the problem with being too harsh in the regulation of fixed wiring is it enourages use of extention leads.

extention leads tend to be far more prone to getting damaged and hence becoming dangerous than fixed wiring.

plus whats to stop people using bits of extention leads along with twisted and taped joints to make fixed extentions to thier houses wiring?

stopping diyers getting the proper kit encourages them to use unsuitable kit and/or attempt to repair kit that should have been binned.

this is NOT a good thing.

Posted this in 'Trade' but thought worth while posting here for the DIY folk too.

Here's the latest response form the ODPM which I have just recieved.  
 
Parts of it are already out of date - for instance, they are still quoting 10 lives lost P/A but the ammended statement on the ODPM site talks abpout these numbers being around 2.6!  
Joined-up Govt again!  
 
Read on -  
 
"Part P Regulatory Impact Assessment  
 
Thank you for your email of 13 December to Ian Drummond, and subsequent emails, in which you comment mainly on the Part P Regulatory Impact Assessment. I have been asked to reply.  
 
I should first like again to apologise for not acknowledging your initial email on 22 October to our general enquiry email address in which you asked for the name of the person to contact at ODPM about Part P. We have received a large number of enquiries about Part P, and unfortunately your email was missed by staff responsible for allocating enquiries to the responsible officers.  
 
The following paragraphs contain our response to your comments and questions, which are shown in italics.  
 
Consultation  
 
The changes were subject to consultation of sorts. But, it was mainly the electrical contracting industry that was consulted and, not surprisingly, in the words of the RIA "the proposals were broadly welcomed by the majority of the firms, who felt that they would benefit because consumers would be more likely in future to employ competent contractors". There has been no systematic attempt to balance contractors' understandable desire to receive greater fees from consumers with consumers' understandable desire not to pay such fees. There is no evidence of attempts to involve consumers or their representatives.  The Consumers Association (Which?) did not contribute.  
 
ODPM sent out copies of the consultation package to around 350 organisations, including various bodies representing consumer and DIY interests such as Which?, the British Safety Council, DIY stores (B&Q, Homebase and Wickes), Small Landlords Association and RoSPA. In addition we published a copy of the consultation package on the ODPM website.    

Altogether we received 490 responses, which are summarised on the ODPM website at www.odpm.gov.uk/electricalsafety. It is true that the responses came mainly from electrical contractors, and that those individuals who identified themselves as DIY enthusiasts were generally against the need for independent inspection and testing of DIY work. This was countered by the view of others that DIY work may be of a poorer standard and should therefore be included in the inspection, testing and certification process.  
 
Which? did not respond formally, but we did have direct contact with the author of the Which? Book of Wiring and Lighting, who we understand broadly supported the proposals and offered to revise the guide to take account of Part P requirements. The Which? guide and other DIY manuals already recommend engaging an electrician to check more ambitious DIY work.  
 
Your quotation above is taken out of context in that it comes from the survey of six small businesses (the small firms impact test), where the issues being addressed focused on small firms’ interests rather than those overall. Paragraph 85 of the RIA points out that those in favour of the Part P proposals included the BSI (British Standards Institution) National Wiring Committee JPEL/64 responsible for the British Standard BS 7671 (‘Requirements for electrical installations’); the Health and Safety Executive; the Department of Trade and Industry Standards and Technical Regulations Division, which has responsibilities for the Low Voltage Regulations and, more generally, consumer safety; the IEE (Institution of Electrical Engineers); as well as the NICEIC (National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting) and the ECA (Electrical Contractors’ Association) representing electrical contractors.  
 
Costs to consumers  
 
The costs to consumers were actually overlooked in the draft RIA. In the final RIA, they are acknowledged, but (again in the words of the RIA) "cannot be fully included [in Table 3] because it is not known what proportion of DIY jobs would be notifiable". The costs of obtaining inspection certificates is estimated at £50 to £100 in the report. So it is clear that there is a large uncertainty to the calculation of consumer cost and much of this cost is ignored.    
 
