Is moving a light switch in the kitchen allowed/notifiable?

[JohnW2]

As schedule 4 was produce to make the understanding of non-notifiable work easier, which I don't think it does.

I'm not sure that's the case. Is not Schedule 4 meant to actually be the definitive statement of the scope of the law regarding notifiability? If so, anything else is merely an attempt to interpret the law.

Which brings me back to even though cable has been shortened that the terminations were not originally made within the bathroom, therefore I deduce (others may not) That the circuit has been extended to the bathroom and a replacement has not been made, as it never existed within that area.

I have conceded, and will continue to concede, that such is one possible interpretation - but I think there are others - and no amount of discussion amongst us will be able to do any more than speculate what the writers' intent was, or how a court of law (not that it is likely to ever be asked to!) would interpret the law.

PS can't wait until the schedule 4 table gets posted and like for like gets lambasted

Quite. One thing for sure is that, despite what a lot of people seem to think, the law itself has never said anything about 'like for like'. Indeed, given the evolution of manufactured products, it would be next-to-impossible to define 'like-for-like' in a workable fashion - since, by the time something needed replacing, it's very likely that would be at least some minor differences between available replacements and the original! The law would therefore have to talk in terms of something like 'essentially like-for-like' - and that would open up a whole new can of interpretational worms!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Is not Schedule 4 meant to actually be the definitive statement of the scope of the law regarding notifiability? If so, anything else is merely an attempt to interpret the law.

Well it is plain to see, that schedule 4 is open to interpretation.
That's why I prefer to refer to the guides to the building regulations, interpreted by the iee. You would hope they could make sense of it!

 

[JohnW2]

Is not Schedule 4 meant to actually be the definitive statement of the scope of the law regarding notifiability? If so, anything else is merely an attempt to interpret the law.

Well it is plain to see, that schedule 4 is open to interpretation. That's why I prefer to refer to the guides to the building regulations, interpreted by the iee. You would hope they could make sense of it!

That highlights one of the ironies. The IET are, of course, the people who can write guidelines clarifying/interpreting the intended meaning and interpretation of BS7671, of which they are co-authors. However, when it comes to the legislation, they are technically in no stronger a position to interpret the meaning of the law that has been written and enacted than are you or I. They will, of course, have their opinions as to what they believe the law should say (just as do you and I), but it is down to our legal system do interpret what it does say.

In practical terms, the most useful opinion is, of course, that of the relevant LABC. Regardless of what the law does say (or even should say), it is their local interpretation which determines whether they would consider (albeit extremely unlikely) any 'enforcement action' in relation to work undertaken on their patch. However, in relation to questions of notifiability, I suspect that they would give very conservative (from their viewpoint) answers - i.e. if there is the slightest uncertainty or 'greyness', they are likely to suggest that something is notifiable.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What's so special about a kitchen?

That's obvious.

Kitchens are frequently replaced/renovated, so there is much electrical work done by (possibly) kitchen fitters that the electricians want to be theirs.

Have you never wondered why the same rules don't apply to utility rooms?

If you ever do, ask yourself how many people have utility rooms compared to the number who have kitchens.

The rules allow for sockets to be scattered around the worktop that are in easy reach of the sink.

Actually they don't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As schedule 4 was produce to make the understanding of non-notifiable work easier, which I don't think it does.

100% AAF.

Schedule 4 ( or Schedule 2B as was) is the law.

Table 1 is in Approved Document P, which is not the law, but which was produced in order to make the law more easily understood.

Quite how contradicting the law was supposed to accomplish that beats me, but there you go.

PS can't wait until the schedule 4 table gets posted and like for like gets lambasted

As so many people have told you so many times, the law makes no mention of "like for like".

And you thoroughly deserve lambasting for being so wilfully hard of thinking in that respect.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

As so many people have told you so many times, the law makes no mention of "like for like".

So many people, so many times? It only seems to be you that has a problem with the term, in respect to my posting of this term.
And I use the term loosely in reference to replacements of equipment.
Surely for example that in the event someone changes an electric shower rated 7.5kW for one rated at 10.5kW this can not be considered suitable under a replacement as it is nothing like in the terms of demand, the same as the one it is to replace. I know there is no mention of the term "like for like" in the law but that does not mean it is not applicable when logical thought should be processed. And the quote is taken from guidances published by The IEE/IET, that you have in the past recommended others read.

And you thoroughly deserve lambasting for being so wilfully hard of thinking in that respect.

I refer to the above

 

[acmedone]

Given the bureaucracy, I shall put up with the inconvenience of the present situation.

So, the law (however silly) seems to have worked.

Well I do have a stock of red & black cable...

As you are uncertain of how to do the work safely, i.e. in compliance with the electrical regulations, you are not going to do it.

