Wiring into an external garage one meter from house?

[EFLImpudence]

Eh? 'Installing a new circuit',anwhere, is always notifiable, isn't it?

Not in the context of what Paul said,

And just to throw something else into the pot, remember that if the cable from house to outbuilding were already there, then replacing it would undoubtedly be exempt from notification under 1(b), subject to it being for "a single circuit only."
...provided that you made sure that it was damaged

 

[JohnW2]

It's nothing to do with wanting to understand the Building Regs and follow them correctly. It's all about DIYers and un-registered sparks, looking for whatever loopholes they can, in order to avoid notification.

Hey, I'm 'one of them' and, as I keep saying, I believe it is in the spirit of the regs that buried cable (and cable attached to fences!) does (at least, should) require notification - even though I accept BAS's viewpoint that 'the word of the law' could be read otherwise. Hence, if I were 'into notifying', I would definitely feel inclined to notify such work - in fact, more inclined than in relatio to various other trivial things which technically require notification.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Eh? 'Installing a new circuit',anwhere, is always notifiable, isn't it?

Not in the context of what Paul said,

And just to throw something else into the pot, remember that if the cable from house to outbuilding were already there, then replacing it would undoubtedly be exempt from notification under 1(b), subject to it being for "a single circuit only."
...provided that you made sure that it was damaged

You've totally lost me there. Paul was talking about the situation in which the cable (hence presumably also 'the circuit') was already there, so what did you mean by 'install a new circuit' in that context? ... and how does it differ from 'replacing the cable'?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I was writing under the impression that the job originally mentioned in this thread had been deemed, for whatever reason, non-notifiable.

Then, if damaged and replacement were deemed notifiable because it served more than one circuit, it could not be replaced without notifying but a new circuit (though not actually a circuit by the definitions) could be installed.

 

[Paul_C]

It's all about DIYers and un-registered sparks, looking for whatever loopholes they can, in order to avoid notification.

Can you blame them, when to notify can cost anything from £150 to £400 or more? And when in some cases the LABC will then try to insist upon things which aren't actually mandatory as well?

I think it was Stoday in another thread who said something along the lines of "If something is open to interpretation as to whether it's notifiable or not, I'll use the interpretation which results in it being non notifiable." Well, why not? I seem to recall the same sort of argument over expenses being used a while back by those who vote all these regulations into the statute books.

As John and I have said many times, while some things in schedule 4 might be clear, there's an awful lot which is isn't. Personally, my interpretation of schedule 4 exemptions is purely for the fun of it, if one can call it that. I don't have any particular desire to look for a "loophole" as you might consider it to make something non notifiable, and in fact on a good few occasions I've argued that an interpretation of schedule 4 could actually make notifiable something which is generally - even by the official guidelines - taken to be exempt.

How about the outside light scenario I mentioned earlier? Do you consider the fitting of a light on the outside wall of a house to be notifiable work or not?

If I notify the cable crossing the garden and it turns out it didn't require notifiaction.....who cares.
And it costs me about £2.50 to do it.

Well, £2.50 is one heck of a lot less than £150 or more. But as for who cares, maybe one day a homeowner will care if you are providing information to a third party which you shouldn't be?

Schedule 4, if read how it was intended, describes very minor work that can be done without notifying building control.

Well, isn't that the problem? How are we supposed to know how it was intended when it contains things which are vague and badly worded?

Let's face it, apart from the CU, kitchen and bathroom, a DIYer could rewire his whole house, including garage and summerhouse, without notification........do you really think that's what Schedule 4 is implying??

If it's what it says, it's what it says. Whether you, I, or anyone else thinks that it should allow this or not allow that, or whether we think it's in any way logical that this is exempt but that isn't, or vice versa, doesn't alter what is written. After all, I think we're all agreed on the interpretation of schedule 4 that adding an extra socket in a living room is exempt from notification but adding an extra socket in a kitchen isn't (assuming on an existing circuit). Is that logical? As discussed in the other thread, is it logical to put conditions about "where protective measures are unaffected" on replacing enclosures but not on other things?

As John says, a court is not supposed to try and guess what was intended when legislation was drafted, but only to rule on what the wording in any particular piece of legislation actually says, regardless of whether the results are consistent or not.

 

[JohnW2]

Then, if damaged and replacement were deemed notifiable because it served more than one circuit, it could not be replaced without notifying ...

Agreed.

...but a new circuit (though not actually a circuit by the definitions) could be installed.

Ah, perhaps you didn't mean 'a new circuit' (of the type which is notifiable) but, rather, an extension of, or spur from, an existing circuit? If so, then I agree with you.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

As John says, a court is not supposed to try and guess what was intended when legislation was drafted, but only to rule on what the wording in any particular piece of legislation actually says, regardless of whether the results are consistent or not.

Indeed - and also regardless of whether 'expert opinion/bodies' disagree with what the court rules the words to be saying - that's an issue which the experts would have to take up with the legislators (i.e. parliament), not the judiciary.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

I was writing under the impression that the job originally mentioned in this thread had been deemed, for whatever reason, non-notifiable.

Then, if damaged and replacement were deemed notifiable because it served more than one circuit, it could not be replaced without notifying but a new circuit (though not actually a circuit by the definitions) could be installed.

The proposal at the top of this thread doesn't involve the creation of a new circuit - Just the extension of an existing circuit. The only question as to whether it is notifiable or not is whether the cable which runs from inside the house to inside the garage, over or under a few feet of the outdoors, constitutes "work on a special installation" as defined in schedule 4 para. 4.

 

[Paul_C]

How about a quick poll of those reading this thread for some of the scenarios mentioned already?

Based upon your own personal interpretation of what you think schedule 4 actually says, which of the following jobs would you say are notifiable and non-notifiable?

1. Socket added in a bedroom by taking a cable from a socket in an adjacent bedroom through the wall, running it along the outside of the house, then back through the wall to the new socket.

2. Outside light added on the wall of the house, supplied by a cable taken through the wall to it from an existing lighting circuit.

3. An existing 1-way porch light (enclosed porch) converted to 2-way switching by running a cable through the porch wall then outside to a weatherproof switch at a gate or driveway entrance.

4. Socket added in an outbuilding by running a new cable from an existing circuit in the house either overhead or underground to the outbuilding (i.e. effectively the scenario of the original question).

No kitchen or bathroom work involved in any way, and everything to be added to existing circuits. Try to answer based only upon the actual words used in schedule 4, and not by allowing yourself to be influenced by guidelines, what local authorities say is or is not notifiable, what the NICEIC, NAPIT or anyone else says, etc. Imagine this is the first time you've ever heard about the regulations, and have to form an opinion based solely upon being presented with schedule 4:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/4/made

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Michael, take it from me, it's really quite simple.

I think so.

But you are really struggling with it.

Ignore anyones 'interpretations' of what the laws is or isn't saying

Including yours.

Any other fixed electric cable coming out of your house and going across the garden to WHEREVER.........shed, garage, summer house, pond pump, water feature, ornamental lampost, old red phonebox - NOTIFIABLE.

Since that it not what the law says (and it really, really isn't) that has to be your interpretation of it.

Ignore anyones 'interpretations' of what the laws is or isn't saying

 

[EFLImpudence]

Based upon your own personal interpretation of what you think schedule 4 actually says,

1 No

2 Yes

3 Yes

4 No

Just to point out to the suspicious - It only costs me a couple of pounds too. Nothing to gain by fiddling the rules.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, but the cable which is being laid to the garage is outdoors. Isn't that cable part of the installation?

Yes, but we've been through this before.

You refused to see sense last time, because it would mean your carefully constructed set of inconsistencies and illogicalities, so dear to you because they justify you writing the legislation off as meaningless rubbish, would all evaporate.

2(c) talks about "work which consists of adding" sockets, lights, etc. Clearly if you wish to add a socket 6 feet away from any existing part of the system, you need to run a cable to it, so extending the circuit with that cable is a necessary part of the "work which consists of adding" the socket.

Absolutely.

It is a necessary part of the work.

It is not explicitly mentioned in Schedule 4.

It is an intrinsic part of the work. It is an intrinsic part of the socket, or whatever, which you are adding. It is not explicitly mentioned because it inherits its properties from the socket, or whatever, which you are adding.

