Wiring into an external garage one meter from house?

[ban-all-sheds]

That would seem to make a mockery of 1 a (i),

It is all laughably badly written.

And isn't it strange how the more people try to claim that it says what it doesn't, because they don't like what it says, and want with all their heart and soul for it to say something else, the more badly written it becomes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This last post by Paul C kind of sums up why these discussions regarding Schedule 4 and what is/isn't notifiable come about.

It's nothing to do with wanting to understand the Building Regs and follow them correctly.

You are quite right.

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

You are quite wrong.

It's all about people like you looking for ways to make the Building Regulations say something they don't, or not say something they do, because you don't like what they do or don't say, you want them to say different things and you want to persuade others that they actually do.

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

No - you mean "Schedule 4, if read how I want it to have intended, describes very minor work that can be done without notifying building control."

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??

No - let's face it - that's just more nonsense on your part.

 

[JohnW2]

And isn't it strange how the more people try to claim that it says what it doesn't, because they don't like what it says, and want with all their heart and soul for it to say something else, the more badly written it becomes.

That's certainly not the reason I say it's badly written. It is badly written because, despite what you seem to think, it is lacking in adequate detail and definitions, forcing people to make their own (sometimes differing) interpretations. If it were much better written in those respects, there would be far less scope for people to claim that it said something which it doesn't say, even if they would have liked it to say something else.

Being badly written and saying (clearly and explicitly) things one doesn't want it to say are two utterly different things.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

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??

No - let's face it - that's just more nonsense on your part.

So, you don't think that's possible - based on how you read Schedule 4??

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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?

Actually yes, I can, and for exactly the same reasons that I said Electrifying should be ashamed.

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?

Why not? You tell us, given that you said this:

Is the underground cable part of "an outdoor electric power installation" or not? I would say it is.

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.

I suggest you be careful about setting yourself and your actions up to be the moral equivalent of them and theirs.

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.

A great deal of clarity arises, almost all the clouded areas go away, when you operate Schedule 4 in the right way.

It's a bit like a machine with levers and knobs, and what a lot ofpeople are doing, because they don't like what the machine produces when it works, are pulling the levers and twiddling the knobs in a way which breaks or jams the machine. When shown a way to operate it without it breaking or jamming they say "Yeah, but you aren't supposed to work it like that - you can't be, because when you do it makes things I don't like".

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.

The Approved Document P position on outside lights being one.

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?

I do, because it's clearly "outdoor lighting".

AD P expresses the notion that if the cable enters the light from the rear, through the wall, that it's not notifiable, which can only mean that somehow this light on the outside of the house is no longer outdoors.

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?

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?

To return to the analogy above, you've been presented with a machine with knobs and levers and a badly written instruction manual. If you find a way to make the machine work you've got it right.

 

[Paul_C]

1 No
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No

Interesting - So based solely upon reading schedule 4 you would agree with BAS that the original proposed job is not notifiable. So why have you otherwise been saying that you believe it is notifiable? Is it purely because of official guidelines, what NAPIT says, and so on?

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.

Indeed, and as I recall your argument seems to go along the lines of the cable becoming part of the whatever exempt item (socket, light etc.) is being added, whereas I see the cable as being part of the work which consists of adding the whatever. Adding a cable may be a necessary part of the job of adding a socket, but the cable can never become part of the socket itself - That's nonsensical.

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.

And that is the point. The installation of the cable becomes an intrinsic part of the work, yes. It cannot become an intrinsic part of the socket. Leaving aside outdoor wiring, the installation of the cable for an extension to feed a socket becomes exempt because it is part of the "work which consists of adding" the socket, not because it can in any way become part of the socket itself.

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

The cable is undoubtedly outdoors. Just because the installation of the cable is a necessary part of the work which consists of adding a socket (which is itself indoors) can't change that.

Condensed to the relevant parts:

2. Work which .... does not involve work on a special installation; and consists of .... adding socket outlets ..... to an existing ring or radial circuit.

So even though the cable running underground might be an integral part of the work of adding the socket, it's still qualified by the condition that it does not involve work on a "special installation."

Substituting the relevant part of the definition in para. 4 in the above, we get:

2. Work which .... does not involve work on an outdoor ..... electric power installation; and consists of .... adding socket outlets ..... to an existing ring or radial circuit.