Being uncertain... does not mean it cannot be done safely. Two completely different issues.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So many people, so many times? It only seems to be you that has a problem with the term, in respect to my posting of this term.

Not just I, and not just in this thread.

And I use the term loosely in reference to replacements of equipment.

In other words you are sloppy.

Surely for example that in the event someone changes an electric shower rated 7.5kW for one rated at 10.5kW this can not be considered suitable under a replacement as it is nothing like in the terms of demand, the same as the one it is to replace.

It may or may not be suitable.

But the law does not make it notifiable, all other things being equal. The fact that you think it should does not give you the right to tell people that the law says it does.

I know there is no mention of the term "like for like" in the law but that does not mean it is not applicable when logical thought should be processed.

Oh, I see.

So if the existing shower was 10.5kW on a 4mm² cable from a 30A 3036 you'd be quite happy for someone to replace it with the same, and not notify, because it's "like for like"?

And the quote is taken from guidances published by The IEE/IET, that you have in the past recommended others read.

The world is full of sloppy idiots who, for some reason, just will not read the legislation properly or believe it is their job to embellish it.

 

[JohnW2]

Surely for example that in the event someone changes an electric shower rated 7.5kW for one rated at 10.5kW this can not be considered suitable under a replacement as it is nothing like in the terms of demand, the same as the one it is to replace.

You are obviously right in saying that the 10.5kW shower might not be a suitable replacement. However, we are talking about what the law actually says about notifiability, not making up our own version of what we feel the law should say - and it says nothing other than 'replacement'.

From what you say, I presume you accept that replacing a 7.5kW shower with a 7.5kW shower would represent a 'replacement' which would not be notifiable? However, are you suggesting that replacing a 10.5kW shower with a 7.5 kW one would be notifiable?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I am not disputing the law or being lawless or even sloppy.
This law is open to interpretations as many are and even reading the legislation properly would not necessarily bring to a legally correct conclusion, as there are plenty of grey areas to be considered.
I have met building controls officers that are surprisingly are more clueless than me, when comes to understanding the law fully.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

So if the existing shower was 10.5kW on a 4mm² cable from a 30A 3036 you'd be quite happy for someone to replace it with the same, and not notify, because it's "like for like"?

No I wouldn't, that's why I said that logically thought process should be engaged.
No more than I would think it okay for a cooker, heater, socket, switch, fan etc to be replaced or even reinstalled, where it is either potentially dangerous or unsuitable.
You need to get out in the real world and do a bit of this stuff!

 

[JohnW2]

I am not disputing the law or being lawless or even sloppy. This law is open to interpretations as many are and even reading the legislation properly would not necessarily bring to a legally correct conclusion, as there are plenty of grey areas to be considered.

True, but the thing about interpretation of the law is that it no-one (not even the highest court in the land) is allowed to correct errors or omissions in a law in the name of 'interpretation'. The only interpretation required in relation to the point being discussed is the meaning (not necessarily the 'intended meaning') of 'replacement' and I agree that's a grey area. As I've said before, if taken to me mean 'replacement with something absolutely identical', that would preclude an awful lot of legitimate 'almost like-for-like' replacement - and once one has decided that the replacement has to be 'almost like-for-like' (or whatever), it's quite possible that no two people will interpret that identically!

I have met building controls officers that are surprisingly are more clueless than me, when comes to understanding the law fully.

That doesn't surprise me at all. It's not necessarily that they (or you, or I) are 'clueless' but, rather, is because the law is not explicit enough - and if even those who are meant to be enforcing the law cannot agree on it's interpretation, then we clearly have a problem situation. What if the law on drink-driving were written so vaguely that different police forces or courts interpreted it as indicating different maximum breath/blood alcohol levels - many people then wouldn't know for sure whether they were 'over the limit' or not!

Anyway, you haven't answered my question about your personal interpretation - would you consider that replacing a 10.5kW shower with a 7.5kW one (clearly not 'like for like') was notifiable or not?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Anyway, you haven't answered my question about your personal interpretation - would you consider that replacing a 10.5kW shower with a 7.5kW one (clearly not 'like for like') was notifiable or not
Kind Regards, John.

Sorry John I missed that, to busy with the quotemeister.
I personally would.
But the letter of the law may suggest otherwise.
In fact I would personally prefer if all replacement, renewals, upgrades etc.. of hard-wired electrical equipment were deemed notifiable. But that's me!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Never mind what you would prefer - do you believe that Schedule 4 makes the replacement of a 10.5kW shower by a 7.5kW one notifiable?

If so, why?

 

[securespark]

Has the rule about replacing a damaged cable with the same size of cable following the same route been dropped?

Because if you did have a 10.5 on 4mm /30A, and the cable got damaged, you'd still have a woefully inadequate circuit.