I have calculated the costs to consumers of compliance from figures contained in the report. It is stated that there are a million DIY electrical installations completed each year. Of these, the proportion that would be notifiable is not known, but a fair assumption would be 25%. At an inspection fee of £75 (median of £50 and £100), the cost would amount to £18.75 million per year. All the RIA figures are given as ten year totals discounted at 3.5%, which yields £161 million.  
 
The RIA presents figures for the costs and benefits of the new regulation. The benefits are calculated at £475 million while the costs are calculated at £382 million. The figures purport to show a net benefit of £93 million. But if one takes account of the additional costs to consumers which was ignored in the RIA, the regulations actually show a negative net benefit - a net cost of £68 million.  
 
Paragraph 70 of the RIA states that the costs borne by DIY workers in complying with Part P cannot be fully included in Table 3, but that the estimate of building control fees paid by unregistered electrical installers does include those paid by the DIY sector. In Table 3 we have assumed that 8% of DIY jobs will be notified (compared with 46% of jobs by professionals) at a cost of £60 a time. Table 3 does not take account of the extra costs of any DIYers who employ a qualified electrician to inspect, test and certify their work (likely to be uncommon) as it is anticipated that most DIYers will notify Building Control, which is the easier route.  
 
Paragraph 56 notes that it has been assumed that after five years 25% of jobs will be by unregistered installers. Paragraph 60 adds that it is expected that the majority of notifications to building control bodies will eventually be by DIYers as increasing numbers of professional installers register with competent person schemes.  

WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING?

The number of jobs that DIYers will notify to a building control body is uncertain, but our view is that 25% is an overestimate.  

TOO DAMN RIGHT!

Notifiable jobs consist mainly of new circuits back to the consumer unit and extensions to existing circuits in kitchens, bathrooms and outdoors. No replacement, repair or maintenance work is notifiable. We would therefore estimate that less than 10% of jobs currently carried out by DIYers will need to be notified, and that this percentage is likely to decrease further following the introduction of Part P because (a) some DIYers doing notifiable jobs will in future plan work so that several jobs are notified at the same time; and (b) DIYers who are not competent to do electrical work will be more likely in future to employ a registered installer to carry out the work on their behalf. This will apply in particular to the more risky notifiable jobs in kitchens, bathrooms and outdoors.    

HIGHLY UNLIKELY!

Building control charges  
 
What efforts were made to validate the assumptions with respect to the fees that would be charged by building control bodies for the inspection of wiring?  The RIA assumes £50 to £100.  
 
Advice was sought from bodies representing local authority interests – the Association of Building Engineers (ABE), the District Surveyors Association (DSA) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Building Control Forum. In addition, we held separate meetings with the ECA and NICEIC to discuss costs and charges.  
 
Local authority charges are based on the value of the work done. The Local Government Association model charges scheme, which most local authorities adopt, places work up to £1000 in value in one band. The charge in this band is typically £50 to £75, which will cover most notifiable work by DIYers.

BOLLIX
 
Uncertainties in RIA  
 
There are huge uncertainties in making any of these cost benefit estimates. The RIA acknowledges the uncertainty in indirect consequences of bad wiring such as those associated with portable apparatus.  These uncertainties should have been taken account of in the RIA by risk adjusting the discount rates for the benefits. The treasury rate of 3.5% is a risk-free rate.  Adjusting the discount rates in this way would have the effect of further reducing the net benefit.  
 
We acknowledge these uncertainties in the RIA. Paragraph 75 addresses the uncertainty surrounding the risk reduction factor by showing that the risk reduction factors would need to be reduced by more than one fifth for the proposals to cease to be cost-effective.  
 
Financial expertise  
 
[u]From other technical errors it looks to me as if there was no expert financial advice involved in the preparation of this RIA.  For example, in the summation of costs, building control fees incurred by contractors are added to the costs incurred by building control bodies - which would not have been accepted by any of the government economists that I've ever worked with.[/u]  
 
Local authorities are required to recover the costs of carrying out their building control function by imposing appropriate charges. The costs incurred by building control bodies in Table 3 for receiving and archiving certificates relate to self-certified work carried out by registered installers. The building control fee shown for the electrical contracting industry and the training and recruitment costs for building control bodies relate to work by unregistered professional installers or DIYers. The charges actually applied by building control bodies to cover all their building control activities (not just Part P) must reflect these costs.  
 
Incidence of benefits  
 
In the calculation of benefits, no account is made of the incidence of these benefits.  For example, the reduction in fire damage might just be swallowed up as increased profits to insurers.    
 
This does not affect the calculation of overall costs and benefits addressed by the RIA. The RIA takes a national view of the costs and benefits.  
 
 
Creation of monopoly  
 
No account seems to have been taken of the creation of a monopoly by electrical contractors.  Certainly over the short to medium term we would expect to see a supply shortage and an effective monopoly created - as with CORGI registration.  There is no parallel proposal to limit the exploitation of a monopoly position by contractors.  Nor does it seem that OFT was consulted.  
 
CORGI are the single body approved as a class of persons under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations to carry out gas installation work. There is no equivalence with the provisions for the lesser hazards from electrical installations. Unlike the case of CORGI, there is no prohibition on anyone who is not registered carrying out electrical engineering work.    
Seven bodies have been authorised to run ten Part P competent person self-certification schemes, so there is no monopoly registration body as is the case with CORGI.  
 
The OFT was consulted but did not object.  
 
Number of deaths  
 
The RIA reports that the number of deaths through electrical fixed wiring faults is only 2.6 per year. Of these, less than one per year would be avoided through the new regulations. So the regulations represent a massively costly attempt to solve a very minor problem.  
 
Building Regulations cover fixed installations and so Part P applies not just to fixed wiring, but to fixed appliances as well. Statistics collected by the DTI and Home Office and analysed for the RIA show that 10 deaths a year are associated directly with fixed wiring and fixed appliances. A further 33 deaths a year according to the statistics are associated with portable appliances (televisions, washing machines, etc), but some of these will also be associated with faulty installations (for example a missing RCD or earth). The RIA makes the assumption that eight of the total of 43 deaths will be avoided by the introduction of Part P (see paragraphs 39 and 40 in the final RIA).  
 
Negative impact  
 
The RIA ignores completely the possibility of consumers improving their own installations.  For example, upgrading their consumer units to incorporate RCDs.  By increasing the cost of doing this, there could be a perverse incentive here which would result in less safe installations.  In my house, for example, I installed a split load consumer unit with RCDs which is a massive improvement on the situation when I moved in.
 
It is likely that the new regulations will reduce the amount of electrical work carried out by DIYers,...

SURELY THE ODPM DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THIS?

... but the intention is to reduce the amount of unchecked electrical work carried out by those who are not competent to do such work. DIYers may replace a consumer unit with a more modern one, but would themselves be at risk and the result could be a less safe installation, if the work is not done properly and if the appropriate BS 7671 tests are not carried out.  
 
Economic case  
 
Given the uncertainty in costs and benefits, I do not believe there is a proven economic case presented in the RIA and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.  
 
The RIA makes a satisfactory economic case for regulation, and this is enhanced by the other considerations referred to in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the RIA.  
 
The government is now focusing on successful implementation.  

YEAH, REALLY!
 
Sources of information for accident statistics  
 
Please provide me with the information source or sources for the assertion  
made in yesterday's release: "Each year on average 10 people die and about 750 are seriously injured in accidents involving unsafe electrical installations in the home. In addition, in 2003 2,336 house fires were caused by faulty installations." These figures do not tally with the figures in the RIA so I wonder where you got them from.    
The figures in the RIA are based on an analysis by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) of accident statistics drawn from the DTI’s Home Accident Death Database and Home Accident Surveillance System, and from the Home Office’s FireStat database for the years between 1990 and 1999. The BRE report is in the public domain.  
 
The 10 deaths and 750 injuries quoted above are taken from the RIA and are associated directly with fixed wiring and fixed appliances.  
 
The more recent figures for house fires in 2003 were obtained by our Press Office from ODPM’s Fire Statistics and Research Branch. They are fires recorded as being associated with the electrical supply in dwellings.  
 
Estimates for accidents avoided  
 
Paragraph 40 in the RIA assumes percentage reductions as a result of the proposals being brought into effect. The precise wording is "it is considered that ...". Who made this judgement? On what basis? Is there any empirical evidence for it?  
 
Paragraph 39 acknowledges the difficulty of estimating the number of accidents that would be avoided, which is why a sensitivity analysis was included in the RIA at paragraph 75. The assumption of 30% and 15% reductions in accidents involving fixed installations and portable appliances respectively was based on an analysis of 498 fire accident report forms filled in by Fire Officers during 1993 and 1995. This analysis suggested that between 20% and 75% of fires associated with fixed installations might be preventable by better electrical safety regulation.  
 
 
I hope this is helpful. We would be willing to discuss this further with you if you have further questions.  
 
Yours sincerely  
 
 
KEN BROMLEY  

lol BAS, Whilst I agree with some of the things you say, I disagree about not banning wiring accessories, and that is because at this present time there is too little information on correct application, this has nothing to do with earning potential for me, it's to do with the fact that people are put at risk by people's poor workmanship

As it happens I was advised that electrical items would be taken of the shelf’s within 5 years time, one can only wait and see..

[quote author=ban-all-sheds  link=1106096531/0#6 date=1106406285]
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE [/quote]

Why should I need to?

It's pretty obvious that electrically unskilled persons work can put people in danger.

[quote author=Stoday  link=1106096531/0#8 date=1106411499]

Not all non-registered persons are electrically unskilled.

Retired electricians? Employed electricians? Electricians who have got promotion to management? Electricians who work on non-residential work? Not to mention DIYers who don't have formal qualifications but nevertheless have sufficient knowledge to work on residential wiring safely [/quote]

I'm sorry but clearly we all have different views on this, for one thing I said nothing about non-registered persons, in fact I didn’t say anything about registered or un-registered persons altogether, I made a point that un-skilled people are undertaking electrical work which is dangerous and that is bad

I'm not going to argue if they do or don't because you know some people do, I know some people do, and BAS knows some people do

Quote:


Nothing wrong with these people buying if as you say they have "sufficient knowledge to work on residential wiring safely"

At the end of the day gents, only 2.6 lives per annum are lost due to faulty electrical installations, regardless as to whether or not these works have been carried out by diy or trade or registered/approved trade.

2.6! - This is what all the shouting's about. Hardly a justification to evacuate the shelves of S/F, B&Q etc.

Push this one any further and you'll end up having to register with the DIY outlet before they'll sell you anything! Now won't that be a pain in the anus on a Sunday afternoon when your wholesaler's shut and your house is in darkness for want of a replacement mcb eh?

TT

While you stated your opinion about my ideas ( sheds ) you didnt come up with any yourself. Now I know your a clever person, so come on have you any ideas we can look at. As I dont know you can you please tell me at least if your trade, an electrician or whatever, then I can maybe look at things from your angle if your not.

I am not taking the pee I am just trying to see where your coming from, if your trade or whatever. If your not trade or whatever you might not fully understand things, but I think you like everyone have a point to put across good or not.

Regards T

[quote author=Stoday  link=1106096531/0#10 date=1106413551]
I have a problem reconciling this with your later statement that there's nothing wrong with skilled people being able to buy wiring accessories. [/quote]
Skilled persons can go to wholesalers, no need to sell to the open market

Quote:

Correct

Quote:

Yes this is a problem, again there are wholesalers, but I can see issues in this, at the end of the day 'fundamentally' I'm only thinking the same thing as you "if someone has neither the skill nor knowledge, he should not undertake DIY"

I'm not suggesting that skilled persons should be stopped from undertaking work, I know BAS is taking all this very seriously, and I know he's getting frustrated with it all, but he is obviously in denial if he believes that there is no dangerous work done by unskilled persons