Is moving a light switch in the kitchen allowed/notifiable?

[JohnW2]

This is surely fairly clear - 1(a) is about fixed electrical equipment, but 1(c) is about enclosures?

Is it? As you can see not to me!

Sorry, you've lost me here. 1(a) says "replacing any fixed electrical equipment..." and 1(c) says "Re-fixing or replacing enclosures ....". What is not clear about that?

... she wants a nice new 10.5kW shower installed as she is not happy with the performance of her existing 7.2kW shower, the circuit is 4.00mm T&E and the protective device is a 32B MCB.
The law according to schedule 4 allows me to put this shower in providing I do not replace the cable for new? bearing in mind BS7671 is not a legal document.

NO - you are confusing Part P and notification. It's notifiability we've been talking about but, regardless of whether one regards the job as notifiable or not (and regardless of whether one notifies or not), fitting a 10.5kW shower to a 4mm² cable would, I'm sure, be non-compliant with Part P (since that could not be regarded as making reasonable provisions for safety) - and hence illegal.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

But regardless of that, under schedule 4 I don't have to notify the dangerous installation I have installed.

 

[JohnW2]

But regardless of that, under schedule 4 I don't have to notify the dangerous installation I have installed.

As per this discussion, some people may interpret Schedule 4 as meaning that they did not have to notify the work. However, the work would still be illegal (non-compliant with part P), even if not notified.

The same 'issue' arises in relation to much simpler/smaller jobs - like replacing a damaged light switch or socket (virtually or literally like-for-like). I presume that everyone would agree that (per Schedule 4) such work was not notifiable, but the work could be done dangerously, hence illegally (per Part P) - e.g. L connected to metal faceplate by someone who thought that, being 'earth coloured', the brown-insulated conductor was the 'earth' ).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

So having spent a little time, looking a schedule 4.
My interpretation is that there is no need to notify if you are replacing a protective device, regardless of the characteristic or size.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

.

The same 'issue' arises in relation to much simpler/smaller jobs - like replacing a damaged light switch or socket (virtually or literally like-for-like). I presume that everyone would agree that (per Schedule 4) such work was not notifiable, but the work could be done dangerously, hence illegally (per Part P) - e.g. L connected to metal faceplate by someone who thought that, being 'earth coloured', the brown-insulated conductor was the 'earth' ).

I would agree, that's why I think it should be notifiable.
Then some one is responsible for it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Never mind what you would prefer - do you believe that Schedule 4 makes the replacement of a 10.5kW shower by a 7.5kW one notifiable?

What would you do? more to the point as actual answering questions is not your strong point!

SCHEDULE 4
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;

That's it - you stop there, because that's how Schedule 4 works. Replacing the shower is non-notifiable - end of.

I could go either way.
I would read MI of appliance, if the MI stated that 7.5kW shower should be on 32A MCB and protected by 30mA RCD.
And if either or both of those devices on the existing circuit supplying the shower needed to be either changed or installed.
I would notify.

Other work consequent on replacing the shower may or may not be notifiable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But regardless of that, under schedule 4 I don't have to notify the dangerous installation I have installed.

No.

And the converse is that if you do a perfectly safe job you may still have to notify even though it's safe.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suspect that you also 'would prefer' that all cable replacement and circuit extensions were notifiable. Unles I'm mistaken, adding that all together means that you are simply expressing a view that all electrical work should be notifiable - is that the case?

That would be my view John, maybe not all but most!

But that's not how it is, and it is not down to you to promote the idea that it is by adding "like for like" into your definitions of what escapes notification.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also, to be pedantic, if the shower were rated as 7.5kW at 230V, but the MI called for a 32A MCB, you could have a problem/dilemma.

Surely, that must have been calculated at 240V otherwise the MIs wouldn't have stated 32A.

One might hope so - but have you never found anything wrong in MIs?

Yes, but most of them still use 240V.
If stated on the box it is more of a true (actual) rating than using 230V.
Also, at 230V the appliance will be less powerful so 'safer'.

