/downloads/safety_odpm_electrical_safety.pdf


This one talks only about appliances

>
>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/ghfs-00.asp
>

again about appliances

>And there are loads more if you look.

All about appliances.

When I wrote to my MP, two-jag's sidekick Raynsford and the department
doing the risk analysis on this some while ago, I looked long and hard
for any information pointing to fixed wiring related electrical fires.
Little or nothing,as Andrew said.

It was very clear, from letters back from all of the above, that the
government had made its mind up that it was going to enact this
nonsense legislation and that the parties whose inpout was considered
the most were those who stood to benefit the most from it - i.e. the
trade organisations and the government.

This should be seen for what it is - shabby legislation which is both
unnecessary and which does nothing to address the "problem" that is
alleged to address.

>
>I work very closely with the fire brigade, police, medical and ambulance
>folks on a daily basis, and it really did frighten me when I also found out
>that these statistics are real, although are very seldom reported openly.
>
>The new regulations and updated requirements, which are being sought now,
>are being drawn up because the stats' are again showing an increase in fire
>risk and death from electrical contact. This is only the tip of the 'berg
>as it where, because the real events are still quite shadowy on the real
>risks from the increased DIYers use of the open shelf markets that are
>becoming ever more popular across the UK, and the world.
>
>So, it isn't really bollocks. It's real statistics, from real organisations
>that deal with the events if and when needed. I don't spout shite,
>especially if the shite you think I spout is unfounded. :-))
>

There weren't any relevant statistics in any of the links that you
posted.

RichardS

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 7:34:59 AM11/20/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:18ynd.18823$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>

But the stats that were used as a basis for the justification for the
legislation do not show anything like the size of problem that you believe
exists.

The other problem is that the stats are rarely broken down to show relative
risk from fixed installations (which is what the legislation is purported to
address) and portable appliances. Were I a betting man, I would be prepared
to stake quite a bit of money on a wager that portable appliances present by
far the biggest fire and electrocution hazard between the two.

Noone has disputed that new legislation will cause an increase in cost to
the householder. Of course government say "but it's just going to be a very
small amount", but even a small increase will have an effect that it will
push the cost of improvements over the threshold that some people will be
prepared to spend - not all, but some. That surely cannot be good.

In my case I have a decision to make that might serve to illustrate one
negative effect of this legislation.

I have an IP66 outdoor socket that is on a spur from the kitchen circuit
through a FSU. There is no RCD protection for this, and whilst it is
absolutely not 16th edition compliant, it is not illegal.

I would of course like to address this, ideally by running a separate
circuit from the CU protected by RCBO, or somewhat more simply by replacing
the FCU with an RCD protected equivalent. The problem is that after
January, my reading of the regs is that work involving RCDs automatically
falls outwith minor works, and so to comply with the law I would either have
to get a registered spark to do this (sorry, aint gonna happen), or by going
the LA inspection route (cost probably wrong side of Ł100).

So, I have two choices - I break the law & decrease my risk of electrocution
outside, putting the Ł100 odd saved towards the cost of a rottweiller
solicitor when selling the house (to prevent me from making any false
statements when selling the place), or I do nothing and stay within the law.

I am as yet undecided.

--
Richard Sampson

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


RichardS

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 7:43:16 AM11/20/04
to

An afterthought, lest anyone read the post and come to the conclusion that
I'm a dangerous bodger....

I do take pride in workmanship and adherence to the wiring regs - they're a
very good guide of best practise. So, the existence of this socket in my
house installation does cause me a certain amount of disquiet.

Hell, I might even get round to it before Jan 1, and sidestep the whole
issue.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 8:22:52 AM11/20/04
to
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:34:59 -0000, "RichardS" <noone@invalid> wrote:

>
>I would of course like to address this, ideally by running a separate
>circuit from the CU protected by RCBO, or somewhat more simply by replacing
>the FCU with an RCD protected equivalent. The problem is that after
>January, my reading of the regs is that work involving RCDs automatically
>falls outwith minor works, and so to comply with the law I would either have
>to get a registered spark to do this (sorry, aint gonna happen), or by going
>the LA inspection route (cost probably wrong side of Ł100).
>
>So, I have two choices - I break the law & decrease my risk of electrocution
>outside, putting the Ł100 odd saved towards the cost of a rottweiller
>solicitor when selling the house (to prevent me from making any false
>statements when selling the place), or I do nothing and stay within the law.
>
>I am as yet undecided.

I suppose another option would be to change the exterior outlet for
one with an RCD breaker built in. MK and others make these and it
would seem to me that that would only be changing a wiring accessory.

I'm thinking of taking up fox hunting. Not because I'm interested in
it or particularly want to, but simply to make the point that both
pieces of legislation are politically driven, impossible to police and
achieve very little.

John Armstrong

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 1:11:52 PM11/20/04
to
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:43:16 -0000, RichardS wrote:

> An afterthought, lest anyone read the post and come to the conclusion that
> I'm a dangerous bodger....
>
> I do take pride in workmanship and adherence to the wiring regs - they're a
> very good guide of best practise. So, the existence of this socket in my
> house installation does cause me a certain amount of disquiet.
>
> Hell, I might even get round to it before Jan 1, and sidestep the whole
> issue.

