stop doing electrical work

Discussion in 'Kitchen Fitters' Talk' started by 4957bob, Mar 11, 2006.

  1. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    it isnt on safety grounds alone, its their like other building regs, to ensure work is being done correctly.
    why should people let tradesmen in their homes and risk death??? and then not be able to do anything about it? its about having the rite to ensure safe workmanship in ur own home as much as anything

    you people who argue against would soon change if it happend in your home
     
  2. limestone cowboy

    limestone cowboy New Member

    They are not analogies. They are examples of other deaths caused by accidents to illustrate that fixed wiring in houses isn't as dangerous as some people make out.

    Perhaps the deaths from 'electrical accidents' are also 'freak accidents that cannot be prevented'?

    Do you really think that Part P will result in zero deaths?
     
  3. limestone cowboy

    limestone cowboy New Member

    I'm not arguing against Part P, just that it can't be justified on safety grounds alone. You can't deny that some electricians are using it to scare people in order to drum up work, hike prices and control the market. This is what I object to.
     
  4. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    if u read my previous posts u will see my opinions of part p, ridiculously implemented in a way that lets bodies fleece people. i can no longer work in my own home or anyone elses for that matter aside from thru my firm

    i have never once argued it was implemented on safety alone, we could go all day arguin wat causes more deaths

    however if i kill someone thru my work i can be prosecuted

    anything i do without notification i can be prosecuted

    my only point which people do not acknowledge is that because of part p, installlations are becoming safer

    not 100% safer, but safer none the less

    THIS WAS MY ONLY POINT
     
  5. chappers

    chappers Member

    There are good and bad in all trades and with this sort of half hearted regulation the good will still be good and the bad will still be bad but may actually learn a bit on the way to mugging up for their tests.
    The problem comes that there is no accountability. Unlicenced people will still do electrical work and no one will be any the wiser, responsible sparx who have always tested and certificated their work, still continue to do that and have to pass their costs onto the customer.
    I personally fell very confident carrying out electrical work haveing completely rewired three properties myself , but the fact of the matter is, its now the law that I can't and so I don't.
    Who ever thought of leaving BC in charge of policing this was haveing a laugh.
    Since part P came in we have completed 5 or 6 jobs that have required certification under part P only on my last job did the BCO ask whether we had done any works which fall under the realms of part p and that was amodification to a loft conversion which involved adding a light and a socket so was exempt.I still have the test certificate copies in my filling cabinet from the others.
    In my opinion Part p is a toothless beast which has done little if anything to improve electrical safety, and it won't until the general public are aware of its existance .God knows how long that will take my mate is a plumber and in 10 years he reckons only 3 or 4 people have asked to see his CORGI card.
     
  6. chappers

    chappers Member

    Sorry meant to add that the main problems with partp and CORGI type schemes is they are only a snapshot of a single moment in time once your spark or plumber walks away and something goes wrong he can say well when I left it these were the test results and everything was in order, someone must have tampered with it and who is to say thats not true.
     
  7. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    Those figures include portable appliances and non-fixed wiring, neither of which are addressed by Part P. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that making it harder and/or more expensive for people to have fixed wiring work carried out will result in the increased inappropriate use of non-fixed wiring.

    These quotes are from the document Proposals for new safety requirements for electrical installation work in dwellings - A Consultation Package issued by Building Regulations Division

    "The number of electric shock fatalities per million population in England & Wales has been falling over the last thirty years."

    "Overall, the latest data shows that for the period 1990 to 1998 there were about 5 fatalities and 576 non-fatal injuries per year in dwellings in England & Wales arising from fixed electrical installations"

    "Overall, it is felt that a reduction of 20% in electric shock fatalities is a realistic prospect but that the reduction in non-fatal injuries might only be half that. Fire incident report forms filled in by fire officers indicate that around 21% of fires associated with fixed electrical installations could be prevented by the new regulations requiring improvements in the quality of installation work."

    So fatalities from shock are falling long term, there are on average 5 fatalities a year, and the estimate was that part P would save 1 life per year.

    Unless you are still unable to grasp the concept of not pursuing safety regardless of how effective it is in practice, please explain the safety justification for Part P.

    But that's not peoples' opinion, is it? Even with your figure of 10 deaths, Part P will save 2 lives.

    If saving 2 lives is so important, why not lower the speed limit in built-up areas from 30mph to 10mph? I'm sure that would save more than 2 lives per year. Why don't we do that?


    The second thing I'd like you to explain is why you think that only electricians are qualified to read accident data, and Regulatory Impact Assessments.
     
  8. panlid

    panlid New Member

    couple of months ago i was talking to one of my customers who asked me did i know a cheap spark. i laughed as only a joiner can, and asked her what she needed. she showed me that she hasnt got a underworktop socket for her appliances and had a 4 way running down to feed a dishwasher, washer and condenser drier. she pointed out there used to be cupboards there which she has taken out to move her appliances ther. she said it keeps blowing the fuse and the 4 way gets red hot. i said she cant have all the appliances on at once as it is dangerous. she said an electrician an electrician said she had to extend the ring down below and quoted her £120 to sort it out. she said she couldnt afford that at the moment so it will have to stay like that.
    i told her the work will have to be part p cert which she didnt have a clue about. i said not all sparks are ok to do it but she shrugged her shoulders ands said i dont care as long as it is cheaper than 120.
    i think it sums it up really.
     
  9. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    correct panlid
     
  10. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    1) 4-way adapters are fused, and if used correctly are perfectly safe. Using more than 1 appliance at once might well blow the fuse, but there's no way it should get hot. Either it is faulty, or there's something else wrong, e.g. in the plug of one of the appliances.

    2) To have the ring extended competently would cost the same with or without Part P - with membership at about £1/day, and notification fees about the same (IIRC), it adds only a few percent to the cost of a job like that.
     
  11. panlid

    panlid New Member

    i think it was more the cable of the 4 way getting hot.
    BAS are you saying that sparks arnt putting up their prices due to part p?
     
  12. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    So fatalities from shock are falling long term, there are on average 5 fatalities a year, and the estimate was that part P would save 1 life per year.

    Unless you are still unable to grasp the concept of not pursuing safety regardless of how effective it is in practice, please explain the safety justification for Part P.



    why are u judging on deaths alone? why should up to 750 people per year be injured by electric??? why shoudnt people who allow tradesmane into their homes be protected. every individual has the right to a safe home and the means to prosecute for bad work



    If saving 2 lives is so important, why not lower the speed limit in built-up areas from 30mph to 10mph? I'm sure that would save more than 2 lives per year. Why don't we do that?


    again ridiculous comparison!!!!
     
  13. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    It's not 750. But even if it was, the RIA predicted a reduction of 10%, i.e. 75 non-fatal injuries avoided per year. The cost-benefit analysis does not make that a figure that justifies Part P on safety grounds.
    I have never said that a registration system aimed at preventing poor workmanship, and guaranteeing customers a quality job, and a guarantee etc etc is not a Good Thing.

    All I am saying is that Part P cannot be justified on safety grounds.

    I am not saying that part P will not make things safer, I am saying that they were safe enough already, and that there was no justification for legislation on the basis of the tiny increase in safety that would result.
    It's not a ridiculous comparison - it is yet another example of the reality that we do not, and should not, pursue a policy of safety measures irrespective of their cost, and that if something costs "too much" in relation to the safety benefits it brings then it should not be done.

    Let's forget Part P. Let's forget road safety. Imagine a hypothetical "thing" that could be done via legislation, that would save 1 accidental loss of life per year. And let's say that the cost of that to the public purse was £10 billion, and would require an increase in the basic rate of tax of about 4p.

    Would you support the idea? Or would you say "It's not worth it"?

    Suppose it was £100 billion, and every family in the country paying an extra £3,200 per year in tax?

    As soon as you say "it's not worth it" you have acknowledged the principle of cost-benefit analysis.

    And on that basis, the costs of Part P are not justified given the savings from it.

    But I'm not going to try and explain that any more - it really is a very simple concept. Either you do understand it, but are pretending not to because you want to artificially create disagreement, in which case there is no point me carrying on, or it is genuinely too hard for you to grasp, in which case there is no point me carrying on.
     
  14. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    Part P is just a nice little earner for people who buy into it, so what if a couple of people die every year from cowboy work.
    These cowboys will keep on working, why? because they couldn't give a monkeys and also people are greedy and will always look for a cheaper way of getting work done.
    I fit carpets and wood floors (only semi skilled really)
    but would you have a part p for carpet fitting?
    No of course not it sounds laughable but did you know 1000 old people die every year from falling down stairs and a major contributing factor to this is badly fitted or excessively worn carpets, yep i said 1000.
    Why do sparks suddenly need this part p, have the been unsafe all these years?
    Did all the time they served as apprentices and college qualifications not teach them how to work safely anyway?
     
  15. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    No - as the very low figures for death and injuries prove.

    Part P was needed to make it uneconomical for "ancillary electricians", e.g. kitchen fitters and plumbers etc to carry on doing electrical work. It was also supposed to introduce a cost system which favoured the large electrical contractors compared to small and OMB electricians.

    But then NICEIC spotted a nice little earner in allowing "ancillary electricians" to become registered, and drastically lowered the qualifications and technical entry requirements to the point that if you can get 80% on the question "who are you?" then you're in.

    When you look at how low the entry barrier is, I think it's actually going to make things worse. I see newly "Part P qualified domestic installers" asking questions here, and on other fora which beggar belief, given that they are supposedly from "qualified" electricians, but now people who would previously not have employed someone who wasn't genuinely qualified and experienced, i.e. the traditional members of NICEIC, ECA etc (and yes, I know there were still some rogues), will employ these 5-day wonders without a worry.
     
  16. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    So all the gen sparks who take up the part p will find that although at the minute they are getting well paid for it could end up being replaced by an under qualified and no doubt cheaper workforce.
     
  17. nottsspark

    nottsspark New Member

    I am not saying that part P will not make things safer, I am saying that they were safe enough already, and that there was no justification for legislation on the basis of the tiny increase in safety that would result.


    SO AFTER DAYS OF ME SAYIN MY ONLY POINT IS THAT PART P WILL MAKE THINGS SAFER U NOW DECIDE TO AGREE

    Let's forget Part P. Let's forget road safety. Imagine a hypothetical "thing" that could be done via legislation, that would save 1 accidental loss of life per year. And let's say that the cost of that to the public purse was £10 billion, and would require an increase in the basic rate of tax of about 4p.


    YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE OF WHY IT CAME IN. IT ISNT JUST TO SAVE LIVES, IT TIES IN WITH BUILDING REGS TO HAVE A SET INDUSTRY STANDARD, LIKE BUILDING AND PLLUMBING


    I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND UR ARGUMENT THAT IT IS NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO BRING IT IN ON SAFETY GROUNDS ALONE, HOWEVER IT WASNT BROUGHT IN FOR THAT PURPOSE ONLY.

    I have never said that a registration system aimed at preventing poor workmanship, and guaranteeing customers a quality job, and a guarantee etc etc is not a Good Thing.

    I am not saying that part P will not make things safer

    YOU HAVE SEEN ME MAKE MY POINT OVER AND OVER YET HAVE CHALLENGED EVERY POST ONLY TO NOW AGREE WITH EVERYTHING IVE SED?????????
     
  18. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds New Member

    You really haven't been reading my posts properly, have you?

    I've been agreeing for days (since Mar 14 7:16 PM) that it will make things saf<u>ER</u>.

    I've even (on Mar 15 10:11 AM) pointed out to you that I wasn't saying it wouldn't make things saf<u>ER</u>, and wondered why you didn't seem to get that.

    But crucially that wasn't your only point. What you and I have been disagreeing about is whether things needed to be safer, whether the accident statistics showed that there was a real problem, and whether a cost-justification case could be made for Part P.

    Over and over again the other point you made was that it didn't matter what the accident data was. In fact, on Mar 14 7:26 PM you said you didn't know what it was.

    Over and over again you refused to accept the concept of cost-benefit analyses, and it's not just me saying that.

    Over and over again, when I tried to show you other examples of where cost-benefit decisions are made, and that as a society we clearly do not pursue a policy of safety-at-any cost you dismissed those examples as of no relevance.

    So no - your only point is not that Part P will make things safer, you've also tried to make the point that it doesn't matter if they needed to be safer, and it doesn't matter how much effect it has on accident rates.
    A simple question for you, and it has a simple answer, yes or no, since it doesn't require any value judgments, or assumptions about how effective a safety measure is etc.

    Do you now accept that when considering the introduction of measures which are not zero cost that the question has to be asked, "is it worth it?"?>
    Oh I know that. I think you'll find that I've said quite a number of times that it can't be justified in terms of lives saved.
    How does it do that when all it imposes is a requirement for reasonable safety?
    Good.
    I know.
    Not once have I challenged you over Part P making things saf<u>ER</u>. I've even pointed this out to you. What I've challenged is the notion that making things saf<u>ER</u> was actually required.

    What I've challenged is the notion that it is "absolute madness" to consider whether fatality and accident rates should be looked at to decide if safety measures are worthwhile.

    What I've challenged is the notion that saving 1-2 lives a year is "enough to warrant legislation".
     
  19. woody.

    woody. New Member

    Boring!
     
  20. plastic bertrand

    plastic bertrand Active Member

    Boring!

    Boring, Boring!!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice