Notifiable work ??

[securespark]

What gets me about Approved Document P is that yes, you can replace a cable but it must be on condition that you replace with one that has the same CCC and follows the same route...

You probably should ask Mr Approved Doc P (or maybe the Deputy Prime Minister) where in the legislation he found that one!!

Que?

 

[JohnW2]

"new circuit" needs a definition - shouldn't be too difficult.

Judging by the many discussions/debates here, I'm not so sure about that. Or, rather, it would obviously be easy enough to produce "a definition", but much more difficult to produce one which was widely regarded as 'reasonable', and fairly exhaustive.

And the CU malarkey could be sorted by saying "installation, re-installation, replacement or moving a consumer unit".

That would certainly be a good start (and is undoubtedly roughly 'what they intended') - but they would also have to decide (and specify) what they wanted to do about the replacement of most/all of the contents of a CU, given that they probably didn't intend that replacing one or two devices within a CU would be notifiable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You probably should ask Mr Approved Doc P (or maybe the Deputy Prime Minister) where in the legislation he found that one!!

Que?

Which bit of what I wrote are you questioning?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

And the CU malarkey could be sorted by saying "installation, re-installation, replacement or moving a consumer unit".

What about the IET's "similar switchgear assemblies"?

 

[JohnW2]

And the CU malarkey could be sorted by saying "installation, re-installation, replacement or moving a consumer unit".

What about the IET's "similar switchgear assemblies"?

Without more qualification/detail, I think that would not only be too vague but would also potentially be more wide-ranging than they would want. If an enclosure containing a switch and a fuse qualified as a "similar switchgear assembly", without qualification that definition would presumably catch an FCU (and even more so an 'RCD FCU'), which I feel sure is not 'intended' to be notifiable. Similarly an RCD socket ... and undoubtedly a good few more things.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Well, if they have to be "non-combustible", then logically they must be notifiable, so someone can check the non-combustibility

More seriously, FCUs and RCD sockets aren't switchgear assemblies, but what about an enclosure containing MCBs, with a separate main switch? Surely that would have the function of a consumer unit, but not actually be one?

 

[PBC_1966]

That and doing away with filament light bulbs.

 

[Taylortwocities]

I bet you are running around town in your Hummer too!

 

[PBC_1966]

What gets me about Approved Document P is that yes, you can replace a cable but it must be on condition that you replace with one that has the same CCC and follows the same route....

Then under the old notification rules there was all that vague stuff about replacing certain things so long as "circuit protective measures are unaffected" or something like that. And about replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only - Meaning what, exactly?

 

[PBC_1966]

If you look at all the instances of "person carrying out the work", or equivalent, in the Building Regulations, and try replacing them with householder/building owner/person ordering the work/etc, it becomes blindingly obvious that what it means is what it says, not what you would like it to mean.

So do you think that if the homeowner asks his son to help him install some notifiable electrics that both have to notify because both will be doing the physical installation work? If a builder turns up to do notifiable works with a mate or apprentice in tow, do they both have to notify because they'll both be laying the bricks or pouring the concrete? What if there are 50 people involved in the physical construction of a house; do you think every single one of them has to notify? Of course not.

It works on the basis of principal and agent. In this case, it is the electrician who is an agent of the homeowner and is carrying out work on his behalf.

You may not advise people to break the law, and you may not advise someone to conspire with another to break the law.

I suggest that before you get on your high horse again about how not notifying is immoral, you remember that a few years ago you were advising people to do just the same.

 

[PBC_1966]

"new circuit" needs a definition - shouldn't be too difficult.

I don't know......

//www.diynot.com/diy/threads/when-is-a-new-circuit-not-a-new-circuit.447885

 

[crystal ball]

oops looks like a can of worms, I have informed the homeowner about the situation ( he is a commercial architect) so sort of familiar with the pile of poo that is part p

Got a compressor to connect tomorrow .... eeeh luxury

 

[JohnW2]

More seriously, FCUs and RCD sockets aren't switchgear assemblies, but what about an enclosure containing MCBs, with a separate main switch? Surely that would have the function of a consumer unit, but not actually be one?

Your guess of their intention is as good as mine! They were quite possibly trying to prevent people 'wriggling out' by saying "This is not type tested, hence is not a CU {per BS7671 definition?}" but, in their attempts to close that potential loophole, they have seemingly considerably widened the potential scope in a very vague fashion - don't forget that the word "similar" is involved, which is about as subjective as words come!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

oops looks like a can of worms, I have informed the homeowner about the situation ( he is a commercial architect) so sort of familiar with the pile of poo that is part p

It may seem like a can of worms, but FWIW my personal view remains the same - that provided you do not replace the rusty CU with a new CU (or something "similar to a CU"!), that you would always have a very strong argument for saying that you did not believe the work was notifiable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

You probably should ask Mr Approved Doc P (or maybe the Deputy Prime Minister) where in the legislation he found that one!!

Que?

Which bit of what I wrote are you questioning?

Kind Regards, John

Sorry, may be a bit brain-fugged tonight (most nights?) but I can't understand what your sentence means...

If it means what I think it means, that wording is in Approved Document P (unless it has been removed in the amended version).