As I understand it, it is putting in a new circuit that brings it within
the new regs. Why don't you put in the extra RCD protected circuit breaker
now, connected to a socket/junction box next to the CU? Then when you get
chance to run the cable to the outdoor socket, it is an existing circuit
you are working on, so it falls outside the regs.

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 2:00:35 PM11/20/04
to

"John Armstrong" <j...@localhost.localnet> wrote in message
news:1ojdvwmg...@ggrove.plus.com...

Or just change the existing FCU for a double pole RCD unit. This gives full
isolation to the external socket for servicing / repair / replacement, and
it also give you the full protection you need when in use with an appliance.
No change, extension or replacement on the original circuit, just a
replacement of the front plate on the FCU back box.

Like this one:

http://www.diynot.com/shop/RCD_FUSED_CONNECTION_UNIT/3952


RichardS

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 2:40:59 PM11/20/04
to

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:nvMnd.19259$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Yup, both of those would do it.,

However, my reading of the regs - well the proposed changes - was that
touching an installed RCD was automatically outwith minor works.

RichardS

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 2:44:16 PM11/20/04
to
"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:nvMnd.19259$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
<snip>

>
> Or just change the existing FCU for a double pole RCD unit. This gives
full
> isolation to the external socket for servicing / repair / replacement, and
> it also give you the full protection you need when in use with an
appliance.
> No change, extension or replacement on the original circuit, just a
> replacement of the front plate on the FCU back box.
>
> Like this one:
>
> http://www.diynot.com/shop/RCD_FUSED_CONNECTION_UNIT/3952
>
>

looking at the link, that's an RCD protected FCU - what I'm after is the
same but incorporating a switch.

Will search...

Lurch

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 4:18:04 PM11/20/04
to
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:44:16 -0000, "RichardS" <noone@invalid> strung
together this:

>looking at the link, that's an RCD protected FCU - what I'm after is the
>same but incorporating a switch.
>
>Will search...

The only other one I can think of is the smiths one,
<http://www.timeguard.com/details.php?product=121>, although that
hasn't got a switch incorporated into it either.
For the switching on and off part, press 'test' to turn off, and
'reset' to turn on. This will work satisfactorily for both units.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

BigWallop

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 4:19:51 PM11/20/04
to

"RichardS" <noone@invalid> wrote in message
news:419f9e91$0$1861$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
> Richard Sampson
>

The RCD test button is used as the switch for these units.


Mike

unread,
Nov 20, 2004, 6:11:14 PM11/20/04
to

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:1avnd.18745$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> " In Surrey, electrical wiring and appliances are the second largest cause
> of domestic fires. We all know that electricity can cause fire but we may
> not always understand why. "

Odd - in a recent visit from our fire brigade (Cheshire), electrical fires
came fifth and these were mostly due to portable heaters being left on
unattended in silly places.


John

unread,
Nov 22, 2004, 2:03:09 PM11/22/04
to

"BigWallop" <spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote in message
news:18ynd.18823$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Let us not forget that "most" firemen are not electrical engineers or even
particularly well trained in analysis for that matter.
I was personally involved some time ago in carrying out an investigation
into a fire which had all but destroyed a flat belonging to a local
landlord. The fire brigade had attended and extinguished the blaze but then
had written the matter up as source of fire - electrical fault in storage
heater.
The tenant of course came pleading on the landlords doorstep for a whole
raft of new possessions inflated to luxury level of course.
On investigation and without too much use of eyes and logic it transpired
the heater casing was seriously burnt outside but was virtually undamaged
inside. None of the internal wiring had any damage whatsoever and
insulation/resistances etc were 100% thus it could easily be seen that the
heater had been "in" a fire but not "on" fire. Moreover there were the
remains of a foam pillow still lodged where it had fallen off the heater and
landed between heater and end wall.
The fire officer wasn't interested in changing his mind or report however
and it is still down as electrical fault.

How skewed are the statistics you quote with this in mind?


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 22, 2004, 7:50:01 PM11/22/04
to
In article <cntd5c$9gj$4...@titan.btinternet.com>,

"John" <bo1l...@ASbtinternet.com> writes:
>
> Let us not forget that "most" firemen are not electrical engineers or even
> particularly well trained in analysis for that matter.
> I was personally involved some time ago in carrying out an investigation
> into a fire which had all but destroyed a flat belonging to a local
> landlord. The fire brigade had attended and extinguished the blaze but then
> had written the matter up as source of fire - electrical fault in storage
> heater.
> The tenant of course came pleading on the landlords doorstep for a whole
> raft of new possessions inflated to luxury level of course.
> On investigation and without too much use of eyes and logic it transpired
> the heater casing was seriously burnt outside but was virtually undamaged
> inside. None of the internal wiring had any damage whatsoever and
> insulation/resistances etc were 100% thus it could easily be seen that the
> heater had been "in" a fire but not "on" fire. Moreover there were the
> remains of a foam pillow still lodged where it had fallen off the heater and
> landed between heater and end wall.
> The fire officer wasn't interested in changing his mind or report however
> and it is still down as electrical fault.
>
> How skewed are the statistics you quote with this in mind?

