Clarification of regs -adding socket to ring. What required?

[JohnW2]

I'd have to agree with that, John. If I had my way there wouldn't be any DIY 'allowable' electrical work ....apart from the swapping of like for like accesories - any 'domestic' electrical work would have to be done by a registered spark or notified to LABC by a qualified/competent spark.

That would at least be unambiguous, but probably not particularly enforceable or policable, unless DIY access to electrical materials were somehow cut-off. Furthermore, the matter of the training and competence of 'qualified' electricians would need to be addressed at the same time. Currently, there are some 'qualified electricians' who are less competent and safe, and certainly less knowledgeable about basic principles, than some non-electricians - and that is a ridiculous basis on which to base the situation you would favour.

However, I'm not sure that all that many would really welcome such a draconian move in the ever increasing 'highly regulated' direction, even if it could be made to work. Furthermore, things have to be kept in perspective - there are far more injuries, and probably deaths, attributable to other forms of DIY than are attributable to electrical DIY - so where would you want to stop with your 'banning'?

What somewhat intrigues me is why someone who has such views is participating in a 'DIY electrics' forum!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

As noted in the other thread, the condition of "where circuit protective measures are unaffected" appears in 1(c) & 1(d), but not in 1(a). As the condition was written explicitly into 1(c) & 1(d) for replacing enclosures and providing mechanical protection, it's reasonable to assume that had that condition been intended to apply to replacements as well, then it would also have been included in 1(a).

The reason it is mentioned in these two circumstances, and not in any others, is because the work involved could alter the cable installation/reference method and thereby, (indirectly), affect the protective measures of the circuit.
This wouldn't happen when adding a socket outlet, would it?
My point is that the fact that they are concerned about altering 'protective measures' enough to mention it here, means that it stands to reason that they wouldn't want you altering it deliberately anywhere else.

As the list is of work that need NOT be notified and it doesn't specifically say that changing a circuit's protective device is NOT notifiable, then I'm guessing it's notifiable.

I think that's exactly what it says. You can replace items (e.g. an MCB) without notification by virtue of the exemption in 1(a).

The exemption in 1a would only apply if you considered an MCB to be 'fixed electrical equipment'.
I'm more inclined to think - 'shower', 'cooker' NOT MCB/RCD

Absolutely not. As a basic principle I would never countenance anything which attempted to prevent a homeowner from carrying out any work he wishes on his own home.

Yeah, they're all queueing up to run gas pipes and boilers into there homes, aren't they?

 

[Electrifying]

What somewhat intrigues me is why someone who has such views is participating in a 'DIY electrics' forum!

Kind Regards, John.

Firstly, they kidded me by calling it DIYnot.com...........or did you not notice that bit.

Secondly, there are some very intelligent, knowledgeable people on here who are definitely not DIYers - so I enjoy the discussions.

I don't normally think about what's notifiable etc etc because I'm registered, so if I ever had a doubt I'd just bang a notification in anyway. (only takes 10 minutes, after all) - but this discussion, once again, has been interesting.

 

[Stoday]

Common sense would tell you that not all DIYers are incompetent. Some are retired electricians, some work on big industrial and commercial installations.

They have to pay the cost of notification even though they are competent, so they have a motivation to avoid notification unless it is necessary. Paying out £150 plus, for no advantage whatsoever is something to be avoided if possible. Hence I do the opposite to Electrifying. Whereas he looks to interpret part P as harshly as possible, because it costs him nothing, I seek to slip through any loophole I can find.

As for the house rewire, most would want to undertake it over a number of years room-by-room. That's not feasible under part P, so you bend the rules by just doing it and after a few years when it's finished, get an electrician to install the new CU.

 

[EFLImpudence]

DIYnot

I thought that stood for

Do It Yourself & notify

 

[Paul_C]

The reason it is mentioned in these two circumstances, and not in any others, is because the work involved could alter the cable installation/reference method and thereby, (indirectly), affect the protective measures of the circuit.
This wouldn't happen when adding a socket outlet, would it?

What about somebody running a new cable for that socket? That's not notifiable, so presumably the official position is that he can be trusted to select the correct size cable for the circuit in question, taking into account relevant factors such as ambient temperature, grouping with other cables, etc. The latter could also affect the rating of existing cables, but the exemption for adding sockets in 2(c) doesn't impose any conditions along the lines of those in 1(c) & 1(d).

My point is that the fact that they are concerned about altering 'protective measures' enough to mention it here, means that it stands to reason that they wouldn't want you altering it deliberately anywhere else.

This is legislation. Reason often doesn't come into it. (I know, that sounds very much like Sir Humphrey, but it's true.)

As the list is of work that need NOT be notified and it doesn't specifically say that changing a circuit's protective device is NOT notifiable, then I'm guessing it's notifiable.

But 1(a) exempts the "replacement of fixed electrical equipment," subject to a couple of conditions. Changing an MCB is such a replacement.

The exemption in 1a would only apply if you considered an MCB to be 'fixed electrical equipment'.

Who wouldn't consider it to be part of the fixed electrical equipment of the house? I certainly would, just as sockets, light switches, light fittings, and so on are all fixed equipment.

 

[Paul_C]

They have to pay the cost of notification even though they are competent, so they have a motivation to avoid notification unless it is necessary. Paying out £150 plus, for no advantage whatsoever is something to be avoided if possible.

In one area the notification fee is now over £400.

 

[Electrifying]

Common sense would tell you that not all DIYers are incompetent. Some are retired electricians, some work on big industrial and commercial installations.

They have to pay the cost of notification even though they are competent, so they have a motivation to avoid notification unless it is necessary. Paying out £150 plus, for no advantage whatsoever is something to be avoided if possible.

You're thinking about it the wrong way round.

It's 'Building Regs & Notification' - nothing to do with your competence or the fact that you've worked on big motors.

That's like a retired 'Brickie' complaining that he has to notify BC about the extension he's building on his house - especially as he's building it himself.......what a waste of £150. But that's hard luck, isn't it, because that's the procedure, regardless of how many bricks he might be able to lay in an hour.

The only difference with electrics is that, if you want to, you can register to self certify your work and do away with the need to notify LABC first.

 

[JohnW2]

What somewhat intrigues me is why someone who has such views is participating in a 'DIY electrics' forum!

Firstly, they kidded me by calling it DIYnot.com...........or did you not notice that bit.

I certainly noticed it, but it took me quite a while to discover the derivation. The "Y" is used twice ... "DIYYnot" = "DIY Y not" = "DIY - Why not?"

[Secondly, there are some very intelligent, knowledgeable people on here who are definitely not DIYers - so I enjoy the discussions.

... and dare I suggest that there are some very intelligent, knowledgeable people on here who are definitely not electricians? I have to say that there are some regular contributors to this forum that I couldn't confidently place in one camp or the other - and I certainly often wonder how many of the 'categorisations' any of us would actually get right - I suspect that we would all get some wrong!!

- but this discussion, once again, has been interesting.

Yes, it has - thank you.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Who wouldn't consider it to be part of the fixed electrical equipment of the house? I certainly would, just as sockets, light switches, light fittings, and so on are all fixed equipment.

If this is the case, and these items are already exempt by point 1 a), why does point 2 c) in Schedule 4 state:

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—.
(i)adding light fittings and switches to an existing circuit, or.
(ii)adding socket outlets and fused spurs to an existing ring or radial circuit.

Seems daft to mention them twice.

 

[JohnW2]

If this is the case, and these items are already exempt by point 1 a), why does point 2 c) in Schedule 4 state: 2. Work which— .... Seems daft to mention them twice.

Quite. You continue to illustrate how badly written this bit of legislation is. However, again, the actual words of the law (which is what we have to obey) are clear enough - what you are debating is the logic or reasoning behind them (which, unfortunately, is theoretically irrelevant!).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Yes, but John, the terminology they use is the same I was taught.

Switches, FCUs, socket outlets - they're electrical accessories.

Fridges, cookers, drills, lathes, washing machines - they're electrical equipment (sometimes 'appliances').

RCDs, MCBs, Fuses - they're protective devices......and nowhere does it say that changing a circuits protective device is not notifiable.

 

[JohnW2]

Common sense would tell you that not all DIYers are incompetent. Some are retired electricians, some work on big industrial and commercial installations.

... and some have never been any sort of electrician, but even that doesn't necessarily render them incompetent and/or lacking in knowledge.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but John, the terminology they use is the same I was taught.
Switches, FCUs, socket outlets - they're electrical accessories.
Fridges, cookers, drills, lathes, washing machines - they're electrical equipment (sometimes 'appliances').
RCDs, MCBs, Fuses - they're protective devices......and nowhere does it say that changing a circuits protective device is not notifiable.

Yes, I have been brought up with those meanings of the words. Given the failure of the legislation to define them (in particular, to define 'fixed equipment') this is an area where some interpretation of the law is required. I have to say that (by application of common sense), I am inclined to your (not Paul's) interpretation - i.e. that it was not intended that a MCB/RCB etc.should be regarded as 'fixed equipment', and therfore not intended that replacing one of them should be exempt from notification.

Having said that, I then start wondering. If replacing an MCB is notifiable, what about replacing a blown or damaged fuse, which is functionally not conceptually different? This could get daft in the other direction!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

If this is the case, and these items are already exempt by point 1 a), why does point 2 c) in Schedule 4 state: {.....}

1(a) exempts only replacements; 2(c) provides an exemption to add them to existing circuits, subject to the conditions in 2(a) & 2(b).

Replacing an existing socket in a living room: Exempt by 1(a).

Replacing an existing socket in a kitchen: Exempt by 1(a).

Extending a circuit to add a socket in a living room: Exempt by 2(c) and because it also meets the conditions set out in 2(a) & 2(b).

Extending a circuit to add a new socket in a kitchen: Notifiable because while it's work as defined in 2(c), it does not meet the additional condition set out in 2(a).