Which brings us right back to the question of what precisely "outdoor electric power installation" is supposed to include. Yes, my initial interpretation of that is that it means any part of the work which is outdoors. Is the cable outdoors? Yes. Is it part of an electric power installation? Yes. Schedule 4 doesn't say anything about whether it's feeding something inside which is itself exempt from notification, only that the job must not involve "work on a special installation." If the underground cable is considered to be part of an "outdoor electric power installation," then installing it must count as "work on a special installation." That would make the intra-house cable running a few feet along the outside of the wall notifiable as well, as noted previously.

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.

But that is, by at least one way of interpreting schedule 4, what the regulations are doing. 2(b) doesn't say that the socket being added must not be part of the special installation. It says that the job must "not involve work on a special installation," which I would take to encompass the job in its entirety. The only issue is whether a cable by itself constitutes a "special installation," i.e. an "outdoor electric power installation" - Back to that same question.

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.

There's no need to seek to break schedule 4 - It's already broken.

 

[Paul_C]

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.

But now you're talking about non-mandatory "requirements" of BS7671, not the statutory provisions of the building regulations. And that dpesn't necessarily put them outside the scope of a DIYer - I'm taking the liberty of speaking for John here, but both he and I would be quite capable of completing those certificates and schedules despite falling into the DIYer category (as in not scheme-registered electricians etc.).

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.

As I said before, my initial reaction is that "outdoor electric power installation" means any part of an electrical installation which is outdoors. But I'll concede that it could be taken as meaning a part of an installation which is intended to deliver power for use outdoors, in which case both the intra-house cable run along an outside wall and an inter-bulding cable run underground would be non-notifiable, in themselves.

The definition in para. 4 is also somewhat strange in the specific mention of lighting:

“special installation” means an electric floor or ceiling heating system, an outdoor lighting or electric power installation, an electricity generator, or an extra-low voltage lighting system which is not a pre-assembled lighting set bearing the CE marking referred to in regulation 9 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994(1);

Why does it need to say an "outdoor lighting or electric power installation" in that definition? Isn't electric lighting merely a subset of electric power? Unless the intent was merely to emphasize that lighting is included.

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

Well, none. But this is where anyone reading schedule 4 and then trying to look at the official guidelines for help is likely to get confused. From the wording of schedule 4, if we take "outdoor electric power installation" as including just cable running from one internal point to another, then logically both the intra-house and the inter-building cable must be notifiable as they are both outdoors. If we deem the "special installation" definition not to include just a cable conveying power from one internal location to another and which happens to run outdoors, then both must, logically, be non-notifiable since the regulations make absolutely no mention of cables to separate buildings being treated distinctly in any way.

But look in the Approved Document, and you find that logic contradicted, seemingly based upon whether something "runs across a garden" rather than just whether it's outside, as schedule 4 refers to. Under "Additional notes" (page 8 ), item (f) implies that any work in an outbuilding which involves any outdoor wiring is notifiable. Item (i) says that a light fixed on an outside wall is not notifiable, subject to it not being "associated with a special installation." But according to schedule 4, an "outdoor lighting installation" counts as a special installation. What is an outside light if it isn't an outdoor lighting installation?

As you've said many times before, "The approved document is not law," and I agree (as I also agree that the approved document frequently contradicts what the actual legislation says). But when it is the officially issued guidance which people will try to rely upon to try and make sense of what schedule 4 actually means, it's certainly leaving a lot of room for confusion and speculation.

If an exterior light is not an outdoor lighting installation, then what can we exclude from the definition of an outdoor electric power installation? If the light is excluded, then it would certainly seem reasonable to exclude the cable linking rooms of the house along the exterior of the wall, and thus the underground cable to an outbuilding as well.

 

[Paul_C]

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??

{.....}

So, you don't think that's possible - based on how you read Schedule 4??

Certainly it's largely possible, if you kept the existing consumer unit and didn't want to add any new circuits to it. Sockets, lights, and switches throughout the house can be replaced by way of the exemption in 1(a). Any existing cable ("for a single circuit only") can be replaced by simply damaging it and then using the exemption in 1(b). Extra sockets and lights can be added through most of the house under 2(c). Bonding can be replaced or improved under 1(e).

The kitchen and bathroom would be restricted only to replacements, but there are even ways around that. As mentioned in another thread some time ago, if you were completely refitting your kitchen at the same time, for example, all you would need to do is carry out the electrical work while there is no sink in the room, then it's not a kitchen as far as the regulations are concerned.

You may think that's all crazy and that there was no intent to allow such extensive rewiring without notification, but if something is exempt from notification under the building regulations then it's exempt. Like those politicians who were "flipping" houses and then claiming for all sorts of repairs and refurbishments in both houses: All of us might agree that it was grossly unfair and maybe not the intent of whoever drafted the original rules, but if the regulations said that they could switch their declared main residence at any time and that any house being maintained as a second, "job related" house was subject to being repaired and maintained at taxpayers' expense, then however despicable we might regard it, the statements about "We have broken no regulations" were true.

And as BAS says, while we might not want to associate ourselves with politicians, the case of an almost-full rewire without notification could quite legitimately be done and a statement to the effect of "I have broken no regulations" would be quite truthful.

Is it daft that you can do nearly a complete rewire without notification but that to run a foot of cable through a wall and add an external socket is notifiable? Undoubtedly. But that's what the regulations say.

 

[Paul_C]

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?

Why not? You tell us, given that you said this:

Is the underground cable part of "an outdoor electric power installation" or not? I would say it is.

As I said, that's my initial feeling - That any part of the installation outside constitutes part of an "outdoor electric power installation." But when there are clearly official interpretations which seem to contradict that (the outside light on the wall of a house, for example), it surely casts enough doubt that somebody could claim a different interpretation?

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.

A great deal of clarity arises, almost all the clouded areas go away, when you operate Schedule 4 in the right way.

But what is the right way when some of it is open to subjective interpretation?

You're implying that Electrifying is allowing his beliefs of what should or should not be notifiable to influence his interpretation of schedule 4. But aren't you perhaps doing the same thing by trying to apply an interpretation which "makes it work," rather than just trying to determine what the words actually say, in black and white? (If one can say that for a document which contains so many gray areas.)

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.

The Approved Document P position on outside lights being one.

Definitely. As mentioned above, the approved document seems to be using some arbitrary ruling on whether a cable "crosses a garden" rather than whether something is an outdoor installation or not.

If a light mounted on an exterior wall of a house and clearly intended to illuminate an area outside is not really an "outdoor lighting installation," then we might as well give up trying to interpret "special installation" completely.

Another example is the document's reference to the exemption for replacing a damaged cable, which it qualifies by saying that it's on the condition that it has "the same current-carrying capacity and follows the same route." No such condition appears anywhere in schedule 4.

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?

I do, because it's clearly "outdoor lighting".

Well, we can definitely agree on that one!

And on that note, I must get on with some work!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed, and as I recall your argument seems to go along the lines of the cable becoming part of the whatever exempt item (socket, light etc.) is being added, whereas I see the cable as being part of the work which consists of adding the whatever. Adding a cable may be a necessary part of the job of adding a socket, but the cable can never become part of the socket itself - That's nonsensical.

The cable becomes part of the socket with respect to its notifiability status.

You accept that Schedule 4 does not explicitly make the cable which you add when adding a socket non-notifiable, and that it's taken as read that adding the cable is part of the work, and because the socket is non-notifiable so is the cable.

That's what I mean by atomic, and inheritance. In terms of deciding wether the work is notifiable or not you look at the socket, not the cable.

What's nonsensical is to then say ah yes but if the socket isn't outdoors but the cable is we do suddenly have to consider the notifiability of it separately from the socket.

The installation of the cable becomes an intrinsic part of the work, yes. It cannot become an intrinsic part of the socket.

It is an intrinsic part of the socket with respect to being notifiable or not.

Leaving aside outdoor wiring, the installation of the cable for an extension to feed a socket becomes exempt because it is part of the "work which consists of adding" the socket, not because it can in any way become part of the socket itself.

If you are adding a socket in a living room you are happy to take it as read that the unmentioned cable isn't notifiable because the socket isn't.

But if you are adding a socket in a detached garage you are not happy to take it as read that the unmentioned cable isn't notifiable even though the socket isn't.

And that's not nonsensical?

The cable is undoubtedly outdoors. Just because the installation of the cable is a necessary part of the work which consists of adding a socket (which is itself indoors) can't change that.

OK - so what's "outdoors"?

What if the garage was detached, but accessible from the house via a shared basement? Would a cable running from the house to the garage through the basement be outdoors?

If not, why not? What is is about that underground route which makes the cable not outdoors when the OP's proposed cable buried 50cm under paving is outdoors?

What if the garage was no longer fully detached, but was linked to the house via a first-floor extension. Would a cable running through that extension and down into a socket in the garage be outdoors? Actually, that one is rhetorical. The Q above about the basement wasn't, but with this extension nobody would say that the cable was outdoors. So let's now replace the extension with a covered corridor, glazed or not - I don't mind. Would a cable running through that be outdoors?

No?

What if we put a locked external door at each end of the corridor and don't heat it - is it outdoors?

What if we then remove parts of the walls, or the glazing - is it outdoors?

What if we remove all of the walls, so it's just a covered walkway - is it outdoors?

What if we remove the roof, so that it is an open walkway - is it outdoors?


Returning to the Schedule 4 Operator's Manual (aka Approved Document P), we note that it says there:

Any new work in, for example, the garden or that involves crossing the garden is notifiable.

It would be interesting to consider the real situation of my house.

The houses in my road are semis, and between them run shared driveways from the road to pairs of detached (from each other and from the houses) garages about 5m beyond the back of the houses. The driveway widens up after the houses, to the width of 2 garages plus a bit. There are fences running at an angle from the corner of each house to the corner of that house's garage. Hopefully you can picture it.

The driveway is concreted over, fenced off from the gardens.

The space between the houses and garages is not a garden.

So - imagine I take a cable from my house, underground, exiting the line of the house under the side wall adjoining the driveway,and then along under the drive and up into the garage. At no point does the cable cross a garden.

Is it outdoors?


Don't you see that all of these questions, inconsistencies and grey areas simply go away if you only consider where the socket is, and not where the cable runs in order to reach it.

In fact - all of these questions, inconsistencies and grey areas only arise in the first place once you stop reading what Schedule 4 says and start introducing your own "what ifs", or start attempting to "simplify" the list of non-notifiable work.

Which brings us right back to the question of what precisely "outdoor electric power installation" is supposed to include. Yes, my initial interpretation of that is that it means any part of the work which is outdoors. Is the cable outdoors? Yes. Is it part of an electric power installation? Yes. Schedule 4 doesn't say anything about whether it's feeding something inside which is itself exempt from notification, only that the job must not involve "work on a special installation." If the underground cable is considered to be part of an "outdoor electric power installation," then installing it must count as "work on a special installation." That would make the intra-house cable running a few feet along the outside of the wall notifiable as well, as noted previously.

Yes, but.. in that case... but that would mean... in which case...

Just stop doing all of that. Make all of those problems vanish (or rather stop creating all of those problems yourself).

Just focus on the socket.

Is the socket notifiable?

No? End of - you may add it without notification.

Yes? End of - you may not add it without notification.

But that is, by at least one way of interpreting schedule 4, what the regulations are doing. 2(b) doesn't say that the socket being added must not be part of the special installation. It says that the job must "not involve work on a special installation," which I would take to encompass the job in its entirety. The only issue is whether a cable by itself constitutes a "special installation," i.e. an "outdoor electric power installation" - Back to that same question.

You said that the cable is an integral part of the work - it cannot be both that and discrete.

Just focus on the socket.

Is the socket notifiable?

No? End of - you may add it without notification.

Yes? End of - you may not add it without notification.

There's no need to seek to break schedule 4 - It's already broken.

It is not without its flaws, but it is nowhere near as broken as it appears to be when you deliberately choose to operate it in a way which breaks it.

Back to our machine again, with the levers and knobs.

Imagine you were employing someone to work such a machine, and he persisted in pulling and twiddling combinations of controls which caused it to jam.

"Machine's jammed again, boss"

"Why? What did you do?"

"Well, I pulled this and turned that, like it says in the manual"

"But the manual is wrong -we've been over this before - if you do what it says in the manual the thing jams up. I've shown you how to make it work"

"Yeah but the manual says to do it that way"

"Don't do what the manual says - do it so that the machine works, OK?"

Shortly later....

"Machine's jammed again, boss"

"Why? What did you do?"

"Well, I pulled this and turned that, like it says in the manual"


How long would you put up with that before you sacked him?

 

[holmslaw]

 

[EFLImpudence]

1 No
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No

Interesting - So based solely upon reading schedule 4 you would agree with BAS that the original proposed job is not notifiable. So why have you otherwise been saying that you believe it is notifiable?

I don't think I have. I haven't said much. Are you confusing me with Electifying?
You asked based on the actual wording. I think it SHOULD be notifiable but that's not what it says.
All I did say was that it makes a mockery of 1a(i) which states that replacing equipment is notifiable if new fixed cable is installed (not quite sure where the new fixed cabling would be if merely replacing equipment) and yet replacing a damaged cable is not notifiable.

Is it purely because of official guidelines, what NAPIT says, and so on?

No, quite the opposite. There are too many 'guidelines' which, unless written by the same people as wrote the law are just opinions with which I may disagree.

The one with which I disagree most is - if a lighting circuit is without a cpc then changing a consumer unit should be refused - ridiculous.

 

[Paul_C]

Are you stocking up on popcorn again?

The cable becomes part of the socket with respect to its notifiability status.

As you say quite often, just read what is written in schedule 4. So just reading what is written, where does anything say that is the case?

You accept that Schedule 4 does not explicitly make the cable which you add when adding a socket non-notifiable, and that it's taken as read that adding the cable is part of the work, and because the socket is non-notifiable so is the cable.

As the basic interpretation of 2(c), yes. The cable is a necessary part of the "work which consists of adding" the socket. If that was not meant to include the cable (and clips, back box, junction boxes etc.) then there would be almost no point in the exemptions in 2(c) being there at all, since adding sockets or lights would then still become notifiable because of the cable. So we have to take it that "work which consists of adding" the socket includes the cable and other ancillary bits and pieces, otherwise it would be ludicrous.

What's nonsensical is to then say ah yes but if the socket isn't outdoors but the cable is we do suddenly have to consider the notifiability of it separately from the socket.

Not separately, but as part of the overall job, i.e. as part of "the work which consists of adding" the socket.

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.

The subject of para. 2 is "work." So by 2(a) the work must not be in a kitchen or a special location. By 2(b) it must not involve work on a special
installation. And by 2(c) it must be work which consists of adding a socket, light etc.

So by the actual wording of para. 2, the condition about not being a special installation doesn't apply only to the socket itself, it applies to the work which consists of adding the socket, and that work in turn includes the installation of the cable. So logically, 2(a) & (b) refer not only to the socket, but to every part of the extension, including the cable.

For the cable to be discounted from being considered in 2(a) & (b), the wording would need to be changed so that the restrictions in those two clauses apply only to the actual socket, not to the "work which consists of adding" the socket, which includes the cable.

That's the way I read para. 2, anyway.

If you are adding a socket in a living room you are happy to take it as read that the unmentioned cable isn't notifiable because the socket isn't.

I'm happy to take it that the cable isn't notifiable because the entire job, i.e. the work which consists of adding the socket meets the condition set out in 2(a) & (b). Not because I consider the cable to be part of the non-notifiable socket.

But if you are adding a socket in a detached garage you are not happy to take it as read that the unmentioned cable isn't notifiable even though the socket isn't.

And that's not nonsensical?

I don't think it is, when you read para. 2 and see that the condition in 2(b) applies to the whole job and not just the socket.

OK - so what's "outdoors"?

Now that's another area where it seems the line could get rather blurry.

What if the garage was detached, but accessible from the house via a shared basement? Would a cable running from the house to the garage through the basement be outdoors?

I would say no. The basement is an enclosed room, it just happens to be below ground level.

What is is about that underground route which makes the cable not outdoors when the OP's proposed cable buried 50cm under paving is outdoors?

Good question. Maybe because in a basement it's inside a room and when just buried in the ground it's not? What if one constructs a concrete cable duct, large enough to walk through (albeit hunched over somewhat) - Is that outdoors? Probably not. But then one could continue down to a duct only a couple of inches in diameter and argue that it's really a similar enclosed space below ground, just much smaller. So is that then outdoors?

So let's now replace the extension with a covered corridor, glazed or not - I don't mind. Would a cable running through that be outdoors?

No?

If it's totally enclosed, I would say no.