There's also the question (to which I've never been sure of the answer) of whether the 'design current' of a circuit relates to what the current would be at nominal supply voltage, or whether it should take account of the maximum permitted supply voltage. I assume you think the former?

Yes, I believe that's what nominal voltage is even if the actual voltage is never that low.
The figure chosen, although unrealistic, to be in-line with Europe and, as discussed before, all values and calculations must allow for this.

 

[JohnW2]

There's also the question (to which I've never been sure of the answer) of whether the 'design current' of a circuit relates to what the current would be at nominal supply voltage, or whether it should take account of the maximum permitted supply voltage. I assume you think the former?

Yes, I believe that's what nominal voltage is even if the actual voltage is never that low. The figure chosen, although unrealistic, to be in-line with Europe and, as discussed before, all values and calculations must allow for this.

I'm still not clear about this (as I said, never have been) - and your statement "...and calculations must allow for this" (in combination with your 'yes' answer) makes me even less sure. If one has a shower rated at 7.5kW at 240V, when one calculates the 'design curent' for its circuit, does one do so {albeit invoving some guesstimating, unless one measures} assuming a nominal supply voltage of 230V (which seems a bit odd, since that is in the 'non-safe' direction), or does one caluculate/estimate design current "allowing for" the fact that the supply current could, in fact, be as high as 253V (which seems the 'conservative'/'safer' approach)?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

.The same 'issue' arises in relation to much simpler/smaller jobs - like replacing a damaged light switch or socket (virtually or literally like-for-like). I presume that everyone would agree that (per Schedule 4) such work was not notifiable, but the work could be done dangerously, hence illegally (per Part P) - e.g. L connected to metal faceplate by someone who thought that, being 'earth coloured', the brown-insulated conductor was the 'earth' ).

I would agree, that's why I think it should be notifiable. Then some one is responsible for it.

Someone is responsible for it, whether it is notified or not. As has been discussed before, the only way LABC could be absolutely certain that everything had been done satisfactorily would be for everything to be notifiable and for LABC to inspect everything, regardless of who did the work - but that approach is full of impracticalities.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So having spent a little time, looking a schedule 4. My interpretation is that there is no need to notify if you are replacing a protective device, regardless of the characteristic or size.

Yes, that does appear to be what the letter of the law says, regardless of what we may think about it!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

But regardless of that, under schedule 4 I don't have to notify the dangerous installation I have installed.

True, but, as John said, you have broken the law.
If that cable catches fire, you have no grounds for defence.

 

[scousespark]

But regardless of that, under schedule 4 I don't have to notify the dangerous installation I have installed.

As per this discussion, some people may interpret Schedule 4 as meaning that they did not have to notify the work. However, the work would still be illegal (non-compliant with part P), even if not notified.

The same 'issue' arises in relation to much simpler/smaller jobs - like replacing a damaged light switch or socket (virtually or literally like-for-like). I presume that everyone would agree that (per Schedule 4) such work was not notifiable, but the work could be done dangerously, hence illegally (per Part P) - e.g. L connected to metal faceplate by someone who thought that, being 'earth coloured', the brown-insulated conductor was the 'earth' ).

Kind Regards, John.

That's got nothing to do with Part P. If somebody did as you said, they would be doing something beyond their level of capabilities. Your example feeds the argument for the scheme operators, when they say that only qualified electricians should be able to work in the domestic field.

 

[JohnW2]

That's got nothing to do with Part P. If somebody did as you said, they would be doing something beyond their level of capabilities. Your example feeds the argument for the scheme operators, when they say that only qualified electricians should be able to work in the domestic field.

It does, indeed, feed the argument that all electrical work should be notifiable, and either self-certified (ideally with some checks) or certified by LABC inspectors or their appointees.

However, I think my point has got everything to do with Part P as it is. That point was that even a job which most/all people would agree is not notifiable under Part P (as it is) could be done badly/dangerously - so whether or not something could be done dangerously is not a helpful criterion in relation to trying to interpret what is notifiable under the present Part P.

Kind Regards, John.