So to return to your original question, yes, the cable is part of the installation. It is part of the installation of the socket. It is indivisible from it. It has no status of its own - everything it has it inherits from the socket.

The socket is not outdoors, therefore it is not notifiable. And neither is the cable. The socket and the cable are atomic.

As soon as you try to give the cable a different status from the socket, you give it an existence which is discrete from that of the socket, and then you immediately run smack into the problem (of your own creation) that installing the cable is not listed in any way in Schedule 4, and therefore cannot be exempt. That would also be the case if you were adding a socket in your living room.

And it breaks Schedule 4, i.e. the schedule no longer works.

Which, of course, is what you want, which is why you do it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would add that because people frequently confuse notification and certification that all of the above work should be accompanied by the relevant Installation Certificates and Schedules thus putting them outside the scope of the DIYer whether notifiable or not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS & I might disagree on what the regulations actually mean, but on that point I agree. It's not for us to try and second-guess what the legislature intended the regulations to say and to apply them accordingly. We can go only on what the regulations actually do say. Whether the results are logical and consistent from any sort of technical point of view is entirely different matter,

And also irrelevant, because we aren't discussing whether the regulations are justified. We're starting from the position where we have the regulations and we are looking to see if they work.

Imagine if we had legislation which specified how to build a car, and imagine it was all consistent within itself, i.e. you could follow it, and it would work, and you would end up with a car.

Unfortunately what you end up with is red on one side, green on the other, is open-top without a hood, and has 9 seats.

There is no logical or technical reason for the car being like that, but it is like that because that is what the people who wrote the legislation wanted.

Argue all you like about how stupid they were - it won't change what they wrote. Saying that the part which makes the paint for one side red and the other side green cannot actually say that, even when it clearly does, and using as your justification the notion that requiring a car to be those colours is stupid, illogical and unjustifiable is pointless.

None of those things affect what the regulations say. Why they say it, yes, but not whether they say it or not.

And it's the same with Schedule 4.

Clearly that run of cable is outdoors, but is it part of an "outdoor electric power installation" as such?

I wonder if you have an uncomfortable feeling that you know the answer to that.

If any part of the installation being outside makes that part an "outdoor electric power installation" for the purposes of schedule 4, then that circuit extension run along the outside wall of the house would be notifiable.

To be logical and consistent, if that intra-house extension run on the outside of the wall is deemed not to be notifiable because it's not actually supplying any lighting or other utilization equipment located outdoors, then BAS' assertion that the underground cable to the garage in the case at hand is not notifiable in itself must also be correct, since it's the same scenario - Only the cable itself is outdoors.

And the problem with being logical and consistent is....?

So how many people who think that the underground cable to the garage is notifiable will agree that the intra-house extension run along the outside wall is also notifiable?

That might depend on how tightly they close their ears against the sound of a penny dropping

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is exactly the point that I was trying to put over with my post regarding the two scenarios.........if you take it as read, then it becomes ridiculous, it requires 'INTERPRETATION'.

To your mind.

But a ridiculous initial premise does not mean that the machinery built to implement it doesn't work.

Whose interpretation???

Well let's see,

In the one corner we have me, (a working electrician),

Who cannot and will not read.

Someone whose desire is to make people think the regulations say what he thinks they should, no matter what the actual words are.

Someone who is more interested in simplification than accuracy.

Someone who is more concerned that his message should be consistent than truthful.

You know you really should be ashamed.

NAPIT, (who I am registered with),

NAPIT. An organisation made up of people like you, who want the regulations to say what they think they should, who want to "simplify the choice of notifiable works" rather than work within what the law actually says are notifiable ones, whose aim is to "to give a consistent message to reduce confusion in the industry" rather than giving a message which is decent, honest and truthful.

They really should be ashamed.

The Secretary of State (via Document P),

Which is where the whole sorry mess started, and has been, and is being, propagated by people like you, by organisations like NAPIT, LABC Services, the IET etc.

The interpretation of the above list of people is that installation of a cable outdoors (crossing a 'garden') is notifiable.

It doesn't matter how many documents are written how many times by how many people saying that a cable crossing a garden is notifiable, that is not what the law says, and therefore their assertion is false.

And they should all be ashamed.