What if we put a locked external door at each end of the corridor and don't heat it - is it outdoors?

I don't see that the doors or lack of heating have anything to do with it. If it's an enclosed corridor, it's not outdoors. (But if the corridor is not outdoors, then the doors at each end could not be external doors, could they?)

What if we then remove parts of the walls, or the glazing - is it outdoors?

What if we remove all of the walls, so it's just a covered walkway - is it outdoors?

Once you start opening it up to the elements then I would think most people would start to consider it as being outdoors (just slightly protected).

What if we remove the roof, so that it is an open walkway - is it outdoors?

No roof or walls? I can't see it could be anything but outdoors then.

Hopefully you can picture it.

Yes, I think I know the sort of layout you mean.

So - imagine I take a cable from my house, underground, exiting the line of the house under the side wall adjoining the driveway,and then along under the drive and up into the garage. At no point does the cable cross a garden.

Is it outdoors?

My inclination is to say yes, but as above, I can see a gray area somewhere between ducting and a full basement where it could be arguable.

Don't you see that all of these questions, inconsistencies and grey areas simply go away if you only consider where the socket is, and not where the cable runs in order to reach it.

Maybe they do go away, but that doesn't change what is written in schedule 4. You shouldn't be trying to apply an interpretation to schedule 4 just because it makes some ambiguities go away and more than somebody should be trying to apply an interpretation which "makes it work" in relation to what he believes should or should not be notifiable.

The only interpretation which should be used is that necessary to try and decide what schedule 4 actually says - Whether that results in greater or fewer ambiguities or inconsistencies is irrelevant.

In fact - all of these questions, inconsistencies and grey areas only arise in the first place once you stop reading what Schedule 4 says and start introducing your own "what ifs", or start attempting to "simplify" the list of non-notifiable work.

I don't see that. You are not reading what schedule 4 says when you try to insist that the cable becomes an integral part of the socket being added, despite the fact that the wording in para. 2 in relation to a "special installation" refers to the whole job (i.e. the "work consisting of").

Just focus on the socket.

Is the socket notifiable?

No? End of - you may add it without notification.

Yes? End of - you may not add it without notification.

But schedule 4 doesn't focus just on the socket. It refers to work which consists of adding the socket, which encompasses more than just the socket itself.

You said that the cable is an integral part of the work - it cannot be both that and discrete.

It can be an integral part of the work, i.e. the whole job, while being discrete from the socket.

Just focus on the socket.

Why, when the regulations refer not just to the socket but to the entire "work which consists of adding" the socket?

 

[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.

But now you're talking about non-mandatory "requirements" of BS7671, not the statutory provisions of the building regulations. And that dpesn't necessarily put them outside the scope of a DIYer - I'm taking the liberty of speaking for John here, but both he and I would be quite capable of completing those certificates and schedules despite falling into the DIYer category (as in not scheme-registered electricians etc.).

Fair enough - but even the mandatory ones are unintelligable.
I was thinking more about Joe Public who wouldn't know what to do even if he had the equipment.

It also comes back to the discussion - what should be notifiable but isn't?
There's just no logic.

Thou shalt not kill on Mondays - does that mean you can the rest of the week?

 

[Paul_C]

I don't think I have. I haven't said much. Are you confusing me with Electifying?

Yes - My apologies. For some reason this morning I quoted you thinking it was Electrifying's answers. Sorry!

All I did say was that it makes a mockery of 1a(i) which states that replacing equipment is notifiable if new fixed cable is installed (not quite sure where the new fixed cabling would be if merely replacing equipment) and yet replacing a damaged cable is not notifiable.

Yes, that takes some thinking about. If you're just replacing some piece of fixed apparatus (fan, light, whatever) presumably there is already a cable bringing power to it! So if you wanted to replace that fixed cable at the same time as replacing the "whatever" then all you would need to do is damage the existing cable in the process to satisfy the exemption requirement in 1(b).

The one with which I disagree most is - if a lighting circuit is without a cpc then changing a consumer unit should be refused - ridiculous.

Agree entirely with that one. It's not going to makes things any worse, will likely make things considerably better (in terms of replacing BS3036 with BS1361 or MCB's, etc.), and if there's nothing on the lighting circuit which requires earthing, the only thing it falls short on is providing earthing terminals which will be completely unused anyway.