Add Your Idea

REMOVAL OF PART P BUILDING REGS

Comment 8th August 2010

I note your statement indicating the removal of the Part P Electrical Control of the Building Regs with very much concern. The manner in which you appear to have drawn your conclusion is seriously flawed – but possibly deliberately so to provoke response.

From my position I would not expect to see this control removed from the electrical industry as it most definitely has significantly reduced the risk of electric shock accidents for residential customers and as a bi-product to commercial and industrial clients as well.

Your view that it has increased the cost to customers could well be true but to have properly controlled and registered electricians undertaking their work is excellent value, a confidence and safety matter and an added value to the property. It is not an onerous process if it is a natural part of your everyday work.

Also to assume that only large elecrical companies can afford to register and undertake Fuse Board changes etc, is total rubbish. I am a one man contractor, (as are several of my colleagues) and we have no problem meeting the cost of registration and completing the testing.

The truth of the matter is that if someone has gone out of business it is not because of Part P but because they were not working to the BS7671 regulations before and found it too difficult to operate and be assessed against – not a bad result for Part P Regulation.

It is good to hear that no accidents have occurred and that is the way to continue – if you scrap the Part P Control problems will result. Just try working with the Registration Organisations like NAPIT, ECA, etc and make the process as slick as possible BUT DO NOT DESTROY THE GAINS.

Why does this matter?

RETAIN PART P OF THE BUILDING REGS FOR THE REASONS ABOVE.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea