Part P THE DOCUMENT

[Guest Jontom]

Again I do agree, but now I'm getting confused as I thought that replacing an existing circuit "like for like" was outside of Part P, or are you specifically stating a Cooker Circuit because of the Kitchen / Bathroom location requirement?

[Guest]

Sorry, I was just meaning anything within the scope of Part P, e.g. a cooker circuit as it's in a special location.

I thought it was also inside the scope of Part P as it was classed as a new circuit. The way I understood it replacing minor cabling is fine but anything major, like most of a circuit, is not. Anything inside the CU is also a no-no for touching if you're not a competent person, or have I got that wrong?

This is why I've given up with it, too much conflicting information from all angles.

[Guest Jontom]

Lurch, my company got Part P status last week, I've read the damn document that much that I can't take anymore into my brain without a refresh of my NVM banghead (6 pints of Lager should do the job but I'm on call till Monday morning!). I did only look into Part P from a Security Systems point of view so I am certainly no expert on the major electrical work situation.

Will have a fresh read on Tuesday.

,

[datadiffusion]

Lurch, my company got Part P status last week, I've read the damn document that much that I can't take anymore into my brain without a refresh of my NVM  banghead (6 pints of Lager should do the job but I'm on call till Monday morning!). I did only look into Part P from a Security Systems point of view so I am certainly no expert on the major electrical work situation.

Will have a fresh read on Tuesday.

,

45701[/snapback]

Its a bit mad. I can go around wearing my NICEIC contractors T-shirt and do almost anything (having done the courses and training mind!). Come home time I am suddenly not allowed add a breaker to the spare way of my own consumer unit I installed last year!?

I agree with the comments about the oldies leaving, I have even been getting a few calls along the lines of 'I used to have a guy who did all this for me but hes given it up because of Part P...'. But then I also have to turn most of the calls down because I wont bother breaking the law. Though again, I wonder if/when we will see the first test case?

Building control havent got a clue at the moment. Phone them up regarding it and its almost like calling their bluff. 'Well, we can arrange a competent person to inspect on our behalf for £50 plus whatever they charge. Or you can find one yourself'.

And yes, its insane that an existing rubber / lead installation is essentially considered 'safe' under Part P itself.

Stu.

[Guest Jontom]

One thing is for certain Part P is her to stay and I'm sure Building Control will eventually seek to enforce this new section of the Building Reg's more than they seem to be doing at the moment.

Suppose WE (the security industry) will adapt and adhere to it eventually just like we already have with new ACPO, DD243:2002, BS7671- 2002, and as I know we all will with the forthcoming EN50131 & PD6662

,

[Guest Bell-man]

Mad reason, your not joking. The best way all round would be to use the spare way. A brand new circuit is gonna be bang on with all tests and be better for the alarm.

41105[/snapback]

If there just happened to be a breaker that was supplying a door bell transformer that just happened to have been fitted in the same cupboard and by some lucky chance was no longer required, then you could add to this circuit with your spur and at the same time tidy up for the customer by removing the transformer and throwing it away.

Anyone claiming that you've created a new circuit would be mistaken wouldn't they!