Rewiring Sockets

[sparkwright]

Are the floors concrete?

Usually it's best practice to run the cables under the floor if it's wooden, as it virtually eliminates the need to cut long chases in the walls.

 

[shapnacker]

Concrete floors. Unfortunately!

 

[SimonH2]

But then it doesn't need signing off for BR - it's not notifiable unless he takes the opportunity to add sockets int eh kitchen.

Which bit of Schedule 2 exempts all that new fixed cabling?

Tut tut.
It's schedule 4 now and has been for a couple of years.

It would come under one or more of the following :
1. Work consisting of—
(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i) any new fixed cabling, or

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

2. Work which—
(a) is not in a kitchen, or a special location;
(b) does not involve work on a special installation; and
(c) consists of—
(ii) adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit.

1(a)(i) says he can replace any socket
1(b) says he can replace any damaged cable - the inference from his feeling the wiring needs replacing is that it's old and degraded (ie damaged by ageing).
2(c)(ii) says he can add sockets to an exiting circuit except in specified locations. Since it's generally considered impractical (or at least, not very useful) to add sockets without any wiring to them, the inference must be that adding sockets also includes adding the wiring required for them.

So apart from adding sockets in the kitchen (or unlikely, the bathroom), or outside, the work is not notifiable.

However, I too would assess the OP and not having the required level of knowledge to do this safely.

 

[sparkwright]

If concrete floors, the only alternative is skirting trunking - not something I particularly like the look of but may get you out of trouble.

Do the old sockets have any old wiring routes you can re-use like conduits in the plaster? Or can the wiring be routed in any nearby tall cupboards, etc?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Tut tut.
It's schedule 4 now and has been for a couple of years.

Sorry - typo.

It would come under one or more of the following :
1. Work consisting of—
(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i) any new fixed cabling, or

Well that one's gone - he's putting in new fixed cabling.

(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;

Claiming that every single piece of cable in the existing circuit has been damaged does not have the ring of truth about it.

1(a)(i) says he can replace any socket
1(b) says he can replace any damaged cable - the inference from his feeling the wiring needs replacing is that it's old and degraded (ie damaged by ageing).
2(c)(ii) says he can add sockets to an exiting circuit except in specified locations. Since it's generally considered impractical (or at least, not very useful) to add sockets without any wiring to them, the inference must be that adding sockets also includes adding the wiring required for them.

So apart from adding sockets in the kitchen (or unlikely, the bathroom), or outside, the work is not notifiable.

The courts in this country have a long tradition of looking at people's motives for doing something for which they then claim a particular legal status, and of striking down anything which they decide was done to artificially evade a particular legal requirement.

Basically you would not have a snowball in hell's chance of passing off the complete rewire of a circuit as being replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only.

 

[SimonH2]

Really ?

The existing cable is damaged, yes ? Otherwise why rewire at all. 1(b) says you can replace it - it places no limits on that, it does not require that it follow the same route (though that may be implied in the word replace. All it needs is for there to be a suggestion that the cable is degraded by age and it's damaged and the regs allow for it's replacement.

You can't add sockets without adding the wiring that feeds them, yes ? 2(c) explicitly says you can add sockets.

That just leaves 1(a)(i) which says you can replace all the sockets.

And the regs say nothing about those being separate events/actions.

If you really, really want to abide by the letter of the regs then you could do it in stages - replace the existing cable (allowed), replace the sockets (allowed), add additional sockets (allowed). Of course, if while replacing the cable you judiciously allowed extra length in places to make step 3 easier ...

If it ended up in court, I'd be quite happy to wave a printout of Sched 4 and suggest to the judge that if the twits in London didn't want those to be done then they shouldn't have published regulations explicitly saying it can be done. It's going to be hard for any judge to convict someone of doing something that is explicitly allowed by regulations.

This isn't wishy washy "it can be interpreted that way" stuff, this is in back and white where it explicitly says you can do it. We all know the regs are a pile of doo-doo, but that's what printed.


In any case, this isn't about the work itself being legal (regardless of whether it's notifiable, it still needs to be done 'to standard') - it's about notification which is a different matter altogether.

 

[JohnW2]

If it ended up in court, I'd be quite happy to wave a printout of Sched 4 and suggest to the judge that if the twits in London didn't want those to be done then they shouldn't have published regulations explicitly saying it can be done. It's going to be hard for any judge to convict someone of doing something that is explicitly allowed by regulations. ... This isn't wishy washy "it can be interpreted that way" stuff, this is in back and white where it explicitly says you can do it. We all know the regs are a pile of doo-doo, but that's what printed.

Exactly - me, too. IMO, BAS is wrong in what he implies. Yes, courts can take into account the fact that people have attempted to use 'interpretive loopholes' to get around the intent of a law. However, as you say, what they have no power to do is to create their own law when the existing law is 'black and white', and hence not open to varying interpretations. In such circumstances, judges will often moan about the law, but nevertheless admit that they are constrained by it, if it leaves no room for interpretation.

If there were some case law about all this we would, of course, not have to speculate as to how the courts would deal with such a case - but the fact is that, as far as we are all aware, no such case ever has come to court. Indeed, I'm very unclear as to what action (if any) LABCs ever do take if 'failures to notify' electrical work (when notification was actually required) come to their attention - can anyone cite any cases which indicate what (if anything) they do?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you really, really want to abide by the letter of the regs then you could do it in stages - replace the existing cable (allowed), replace the sockets (allowed), add additional sockets (allowed). Of course, if while replacing the cable you judiciously allowed extra length in places to make step 3 easier ...

So on that basis would you claim that an entire rewire could be done without notification, as long as you only did one circuit at a time?

 

[JohnW2]

So on that basis would you claim that an entire rewire could be done without notification, as long as you only did one circuit at a time?

It would seem that, in terms of the letter of the law, that is largely true - provided that one has a reasonable argument for the current wiring being 'damaged' (if only by ageing - which is probably a reasonable argument by the time someone would usually be contemplating a re-wire). The main exceptions would seem to be if one wanted any additional sockets/lights/equipment in special locations etc. - and, of course (probably somewhat of a 'crunch' issue in relation to most 'rewires') if one wanted a new CU etc. (the arguments then become rather iffy, to say the least!).

On the assumption that you disagree, what parts of the law do you feel says otherwise?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

So on that basis would you claim that an entire rewire could be done without notification, as long as you only did one circuit at a time?

It's already been discussed at length, and according to the letter of the law and what is expressly permitted (as opposed to what requires "interpretation" in your favour) then the answer is yes ... with some provisos.

The main exceptions would seem to be if one wanted any additional sockets/lights/equipment in special locations etc. - and, of course (probably somewhat of a 'crunch' issue in relation to most 'rewires') if one wanted a new CU etc. (the arguments then become rather iffy, to say the least!).

Even the CU can be replaced, but that does require a certain amount of creativity of the sort BAS is so sure would land you on the wrong side of the judgement.

TBH, for the faffing around that would be required, it would be easier to just get someone to do it or to pay to notify - in relation to the cost of a complete rewire, the LABC fees in my area wouldn't be that bad. And since I'd almost certainly add additional circuits while doing it, it couldn't be done using exemptions in Schedule 4.

On the assumption that you disagree, what parts of the law do you feel says otherwise?

You beat me to it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Even the CU can be replaced, but that does require a certain amount of creativity of the sort BAS is so sure would land you on the wrong side of the judgement.

How can that be?


Descriptions of Work where no Building Notice or Deposit of Full Plans Required

1. Work consisting of—
(a)replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i)any new fixed cabling, or
(ii)a consumer unit;

 

[JohnW2]

Even the CU can be replaced, but that does require a certain amount of creativity of the sort BAS is so sure would land you on the wrong side of the judgement.

How can that be?
Descriptions of Work where no Building Notice or Deposit of Full Plans Required
1. Work consisting of—
(a)replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i)any new fixed cabling, or
(ii)a consumer unit;

As Simon suggests, a fair degree of 'creativity' would be required. However, it would seem that 1(c) could allow the CU enclosure to be replaced, whilst 1(a) could (with conditions) allow each of the items within it to be replaced. A difficulty might arise if one wanted to 'upgrade' a CU (e.g. from fuses to MCBs, or by addition of RCDs/RCBOs), since it might not be easy to argue such changes as 'replacements' (even though, as is so often said, there's nothing in the regs to say that 'replacements' have to be completely 'like for like'). However, I don't think that many would consdier trying to stretch Schedule 4 to an argument that a complete re-wire (CU and all) was non-notifiable.

In fact, as I've hinted at in earlier posts, the more important question (for some people) is not so much about what is, and is not, notifiable (with or without 'stretching' of the rules) but, rather, what (if anything) are, in practice, the consequences of failing to notify electrical work which should have been notified.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Even the CU can be replaced, but that does require a certain amount of creativity of the sort BAS is so sure would land you on the wrong side of the judgement.

How can that be?
Descriptions of Work where no Building Notice or Deposit of Full Plans Required
1. Work consisting of—
(a)replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—
(i)any new fixed cabling, or
(ii)a consumer unit;

As Simon suggests, a fair degree of 'creativity' would be required. However, it would seem that 1(c) could allow the CU enclosure to be replaced, whilst 1(a) could (with conditions) allow each of the items within it to be replaced. A difficulty might arise if one wanted to 'upgrade' a CU (e.g. from fuses to MCBs, or by addition of RCDs/RCBOs), since it might not be easy to argue such changes as 'replacements' (even though, as is so often said, there's nothing in the regs to say that 'replacements' have to be completely 'like for like'). However, I don't think that many would consdier trying to stretch Schedule 4 to an argument that a complete re-wire (CU and all) was non-notifiable.

Just as well say "I did not provide it, the customer (or whoever) bought it".

In fact, as I've hinted at in earlier posts, the more important question (for some people) is not so much about what is, and is not, notifiable (with or without 'stretching' of the rules) but, rather, what (if anything) are, in practice, the consequences of failing to notify electrical work which should have been notified.

This is the only offence for which the E.U. will still sanction hanging.

 

[jabuzzard]

Really ?

The existing cable is damaged, yes ? Otherwise why rewire at all. 1(b) says you can replace it - it places no limits on that, it does not require that it follow the same route (though that may be implied in the word replace. All it needs is for there to be a suggestion that the cable is degraded by age and it's damaged and the regs allow for it's replacement.

Even if it is not damaged at the start it is not hard to arrange for it to be damaged. I drilled through both cables coming into the socket, then before you know it in replacing both lengths you did further damage. Does sort of make a nonsense of it but the rules is the rules.

 

[JohnW2]

Just as well say "I did not provide it, the customer (or whoever) bought it".

No, that one wouldn't work - Schedule 4 talks of 'work which involves provision of a CU', regardless of who did the providing

In fact, as I've hinted at in earlier posts, the more important question (for some people) is not so much about what is, and is not, notifiable (with or without 'stretching' of the rules) but, rather, what (if anything) are, in practice, the consequences of failing to notify electrical work which should have been notified.

This is the only offence for which the E.U. will still sanction hanging.

Hmmm. I think that many would actually be interested in knowing the serious answer. Has anyone heard of any case in which there have been any significant consequences of 'failure to notify' notifiable electrical work? Even the claims that it might cause difficulty in relation to subsequent sale of the property are, I suspect, more in the imaginations of those who make such claims than based on any actual evidence.

Kind Regards, John