When I was trawling around the stats a couple of years ago
to respond to the government's consultation, I came across
a comment that some chip-pan fires get included in the
electrical fires figures because they happen on an electric
hob (this was given as a reason chip-pan fire figures are
lower than reality). A number of the 'electrical' fires in
the stats are fires involving appliances which are neither
faulty nor misbehaving, but simply being misused.

--
Andrew Gabriel

RichardS

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:32:27 PM11/23/04
to

"Lurch" <theorigi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:70dvp0tr7abb8pv04...@4ax.com...

Thanks, I'll probably go that route then as it means not having to chop out
another backbox and re-cable to the external socket.

I had thought that we had a thread a while ago where several people said
that the habitual use of the test/reset buttons for RCDs as an on/off switch
was not a recommended route, but it'll have to do.

Lurch

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 2:54:43 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:32:27 -0000, "RichardS" <noone@invalid> strung
together this:

>I had thought that we had a thread a while ago where several people said


>that the habitual use of the test/reset buttons for RCDs as an on/off switch
>was not a recommended route, but it'll have to do.

I seem to remember one of those. I think that using it as an on\off
switch is possibly border line according to manufacturers.
OTOH, the instructions all say 'test before use' which is effectively
turning it off and on again before every use, as you would with a
normal switch so I can't see there being a problem.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Rod Hewitt

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:01:51 PM11/23/04
to
and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote in
news:cnu1fp$mds$1...@new-usenet.uk.sun.com:

> When I was trawling around the stats a couple of years ago
> to respond to the government's consultation, I came across
> a comment that some chip-pan fires get included in the
> electrical fires figures because they happen on an electric
> hob (this was given as a reason chip-pan fire figures are
> lower than reality). A number of the 'electrical' fires in
> the stats are fires involving appliances which are neither
> faulty nor misbehaving, but simply being misused.
>

I'll have you know that heating a motorbike chain in a tin of lube on my
mother's cooker, forgetting about it and only noticing the spitting and
black smoke does not constitute misuse! Perfectly proper use of a cooker in
the kitchen.

--
Rod

www.annalaurie.co.uk

IMM

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:06:21 PM11/23/04
to

"Rod Hewitt" <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AACBC3936...@130.133.1.4...

Why would you heat a bike chain in oil?


Bob Eager

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:42:55 PM11/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:06:21 UTC, "IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote:

> Why would you heat a bike chain in oil?

He didn't. He said 'lube' - in this case, bike chain lubricant, which is
semi-solid at room temperrature. AFAIR you coil the chain up on top of
the open tin (so that it rests on the 'cake' of lube) and then you heat
it. Chain sinnks, and liquid lube permeates the chain. Lift it out and
hang over tin to drip off the excess lube.

I did it once on my mum's cooker too. Then I was forced to use a Primus
in the garden.

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

Rod Hewitt

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:52:46 PM11/23/04
to
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-
rPISGY...@rikki.tavi.co.uk:

> I did it once on my mum's cooker too. Then I was forced to use a Primus
> in the garden.
>

Bob, thanks for the explanation, quite correct and saved me a bit of
typing. I changed over to aerosol spray lube. But the fire brigade were
very helpful.

--
Rod

www.annalaurie.co.uk

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 3:36:14 PM11/23/04
to

"IMM" <nom...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:30hjhuF...@uni-berlin.de...

I suspect for the same reason people heat lard in a chip-pan before trying
to fry chips, liquid grease gets places where normal grease doesn't IYSWIM
(I doubt you will though).


Owain

unread,
Nov 23, 2004, 5:37:23 PM11/23/04
to
"Rod Hewitt" wrote

| I'll have you know that heating a motorbike chain in a tin of lube
| on my mother's cooker, forgetting about it and only noticing the
| spitting and black smoke does not constitute misuse! Perfectly
| proper use of a cooker in the kitchen.

Yeah, but not of a tin of lube. They're not designed for direct heat. You
should have emptied the contents into a saucepan first.

Over on uk.food+drink.misc there's a thread developing on American turkey
fryers. You could do a gearbox in one of those.

Owain


Rod Hewitt

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 2:57:42 PM11/24/04
to
"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in
news:11012511...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net:

> Yeah, but not of a tin of lube. They're not designed for direct heat. You
> should have emptied the contents into a saucepan first.
>
> Over on uk.food+drink.misc there's a thread developing on American turkey
> fryers. You could do a gearbox in one of those.

Surprisingly, the tin was hardly affected. But in case there are any kids
viewing, it is not the best approach. Mind, I'm not sure about my mother's
reaction to lube in one of her pans.

--
Rod

www.annalaurie.co.uk

Rich Williams

unread,
Nov 24, 2004, 6:19:49 PM11/24/04
to
Why cannot I reply to this group _ keeps coming back!

"Rod Hewitt" <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABCB0F33B...@130.133.1.4...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/2004


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages