Repeal Part P of the Building Regulations

The bureaucratic application of Part P of the building regulations requiring Council inspection, hugely expensive registration or the use of a registered electrician for householders to be able to modernise or modify the electrical installations in their own property is unnecessary when the householders in question are both qualified and capable of doing the work themselves. There are many electrical and electronic professionals with technical qualifications and skills well above those needed by 'domestic electricians' who are more than capable of working on their domestic electrical systems and applying the requirements of  IET 18th Edition Wiring Regulations. I see no reason why qualified and experienced electrical or electronic engineers, who are not employed as domestic electricians, shouldn't be permitted, for example, to extend the ring main or even update the consumer unit without the huge cost Part P introduces. The critical issue is competence and you don't have to be a 'domestic electrician'  to satisfy that criterion. This slavish and hysterical concern for so called 'safety' is an absolute nonsense and has got to stop. Whatever happened for common sense?

Why is this idea important?

The bureaucratic application of Part P of the building regulations requiring Council inspection, hugely expensive registration or the use of a registered electrician for householders to be able to modernise or modify the electrical installations in their own property is unnecessary when the householders in question are both qualified and capable of doing the work themselves. There are many electrical and electronic professionals with technical qualifications and skills well above those needed by 'domestic electricians' who are more than capable of working on their domestic electrical systems and applying the requirements of  IET 18th Edition Wiring Regulations. I see no reason why qualified and experienced electrical or electronic engineers, who are not employed as domestic electricians, shouldn't be permitted, for example, to extend the ring main or even update the consumer unit without the huge cost Part P introduces. The critical issue is competence and you don't have to be a 'domestic electrician'  to satisfy that criterion. This slavish and hysterical concern for so called 'safety' is an absolute nonsense and has got to stop. Whatever happened for common sense?

Part p reform

Currently Part P of the building regs requires that competent persons test and certify electrical installation work. To become a competent person you need attain only the most basic of courses that are aimed at kitchen and bathroom fitters. This is all for the financial benefit of the training centres and governing bodies and not to the public at large.

I propose that the only people who can self certify their own work be time served electricians with the relevant up to date qualifications, and that their governing body carries out inspections of their businesses only every 24 months – yearly is too frequent, largely a box ticking excercise and again an easy fee earning ploy for governing bodies. If Part P is to be serious about improving safety then only time served electricians should test electrical work – part timers should be banned from the practice.

Why is this idea important?

Currently Part P of the building regs requires that competent persons test and certify electrical installation work. To become a competent person you need attain only the most basic of courses that are aimed at kitchen and bathroom fitters. This is all for the financial benefit of the training centres and governing bodies and not to the public at large.

I propose that the only people who can self certify their own work be time served electricians with the relevant up to date qualifications, and that their governing body carries out inspections of their businesses only every 24 months – yearly is too frequent, largely a box ticking excercise and again an easy fee earning ploy for governing bodies. If Part P is to be serious about improving safety then only time served electricians should test electrical work – part timers should be banned from the practice.

Part P Abolition and Electrician Licensing

Provide a licensing scheme to ensure that only qualified electricians to a set industry standard (set by an approved body e.g. IET or City and Guilds) to replace the self-certification or Part P inspection scheme for electrical work in domestic properties. Extend the licensing scheme to include commercial & industrial sectors.

Why is this idea important?

Provide a licensing scheme to ensure that only qualified electricians to a set industry standard (set by an approved body e.g. IET or City and Guilds) to replace the self-certification or Part P inspection scheme for electrical work in domestic properties. Extend the licensing scheme to include commercial & industrial sectors.

Make the Building Regulations less bureaucratic and restrictive

The Building Regulations were originally introduced to make sure that buildings complied with certain building standards.  In recent times they have been expanded enormously with a series of 14 technical Parts devoted to particular topics e.g. Part P for electrics and Part N for glazing/windows.  At the same time the Building Regulations are now also used to ensure that building work increases the energy efficiency rating of the relevant components to certain levels.

Whilst the intentions may have been good, the practice is far from good.  The result is that only people registered with particular schemes (e.g. FENSA for windows or NICEIC for electrics) are allowed to sign-off their own work.  The alternative is to pay a fee to the local Council Building Control Officer (BCO) to give approval.  In both cases the quality of the work or assessment is highly variable.  Some BCOs give a cursory assessment whilst others scrutinise every detail and reject work for trivial deviations (in terms of their impact) from the standard.  SImilarly, whilst some tradesmen will do the work well, others will not – but both can sign off the work as being to the standard.

The Building Regulations should be reviewed and the highly restrictive, bureacratic and costly requirements to use certain approved installers should be relaxed.  These apply particularly to Parts N and P but the requirement to have the work approved applies also to other parts that a competent householder might wish to tackle e.g. Parts F, G, H. J and L.  I propose that all the relevant standards e.g. for quality of materials and components and for the design should be freely available for anyone to access e.g. on the internet or at their local library (or council office perhaps).  Anyone who is competent and confident they can undertake the work should be able to do so, whether this is the householder or someone they know.  If the work represents a significant change from what previously existed (for example, not simply replacing a broken light switch), it may be appropriate that they should have to record the nature of the work undertaken and sign to state it has been done to the appropriate standard.

This self-certification of work could either be recorded in a "House Logbook" – (why don't houses have some kind of logbook that records details of repairs and maintenance undertaken and changes to systems etc  that can be passed on to the next owner?), or  perhaps a self-certification could be submitted to the local authority to be held on record, similar to now (although there would be a risk that would become bureaucratic and incur costs too.)  In either case, a future prospective owner or tenant should be able to find out what significant work has been undertaken and, if they wish, get 'an expert' to check it was actually done to standard.  They key factor is having a record of what has been done.  We need to get back to a point where people are allowed to carry out their own repairs and maintenance without being forced to use someone deemed competent (but who often isn't) or going through a bureaucratic and costly local authority approval system.

Why is this idea important?

The Building Regulations were originally introduced to make sure that buildings complied with certain building standards.  In recent times they have been expanded enormously with a series of 14 technical Parts devoted to particular topics e.g. Part P for electrics and Part N for glazing/windows.  At the same time the Building Regulations are now also used to ensure that building work increases the energy efficiency rating of the relevant components to certain levels.

Whilst the intentions may have been good, the practice is far from good.  The result is that only people registered with particular schemes (e.g. FENSA for windows or NICEIC for electrics) are allowed to sign-off their own work.  The alternative is to pay a fee to the local Council Building Control Officer (BCO) to give approval.  In both cases the quality of the work or assessment is highly variable.  Some BCOs give a cursory assessment whilst others scrutinise every detail and reject work for trivial deviations (in terms of their impact) from the standard.  SImilarly, whilst some tradesmen will do the work well, others will not – but both can sign off the work as being to the standard.

The Building Regulations should be reviewed and the highly restrictive, bureacratic and costly requirements to use certain approved installers should be relaxed.  These apply particularly to Parts N and P but the requirement to have the work approved applies also to other parts that a competent householder might wish to tackle e.g. Parts F, G, H. J and L.  I propose that all the relevant standards e.g. for quality of materials and components and for the design should be freely available for anyone to access e.g. on the internet or at their local library (or council office perhaps).  Anyone who is competent and confident they can undertake the work should be able to do so, whether this is the householder or someone they know.  If the work represents a significant change from what previously existed (for example, not simply replacing a broken light switch), it may be appropriate that they should have to record the nature of the work undertaken and sign to state it has been done to the appropriate standard.

