Part P notification from April 2013

[SimonH2]

If one looks at the word alter then to replace a blown 60W bulb for a working 60W bulb would be an alteration to the circuit.

I disagree. I think anyone would accept that replacing a failed item with an otherwise identical item so as to bring the circuit back to the working condition it was in before the failure would not be an alteration - it is a repair.
Thus, circuit is working, bulb fails, we replace bulb with same wattage, circuit is now working again and is unaltered from it's original condition.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would realise you don't need to inform LABC before changing a bulb.

We are talking law here, not common sense

either way, we are discussing work within the zones of a special location so no 60W bulbs.

You can have a 60W bulb within the zones of a special location - it just has to be inside a suitable fitting.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

And to what effect will that have? Anyone can come by and touch it after.

That's my point they should not be allowed to!

Notification hasn't changed a thing

I think for the informed and the conscientious it has.
It's the ignorant and the carefree that have not changed!

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

Notification hasn't changed a thing

I think for the informed and the conscientious it has.
It's the ignorant and the carefree that have not changed!

Well said that man!!

 

[SaladFingers]

And to what effect will that have? Anyone can come by and touch it after.

That's my point they should not be allowed to!

Why not? So long as it's done properly. Who are you to say people can't do things in their own home? It's only the sore headed tradesman who tastes sour at someone doing something for themselves - it's got sod all to do with us.

Notification hasn't changed a thing

I think for the informed and the conscientious it has.
It's the ignorant and the carefree that have not changed!

The ignorant and care free will have carried on regardless - they're ignorant and carefree after all. Plus it's impossible to police, no one can barge into peoples houses and constantly check for what's going on, so no it hasn't changed a thing.

 

[virgilns]

Wiring into empty MCBs would count as new circuits !

Ask them for prove the MCB were empty before

That's my thinking. What's to stop a DIYer to have the cu installed with a full set of MCBs, wired to terminated short twin and earth of an appropriate csa, then subsequently "modify existing circuits" by adding to the wires using either crimps or appropriate maintainance free jb?

This seems to be, ahem, legit, as long as it doesn't route through special locations?

Exactly...I've got a cooker 'circuit' in my house. no idea where the end of the cable goes - certainly no 45amp cooker outlet in my kitchen. As the cable is there and the MCB is there, there's nothing stopping me replacing the cable with new into the location I want, replace the 'missing' 45amp cooker outlet faceplate and replace the MCB with an rcbo...all good and above board. Whilst I'm at it I might as well replace all the MCBs and cables with new. all legit. So I've replaced every faceplate, every cable and every MCB...the only thing left is the plastic box and the isolator (not an RCD in sight as it's 1980's)...every other component in my entire house is new and unreported.

The stupid thing is that if I then replace the 'plastic box' and the incommer with a nice new Full RCBO or 17th edition box it's notifyable...or if I split the overloaded single ring circuit downstairs into two circuits requiring a new RCBO/MCB it's notifyable...

Makes no sense whatsoever...

 

[virgilns]

P.S. is s sub main after the first isolator considdered a CU?

My existing ground floor CU is now a sub main and the existing upper floor circuits now terminate in a new submain upstairs. Same 'circuit' but with new wire and faceplates and new RCBOs....

 

[ericmark]

Please remember talking about law not BS7671. My house built 1980 approx has a simple bulb in the bathroom. As built not even a shade on the bulb. So nothing stopping me from replacing the bulb.

As to altering a circuit we do that every time we flick the switch.

Many years ago in college we were given a copy of the rules for the importing of peanuts cited as completely useless as no one could understand what it said. The BS7671 realised the problem and as part of the book it gave definitions but Part P does not follow these as fitting a FCU is not considered as adding a new circuit but in the BS7671 it is.

Now we all know we should not alter bathroom wiring or open the consumer unit without notifying but to read the document and try to find loop holes is easy as there are no definitions within the document.

In my neighbours house I am not permitted to rip the guts out of a consumer unit and modify them. For an ordinary person BS7671 from memory requires the use of type tested distribution units. But in my house because I am not classed as an ordinary person I could if I wished build my own distribution unit. In fact I have considered doing that so I can use double pole MCB's. The distribution board would not be type tested so would not be a consumer unit.

Now the old Part P did not say what we could not do without notifying but what we could do. So if not listed we could not do it. The new one however seems to have reversed that and lists what we can't do.

As BAS pointed out with the old Part P what we were reading was an official translation into layman's terms and the real document closed all the loop holes. I am sure there is some where a similar document for the new Part P which will also close the loop holes.

To my mind what Part P does is to make is illegal to wire a house not complying with BS7671. Before Part P we had to prove an installation was dangerous. Just showing it did not comply was not enough. OK I could use another set of European regulations but other to the 13A sockets they are all nearly the same.

So were a rouge installer does not follow the rule book it makes it easier for him to be taken to court. And the local authority can take him to court it does not have to be the house owner.

The removal of the restrictions mean house owners are more likely to inform the local authority when they find a rouge installer so as far as policing goes it's an improvement.

What I see as the problem is not the regulations but what will happen to scheme membership? If only consumer units and bathrooms require notification and the local authority can reduce their fees where qualifications are shown then to pay the fees to the scheme operators purely to self certify would not really make sense.

Clearly these organisations were around before Part P and they do offer their members a lot more than self certification but before Part P few sole traders paid to be members.

The acceptance of people with reduced knowledge to allow them to self certify a special area for example plumbers who fit central heating means the "Member of XYZ" on side of the van means a lot less than years ago. These organisations will need to really work hard to promote themselves and as a house holder if an electrician can say I am a member of "XZY" who guarantee my work for next X years even if I stop trading then that would be something I would want from a sole trader.

The builders federation 10 years guarantee is well know. Good or bad. So now it's time for the scheme providers to do the same and advertise it so making it easier for their members to find work.

 

[bernardgreen]

Well said Eric

I will expand on one point.

The builders federation 10 years guarantee is well know. Good or bad. So now it's time for the scheme providers to do the same and advertise it so making it easier for their members to find work.

If the schemes did guarantee their member's work and had to compensate in cases where a member defaulted on quality then the schemes would ( hopefully ) be more stringent about their member's standards of work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In my neighbours house I am not permitted to rip the guts out of a consumer unit and modify them. For an ordinary person BS7671 from memory requires the use of type tested distribution units. But in my house because I am not classed as an ordinary person I could if I wished build my own distribution unit. In fact I have considered doing that so I can use double pole MCB's. The distribution board would not be type tested so would not be a consumer unit.

What would happen if you then sold the house to an ordinary person?

before Part P few sole traders paid to be members.

Which is why those organisations lobbied the govt for years to make it effectively compulsory to join.

I wonder who lobbied them to change it this time.

 

[AdamCH]

To my mind what Part P does is to make is illegal to wire a house not complying with BS7671. Before Part P we had to prove an installation was dangerous. Just showing it did not comply was not enough. OK I could use another set of European regulations but other to the 13A sockets they are all nearly the same.

Why that conclusion when Part P doesn't even directly mention BS7671? If compliance was required then wouldn't it just say that it was?

As it is, Part P seems to set the bar quite low at dangerous etc and it would be quite possible to install sub BS7671 standard without it being dangerous.

 

[virgilns]

To my mind what Part P does is to make is illegal to wire a house not complying with BS7671. Before Part P we had to prove an installation was dangerous. Just showing it did not comply was not enough. OK I could use another set of European regulations but other to the 13A sockets they are all nearly the same.

Why that conclusion when Part P doesn't even directly mention BS7671? If compliance was required then wouldn't it just say that it was?

As it is, Part P seems to set the bar quite low at dangerous etc and it would be quite possible to install sub BS7671 standard without it being dangerous.

Mentions it quite a lot now, and it DOES say it needs to be compliant...

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_P_2013.pdf

new version, not the old version...

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mentions it quite a lot now, and it DOES say it needs to be compliant...

That is just an approved document which shows one way to comply with part P. It is not the law.

For the umpteenth time, all THE LAW says is -

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Mentions it quite a lot now,

Yes.

1.1 Electrical installations should be designed and installed in accordance with BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment No 1:2011.

1.2 Sufficient information should be provided to ensure that people can operate, maintain or alter an electrical installation with reasonable safety.
The information should comprise items listed in BS 7671 and other appropriate information...

1.7 Any new work should be carried out in accordance with BS 7671.

3.2 To verify that the design and installation of electrical work is adequate, and that installations will be safe to use, maintain and alter, the electrical work should be inspected and tested in accordance with the procedures in BS 7671.

3.3 Electrical installers who are registered competent persons should complete a BS 7671 electrical installation certificate for every job they undertake.

3.6 ... The electrical installation condition report should be the model BS 7671 form or one developed specifically for Part P purposes.

3.10 An installer who is competent to carry out inspection and testing should give the appropriate BS 7671 certificate to the building control body....

3.13 Non-notifiable electrical installation work, like notifiable work, should be designed and installed, and inspected, tested and certificated in accordance with BS 7671.

and it DOES say it needs to be compliant...

No.

 

[AdamCH]

Probably true to say that if building control is involved then BS7671 will be required unless you want a very expensive argument.

 

[virgilns]

EFL and BAS, you are right...it does say there are alternative ways to comply with the building regs and it says *should* comply, not needs to comply. But as the post above suggests, there's got to be a boomin good argument NOT to follow the British standard or the iee regulations, surely?

Out of interest can you think of any scenarios where you'd not want to follow bs7671 in a normal house install and be able to justify the deviation?