Yes, I've said the fusing method for the spur is not mentioned.
Yes, so do we presume the purpose of specifically mentioning 'fused spurs' (being allowable without notification) was for the connection of appliances (rather than sockets) and if so what about 'unfused spurs' to appliances?
. OK. So, just to be clear, you appear to be agreeing that IF (as we assume is the case) adding 'fused spurs' to existing circuits is still non-notifiable (in England), then the work should remain non-notifiable even if the added 'fuses' (or MCBs) are within a 'CU' - is that correct? BAS is presumably going to strongly disagree.
It could be that they were being more clever than we've given them credit for, and were actually anticipating some discussions/uncertainties such as we've been having. In other words, they might have thought/feared that, without them specifically exempting 'fused spurs' from notification, some people might have thought that such additions were notifiable because (per BS7671 definition of 'circuit', of which they were presumably aware) a fuse theoretically creates a new circuit (so not an addition to an existing one).
Nothing new!
. OK. So, just to be clear, you appear to be agreeing that IF (as we assume is the case) adding 'fused spurs' to existing circuits is still non-notifiable (in England), then the work should remain non-notifiable even if the added 'fuses' (or MCBs) are within a 'CU' - is that correct? BAS is presumably going to strongly disagree.[/quote]
I did think that but thought it too fanciful.
OK. I really don't think that many people believe that the 'relaxations' in 2013 resulted in fused spurs becoming notifiable, so I'll take that as essentially a 'yes' ('no' only if 'many {or most} people' are misinterpreting the current rules).
. Not necessarily. 'They' may not themselves have been thinking (or be currently thinking) in terms of the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit', but merely feared that some people would think in those terms.I did think that but thought it too fanciful. So, that would mean they are notifiable now?
If the regulations are decided by democracy.
Unless they decided the previous exemption was foolish.
If that is so then, surely, they should think in terms of a definition in their same publication.
Regulations aren't, but 'common practices' are
I would find it hard to regard it as foolish, given that there is no electrical difference between connecting something to an existing circuit with an FCU and connecting it with a fused plug plugged into a socket.
Indeed they should.
So why did you ask if there were any differences in testing between a "circuit" (for want of a better word) originating from an FCU, and one originating from an MCB in a CU?
What if you had the same self-assembled unit, but used MCBs instead of fuses?
I hadn't thought about that. Although it would be easy to define, if one wanted to, by referring to BS 1363.
In what way is the previous existence of the circuit supplying the "CU" relevant?
No, I'm just going to ask, with an increasing sense of wonderment and bemusement at your increasingly perverse and pointless "definitions" whether you really, genuinely think that a CU supplied by an existing circuit from another CU does not create any new circuits, whether you really, genuinely think that someone could build a house, have an electrician install a CU with an 80 or 100A MCCB in it, supplying a "normal" CU alongside it, and then proceed to wire the entire dwelling without it being notifiable, and whether you really, genuinely think that that is what the law says, and would have no qualms about advising people to proceed in that way.
The only people who believe that BS 7671 makes that a circuit will be the ones who believe that BS 7671 requires them to identify it as a circuit, and enter its details and full set of test results in one of the lines in the schedule of a certificate.
Because I wanted to hear your opinion.
I asked that question myself. I see no electrical difference, so don't see why it should alter anything - and at least one person here seems to agree with me.
Yes, it would be easy, but they haven't done that.
I've also more-or-less asked that question. I'm not "saying" whether or not it would be notifiable - the fact that we're debating these issue shows that none of us, including myself, know for certain. What I am saying is that (by analogy with, say, multiple FCUs) there is an argument that if everything in that enclosure is supplied from an OPD in another CU, that it may not be notifiable.
I am suggesting that such might be the case, particularly if the 'new CU' was not actually needed (we often see OPs being told that their proposed 'garage CUs' are unnecessary). It all comes down to the distinction between 'a new circuit' and an 'extension of an existing circuit' - your view appears to be that interposing any protective device other than an FCU in an 'extension to an existing circuit' actually creates a new circuit, but I personally don't think that is necessarily the case.
It is very relevant since, as I have said, this all comes down to the question of the distinction between 'extending an existing circuit' (not notifiable) and creating a 'new circuit' (notifiable) - and whether interposing an OPD (other than an off-the-shelf FCU) in what would otherwise be a non-notifiable 'extension to an existing circuit' necessarily turns it into a notifiable 'new circuit'.
I "really, genuinely think" that there is uncertainty, given that most people (maybe even you) seem to think that a 'bank of FCUs' (maybe even 'emulated FCUs', and maybe even with MCBs instead of fuses) supplied by an existing circuit from a CU does not create any new circuits.
Not being a lawyer, I haven't got a clue as to whether that could be done lawfully without notification with the legislation as currently (IMO very poorly) written - I'm certainly not sure that it couldn't. However, what I do "really, genuinely think" it that it certainly should not be lawful - and that's the reason why the legislation needs to be far more clear and explicit about what it is saying.
As above, it's impossible for me or anyone else to be sure what the law 'says', since it seems to be so poorly written. Qualms don't come into it, since, in view of the uncertainties, you would not find me "advising people to proceed in that way". On the contrary, as in this thread, in these garage/shed/outhouse threads, I usually suggest that, if there is an 'existing circuit' which can be extended, the way to avoid the uncertainties (and, in most people's minds, notifiability) is to not use a 'garage' (or whatever) CU. It was when I wrote that in this thread that you jumped in head-first with scathing comments about those uncertainties, and turned this into a re-visit of a wheel which has already spun many a time.
I do. As in I am certain.
Madness.
Madness.
And getting even madder - now you are trying to suggest that the law is different if something unnecessary is installed.
My view is that a CU does not become not a CU because it is supplied from a device in another CU.
A question which would be asked only by somebody who thought that a CU would become not a CU if an existing circuit supplies it, or if another CU supplies it.
OK - I'll clarify my position, despite the lack of the term in the legislation, and I will not discuss it with you on the grounds that your whole argument is based on madness.
I am. As in I am sure. I'm also sure that in the hypothetical situation of you being in court charged with contravening the Building Regulations because you didn't notify something that you would be extremely ill-advised to try using any of your arguments to show that you can't have broken the law because it is so badly written.
Absolutely.
In that case, there is clearly no scope for discussion. I will leave others to read the rest of your post.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