This self-certification of work could either be recorded in a "House Logbook" – (why don't houses have some kind of logbook that records details of repairs and maintenance undertaken and changes to systems etc  that can be passed on to the next owner?), or  perhaps a self-certification could be submitted to the local authority to be held on record, similar to now (although there would be a risk that would become bureaucratic and incur costs too.)  In either case, a future prospective owner or tenant should be able to find out what significant work has been undertaken and, if they wish, get 'an expert' to check it was actually done to standard.  They key factor is having a record of what has been done.  We need to get back to a point where people are allowed to carry out their own repairs and maintenance without being forced to use someone deemed competent (but who often isn't) or going through a bureaucratic and costly local authority approval system.

Electrical work on own home by DIY

I think the law was passed, restricting DIYers to just wiring a plug or similar.  It was based on the fact that deaths had occured by electricution. Some of those deaths were professionals, and this was not made known, so it is not really a fair law.

Why is this idea important?

I think the law was passed, restricting DIYers to just wiring a plug or similar.  It was based on the fact that deaths had occured by electricution. Some of those deaths were professionals, and this was not made known, so it is not really a fair law.

Great Repeal Bill – Part 1

 

It is an extremely promising and most welcome initiative for the Coalition government to take the matter of excessive regulation seriously and enlist and trust citizens to help define a future legislative programme, and offer views on how the role of the state might be reduced.

I propose a Great Reform Bill to remove the following pieces of legislation or regulations from the statute book, initially consisting of repealing of reforming the following pieces of legislation:

  • The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Excessive health and safety legislation has replaced common sense and the sheer volume and proliferation of rules and regulations stifles innovation and swamps small businesses or charitable organisations in the Third Sector. It is time for a thorough review of all aspects of this act as well as the numerous offshoot pieces of legislation, which create unnecessary jobs for the HSE.
  • Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations do not apply to small domestic projects where statistically most construction deaths or accidents occur. Where CDM does apply eg on major commercial projects, costs have increased typically by 1% due to the fees for a new breed of professional, the Planning Coordinator, whose sole task is to prepare reams of risk assessments and health and safety documentation. Yet again this role has done little to reduce construction-related deaths or injuries.
  • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This act forces many small businesses to prepare significant amounts of paperwork, and carry out detailed risk assessments for audit and inspection, and allows Fire Authorities to close businesses without appeal, yet does nothing to reduce the risk of fire.
  • Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. RDAs and Government Offices of the Regions should be abolished as they have failed to fulfil heir remit but at considerable expense to the public purse and merely duplicate the functions of national and county government. RDAs were established despite public antipathy and rejection in a referendum in North East England.
  • The Police Act 1997, specifically with regard to the new Criminal Records Bureau and recently created Independent Safeguarding Authority, both of which should be abolished.
  • Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. There is an urgent need to review existing asbestos legislation to take account of the diverse range of asbestos-containing products, some of which are much more harmful than others.
  • Identity Cards Act 2006. A wholly undemocratic act worthy of a fascist state that will do nothing to make the nation more secure.
  • Firearms Act 1998. Introduced as a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane tragedy but has done nothing to reduce gun crime and instead criminalises those who take part in sport shooting.
  • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Specifically with regard to the impact of this piece of regulation on music venues.
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers ACT 2000. This act provides a legal framework that allows authorities to snoop and spy on citizens and is grossly undemocratic. Abolish The Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  • The Local Government Act 2000. Abolish Standards for England.
  • Part P Building Regulations 2000, which came into force in 2005 and imposes an undue cost burden on consumers, who are obliged to employ ‘competent’ trained electricians to carry out even the most modest alterations to electrical circuits.
  • Licensing Act 2003.
  • Human Rights Act 1998. Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, arguably one of the most hasty and ill-considered pieces of legislation of all time.

Why is this idea important?

 

It is an extremely promising and most welcome initiative for the Coalition government to take the matter of excessive regulation seriously and enlist and trust citizens to help define a future legislative programme, and offer views on how the role of the state might be reduced.

I propose a Great Reform Bill to remove the following pieces of legislation or regulations from the statute book, initially consisting of repealing of reforming the following pieces of legislation:

  • The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Excessive health and safety legislation has replaced common sense and the sheer volume and proliferation of rules and regulations stifles innovation and swamps small businesses or charitable organisations in the Third Sector. It is time for a thorough review of all aspects of this act as well as the numerous offshoot pieces of legislation, which create unnecessary jobs for the HSE.
  • Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations do not apply to small domestic projects where statistically most construction deaths or accidents occur. Where CDM does apply eg on major commercial projects, costs have increased typically by 1% due to the fees for a new breed of professional, the Planning Coordinator, whose sole task is to prepare reams of risk assessments and health and safety documentation. Yet again this role has done little to reduce construction-related deaths or injuries.
  • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This act forces many small businesses to prepare significant amounts of paperwork, and carry out detailed risk assessments for audit and inspection, and allows Fire Authorities to close businesses without appeal, yet does nothing to reduce the risk of fire.
  • Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. RDAs and Government Offices of the Regions should be abolished as they have failed to fulfil heir remit but at considerable expense to the public purse and merely duplicate the functions of national and county government. RDAs were established despite public antipathy and rejection in a referendum in North East England.
  • The Police Act 1997, specifically with regard to the new Criminal Records Bureau and recently created Independent Safeguarding Authority, both of which should be abolished.
  • Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. There is an urgent need to review existing asbestos legislation to take account of the diverse range of asbestos-containing products, some of which are much more harmful than others.
  • Identity Cards Act 2006. A wholly undemocratic act worthy of a fascist state that will do nothing to make the nation more secure.
  • Firearms Act 1998. Introduced as a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane tragedy but has done nothing to reduce gun crime and instead criminalises those who take part in sport shooting.
  • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Specifically with regard to the impact of this piece of regulation on music venues.
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers ACT 2000. This act provides a legal framework that allows authorities to snoop and spy on citizens and is grossly undemocratic. Abolish The Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  • The Local Government Act 2000. Abolish Standards for England.
  • Part P Building Regulations 2000, which came into force in 2005 and imposes an undue cost burden on consumers, who are obliged to employ ‘competent’ trained electricians to carry out even the most modest alterations to electrical circuits.
  • Licensing Act 2003.
  • Human Rights Act 1998. Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, arguably one of the most hasty and ill-considered pieces of legislation of all time.

Scrap Regulations On Fitting Windows,Doors and Electrical Fittings

Householders should be able to fit new windows and doors without a compulsory environmental inspection by the local authority or going to the expense of using a large 'FENSA' registered company.  They should also be allowed to fit new lights and sockets in their kitchens and bathrooms and external lights without employing expensive  'part p' qualified electricians.

Why is this idea important?

Householders should be able to fit new windows and doors without a compulsory environmental inspection by the local authority or going to the expense of using a large 'FENSA' registered company.  They should also be allowed to fit new lights and sockets in their kitchens and bathrooms and external lights without employing expensive  'part p' qualified electricians.

Get rid of Part P (electrical work) building regs

I would like to see the 2005 Part P building regulations abolished and replaced with a more reasonable law This regulation is supposed to deal with electrical safety and restricts the work that can be done on a domestic installation by a householder. In theory, a householder is free to do whatever work is required and then seek approval under building regs. The alternative is to pay to have a Part P approved contractor do the work and certify the work. In practice, the building regs fees and approval process make it almost unthinkable for a householder to work on their own electrical installation (if they feel competent enough) and then gain local authority approval.

The overall effect of this legislation has been to make a select group of the workforce (electricians) very well paid by what is a captive market with no other alternative than to pay large amounts of money, often for average or shoddy work.

I believe that electricians should still need to demonstrate competence and qualifications to do electrical work – nothing wrong with that. But a householder should be free to perform their own electrical installation if they feel competent enough.

I have personally witnessed an electrician in my own home, armed with only a screwdriver, perform electrical work that was supposed to be controlled under Part P regs. The same electrician then issued a certificate for electrical safety test that were NOT performed. At no point did the electrician use any test equipment. This electrician was contracted by a very large national gas installer. In othere words, they failed to perform the work properly and issued a false certificate. This type of fraud is commited daily.

Part P, as I recall, was introduced in 2005 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister! Get rid of this extortionate legislation and dump it in the same place as the ODPM
 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the 2005 Part P building regulations abolished and replaced with a more reasonable law This regulation is supposed to deal with electrical safety and restricts the work that can be done on a domestic installation by a householder. In theory, a householder is free to do whatever work is required and then seek approval under building regs. The alternative is to pay to have a Part P approved contractor do the work and certify the work. In practice, the building regs fees and approval process make it almost unthinkable for a householder to work on their own electrical installation (if they feel competent enough) and then gain local authority approval.

The overall effect of this legislation has been to make a select group of the workforce (electricians) very well paid by what is a captive market with no other alternative than to pay large amounts of money, often for average or shoddy work.

I believe that electricians should still need to demonstrate competence and qualifications to do electrical work – nothing wrong with that. But a householder should be free to perform their own electrical installation if they feel competent enough.

I have personally witnessed an electrician in my own home, armed with only a screwdriver, perform electrical work that was supposed to be controlled under Part P regs. The same electrician then issued a certificate for electrical safety test that were NOT performed. At no point did the electrician use any test equipment. This electrician was contracted by a very large national gas installer. In othere words, they failed to perform the work properly and issued a false certificate. This type of fraud is commited daily.

Part P, as I recall, was introduced in 2005 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister! Get rid of this extortionate legislation and dump it in the same place as the ODPM
 

Doing electrical work at home

I think the regulation that stops people from doing electrical work in their own home that was brought in by Labour a few years ago should be scrapped.

I used to do my own work but now I cannot without hiring somebody to check it. I think that any benefit that might be gained in terms of safety is far outweighed by the damage done by the state telling me what I can do in my own home.

Why is this idea important?

I think the regulation that stops people from doing electrical work in their own home that was brought in by Labour a few years ago should be scrapped.

I used to do my own work but now I cannot without hiring somebody to check it. I think that any benefit that might be gained in terms of safety is far outweighed by the damage done by the state telling me what I can do in my own home.

Reduce the effects of Part P biulding regulations.

The biulding regulations part P severely restrict what DIY work can be done on domestic electrical installations without the involvement of biulding control.

Prior to the introduction of these regulations, there was on average 1 death per year caused by faulty electrical installation work.

The introduction of these these regualtions have the following negative effects:

The forcing of competent DIY for follow inconvenient and expensive processes in order for work to be lega.

The increase in proffessional overheads of electricians to remain certified to perfom work.

The increase of cost to the customer who merely wishes to empoy a competent handyman to perform work during which minor electrical alterations/installations have to be performed. 

The driving underground of work by uncertified tradesmen who may or may not be competent ,but undercut the certified professional. 

Why is this idea important?

The biulding regulations part P severely restrict what DIY work can be done on domestic electrical installations without the involvement of biulding control.

Prior to the introduction of these regulations, there was on average 1 death per year caused by faulty electrical installation work.

The introduction of these these regualtions have the following negative effects:

The forcing of competent DIY for follow inconvenient and expensive processes in order for work to be lega.

The increase in proffessional overheads of electricians to remain certified to perfom work.

The increase of cost to the customer who merely wishes to empoy a competent handyman to perform work during which minor electrical alterations/installations have to be performed. 

The driving underground of work by uncertified tradesmen who may or may not be competent ,but undercut the certified professional. 

Certification of electrical works in homes

I am a retired electrical engineer.  Any work I do at home (such as installing a new socket or re-wiring a lighting circuit) has to be certified by someone less qualified than I am simply because I don't have the hundreds of pounds necessary to keep my Certification up to date.

The death and fire rates from accidents have not reduced since this regulation was introduced. The only reason for the regulation was so that the Electrical Industry could make more money out of training and certification.  It never was a major safety issue.

Why is this idea important?

I am a retired electrical engineer.  Any work I do at home (such as installing a new socket or re-wiring a lighting circuit) has to be certified by someone less qualified than I am simply because I don't have the hundreds of pounds necessary to keep my Certification up to date.

The death and fire rates from accidents have not reduced since this regulation was introduced. The only reason for the regulation was so that the Electrical Industry could make more money out of training and certification.  It never was a major safety issue.

Remove the electrical safety requirements – part P of the Building Regulations

this is red tape gone mad!! You cant even install a basic fan or shower in your bathroom now DIY because of some EU beaurocracy gone made, its elf and safety gone mad, we must get rid of this rule now

Why is this idea important?

this is red tape gone mad!! You cant even install a basic fan or shower in your bathroom now DIY because of some EU beaurocracy gone made, its elf and safety gone mad, we must get rid of this rule now

Relax the qualified persons for Electrical work in the house

Relax the part 'P' regulations with regards to the qualified persons requirement for Electrical work in the house to a competent person.

This should include someone who has HNC/D, Degree, similar qualification or a specifically designed qualification (that can be taken at a tech college at a reasonable cost) or work experience/training dealing with Electronics or Electrical design or installation.

 

Why is this idea important?

Relax the part 'P' regulations with regards to the qualified persons requirement for Electrical work in the house to a competent person.

This should include someone who has HNC/D, Degree, similar qualification or a specifically designed qualification (that can be taken at a tech college at a reasonable cost) or work experience/training dealing with Electronics or Electrical design or installation.

 

Repeal Part P law

This government could start be getting rid of Part "P" of the building regs.
 
This law, was designed to stop unqualified kitchen fitter and plumbers etc, installing electrical circuits in what is deemed hazardous areas in domestic dwellings, such as kitchens and bathrooms etc.
 
What it resulted in was that qualified elctricians could no longer do the work they had been doing since they served their time, everyday work to them, unless they went and took an un-necessary add-on course at great expense to themselves. The same electrician can of course still do this work in public buildings or indutrial buildings without this add-on
 
The other alternative is to do the work, and then inform the council so they can send someone out to examine the work, at about £250 cost to the customer.
 
Most old electricians, are simply becoming "criminals" by not taking this course, or retiring, thus adding to the skills shortage.
 
As one correspondent to an elecrical trade magazine said at the time of it becoming law, "it's impossible to police…electricians don't need it, and the cowboys won't bother about it"
 
 
Your's
M.R.

Why is this idea important?

This government could start be getting rid of Part "P" of the building regs.
 
This law, was designed to stop unqualified kitchen fitter and plumbers etc, installing electrical circuits in what is deemed hazardous areas in domestic dwellings, such as kitchens and bathrooms etc.
 
What it resulted in was that qualified elctricians could no longer do the work they had been doing since they served their time, everyday work to them, unless they went and took an un-necessary add-on course at great expense to themselves. The same electrician can of course still do this work in public buildings or indutrial buildings without this add-on
 
The other alternative is to do the work, and then inform the council so they can send someone out to examine the work, at about £250 cost to the customer.
 
Most old electricians, are simply becoming "criminals" by not taking this course, or retiring, thus adding to the skills shortage.
 
As one correspondent to an elecrical trade magazine said at the time of it becoming law, "it's impossible to police…electricians don't need it, and the cowboys won't bother about it"
 
 
Your's
M.R.

Change restrictive building control laws

 

 

  • The Tories prescription to scale down Building Regulations to make them “simpler and reduced”

     This is welcome in particular to those in the DIY business. Homeowners face a raft of difficult to understand & costly regulations and some are because of this, ignored on the basis of "who is going to find out"

     Take Part P covering electrical work for instance – whilst it was right to regulate trades people to ensure that their work meets the required standards, Part P also requires the DIY electrician to go through a minefield of regulation & large cost for installing say a new circuit which might only cost about £80 for them to do.

     Most DIY electricians are competent people & some are even practicing tradesmen, yet under Part P they still cannot carry out work on their own home because they are not registered in an approved scheme. The upshot is that most won’t call in an approved tradesman as the costs far outweighs the small amount of work involved so they simply go along to their local B&Q, buy what they need & do the work without notifying their local council which is why most dub Part P as Part Pointless.  Pointless because it largely is ignored by the DIY homeowner.

     The solution is simple, remove the need for competent homeowners doing their own electrical work to notify their local council but ensure that scheme registered tradesman are required to offer a checking & testing service at a regulated fee (like an MOT) If the home owner knows that they only have to pay a fixed low cost fee of say £50 without going through lots of regulation, then you will more likely have DIY electrics checked & tested.

  •  

     

     

     

  •  
  •  

    Why is this idea important?

     

     

  • The Tories prescription to scale down Building Regulations to make them “simpler and reduced”

     This is welcome in particular to those in the DIY business. Homeowners face a raft of difficult to understand & costly regulations and some are because of this, ignored on the basis of "who is going to find out"

     Take Part P covering electrical work for instance – whilst it was right to regulate trades people to ensure that their work meets the required standards, Part P also requires the DIY electrician to go through a minefield of regulation & large cost for installing say a new circuit which might only cost about £80 for them to do.

     Most DIY electricians are competent people & some are even practicing tradesmen, yet under Part P they still cannot carry out work on their own home because they are not registered in an approved scheme. The upshot is that most won’t call in an approved tradesman as the costs far outweighs the small amount of work involved so they simply go along to their local B&Q, buy what they need & do the work without notifying their local council which is why most dub Part P as Part Pointless.  Pointless because it largely is ignored by the DIY homeowner.

     The solution is simple, remove the need for competent homeowners doing their own electrical work to notify their local council but ensure that scheme registered tradesman are required to offer a checking & testing service at a regulated fee (like an MOT) If the home owner knows that they only have to pay a fixed low cost fee of say £50 without going through lots of regulation, then you will more likely have DIY electrics checked & tested.

  •  

     

     

     

  •  
  •  

    Remove regulation stopping qualified people doing their own jobs at home without a licence.

    Remove the limitations for a qualified trades person to perform DIY jobs around their own homes without first having to apply for an expensive licence to perform the task.

    eg Part P of the Building Regulations that limit electrical work in the home. A qualified electrician can work for their company quite legaly during the day….but if they wish to do the same work at home they are breaking the law.

    Why is this idea important?

    Remove the limitations for a qualified trades person to perform DIY jobs around their own homes without first having to apply for an expensive licence to perform the task.

    eg Part P of the Building Regulations that limit electrical work in the home. A qualified electrician can work for their company quite legaly during the day….but if they wish to do the same work at home they are breaking the law.

    Discontinue Part P Buildings Regs

    This regulation requires electrical work either notified in advance to the building control authorities or done by an electrician who can self certify. Local authorities did not receive additional funding to support the scheme when it was introduced, and it presents a unnecessary level of bureaucracy for electricians and competent homeowners to go through. It does nothing to prevent cowboy builders or DIY bodgers.

    Why is this idea important?

    This regulation requires electrical work either notified in advance to the building control authorities or done by an electrician who can self certify. Local authorities did not receive additional funding to support the scheme when it was introduced, and it presents a unnecessary level of bureaucracy for electricians and competent homeowners to go through. It does nothing to prevent cowboy builders or DIY bodgers.

    Remove Unnecessary Regulations

    Get rid of the regulations and laws around home DIY.  Things like the Building Regulations that limit what electrical work may be carried out by anyone, or installing your own fire / stove.  all these rules state that a person who is a competent person registered with an relevant scheme.  Doing a course and paying your annual registration does not make you the most compitent person.

    Why is this idea important?

    Get rid of the regulations and laws around home DIY.  Things like the Building Regulations that limit what electrical work may be carried out by anyone, or installing your own fire / stove.  all these rules state that a person who is a competent person registered with an relevant scheme.  Doing a course and paying your annual registration does not make you the most compitent person.