Part P regs

[thompson9100]

Hi

Having read the wiki on electricals and part p, I think that I can undertake this work myself, but I'd like to be sure if someone is happy to confirm.

I currently have a small downstairs loo including a sink. I am going to remove the toilet and sink, and leave drainage and pipes in place for a washing machine connection. I intend to seal the soil pipe from the toilet and leave the waste from the sink for the washing machine drain.

I also want to put a freezer in this small room, and as such with the both items I will need to put in 2 sockets - minimum 1x1g, and 1x2g.

I have a radial circuit that goes out through the window to a cupboard providing a 2g socket in there which is used for the tumble dryer - the cupboard is fully enclosed.

By adding 2 sockets to this radial circuit I believe that it would be classed as minor work, and therefore not notifiable, and as the toilet and sink have been removed, no longer a bathroom?

The current radial circuit is running off an existing mcb accommodating sockets, and though this was ok at the time, I wonder if I should put in an extra MCB and make the circuit into a ring rather than radial? If this was the case, would the job then become notifiable? The ring has 15 gangs (a mix of 1 and 2 gang sockets) and a b32 MCB, with the radial coming off the same MCB.

Many thanks in anticipation for your help.

Dan T.

 

[flameport]

Your current socket is not on a radial circuit, it's a spur off a ring. You can't add any more sockets to it.

Circuit cabling through a window ?

 

[dingodeano]

I read it as radial off same mcb as ring. Three cables in 32amp breaker? Now I've typed it I think you have interpreted what is meant Flameport.

 

[EFLImpudence]

By adding 2 sockets to this radial circuit I believe that it would be classed as minor work, and therefore not notifiable,

Some minor work is notifiable - that is not the criterion.

and as the toilet and sink have been removed, no longer a bathroom?

Never was a bathroom.

The regulations definition of a bathroom is surprisingly logical

 

[ericmark]

All domestic electrics come under Part P but only some need notifying. From what you say likely it will not need notifying but it will still need to comply with BS7671.

The problem in the main with any additions is all cables buried in walls either need to be of a special type (Ali-tube, Mineral Insulated etc) or protected by a RCD. The same applies to most sockets they need RCD protection.

Once you do the job it also needs testing. Loop impedance ect.

Of course you don't have to follow rules but if you want to do it correctly you will need the test meters which to my mind is far more important than informing the LABC.

 

[Tech99]

From what you say likely it will not need notifying but it will still need to comply with BS7671.

There is no compulsion to comply with BS7671.

The problem in the main with any additions is all cables buried in walls either need to be of a special type (Ali-tube, Mineral Insulated etc) or protected by a RCD. The same applies to most sockets they need RCD protection.

What's the point if you're just making a small extension to the wiring of a house which already has dozens of other sockets not fed by an RCD and dozens of other cables already not protected by RCD?

A couple of extra sockets and a few more feet of cables not RCD protected is hardly important.

 

[JohnW2]

There is no compulsion to comply with BS7671.

Strictly true, but for the great majority of people who come to this forum for advice, that's probably the only way that they could even hope to demonstrate that they were compliant with Part P.

What's the point if you're just making a small extension to the wiring of a house which already has dozens of other sockets not fed by an RCD and dozens of other cables already not protected by RCD? ... A couple of extra sockets and a few more feet of cables not RCD protected is hardly important.

Ah, common sense I don't disagree at all with your common sense - but, particularly for someone (as explained above) effectively reliant on compliance with BS7671 to demonstrate compliance with Part P, common sense is not necessarily the name of the game!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ericmark]

There is little to force on to follow the law never mind the regulations. But from memory the law (Part P) says you must follow BS7671 or equivalent regulation so not sure on the legal status.

What is far more important is the household safety. Years ago we used knife switches today we would not dream of using them. We have moved on. Years ago we did not have earth leakage trips, then we only had voltage type and even the early current type needed too much current to really save one should you make contact. Today we have the technology.

The same could be said for seat belts still if you buy a car made in 1930 you don't need to fit them. Does that really mean it's safe not to have them?

Back in 1991 my father-in-law pointed out to me I would not forgive myself if my son was injured with something which I could stop by fitting a RCD. I fitted them however he still does not have them. With youngest child at 48 don't think he really has a problem.

So I would say in the main there are two reasons to fit RCD.
1) Protect household.
2) To have everything right to sell.

If he does not want to follow regulations why ask the question?

So if the option is comply with BS7671 or Part P assuming you can't satisfy both which would you follow? Personally I would follow BS7671 and know my house is safe.

 

[JohnW2]

There is little to force on to follow the law never mind the regulations. But from memory the law (Part P) says you must follow BS7671 or equivalent regulation so not sure on the legal status.

No, Part P says nothing about having to follow BS7671 - although, IIRC, Approved Document P indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way of demonstrating compliance with Part P. As I said, for the great majority of non-electricians, that's the only way they could hope to demonstrate compliance with Part P. I think that at least some (maybe all) competent persons schemes also require that their members comply with BS7671, but that's nothing to do with part P or any other law.

So if the option is comply with BS7671 or Part P assuming you can't satisfy both which would you follow? Personally I would follow BS7671 and know my house is safe.

I really don't see how that situation could ever arise. Like you, all Part P requires is that reasonable steps are taken to prevent fire or injury to persons. I cannot think of any conceivable way in which following BS7671 could conflict with the requirement of Part P.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ericmark]

I did say or equivalent regulation as I know you could for example follow the German regulations and still comply with Part P but not BS7671. But in real terms as you say can't see how one could comply without following BS7671. I was careful not to date BS7671 as there seems to be some confusion as to which version Part P requires.

As to which one must add money into the equation. So if you have a budget of say £150 and either you comply with BS7671:2008 or you pay Part P fees then I would follow BS7671:2008. However I have the test equipment that will allow me to test correctly. I would not expect even 5% of DIY jobs are tested as we were taught when taking our C&G2391.

Clearly to say to any DIY guy you can't do it will not work. Even if we know they can't test it correctly. But neither can we say don't worry carry on regardless. But since they ask I suppose we must tell them even though we know they will not do it right.

 

[JohnW2]

But in real terms as you say can't see how one could comply without following BS7671.

That's not actually what I said. I said that I couldn't see how there could be an 'either/or' conflict between BS7671 and Part P in the way you were suggesting - specifically, I couldn't see how complying with BS7671 could make one non-compliant with part P.

As to which one must add money into the equation. So if you have a budget of say £150 and either you comply with BS7671:2008 or you pay Part P fees then I would follow BS7671:2008.

You now seem to be talking about whether or not one notifies, and pays LABC fees - which is a totally separate issue from compliance with Part P. If one fully complies with BS7671, one would then almost certainly be compliant with Part P (which is just one sentence), even if one did not notify and pay the fee.

Clearly to say to any DIY guy you can't do it will not work. Even if we know they can't test it correctly. But neither can we say don't worry carry on regardless. But since they ask I suppose we must tell them even though we know they will not do it right.

We've discussed that ad infinitum in the past. I agree up to a point, but there are certainly a good few cases in which the only responsible thing to do is to at least try to discourage a DIYer from doing something (s)he is clearly not competent and/or safe to do.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[thompson9100]

Well thanks for the replies, and sorry for causing a bit of a s4!/ storm!

My mcb's are covered by an rccd, all but the lights and fridge socket are not. Unit is Crabtree starbreaker with 100amp main, 63amp, 30 mamp rccd which has 2x32, 1x16 and 1x40 mcb's.

I must admit I wasn't overly keen on the extra socket being wired off the mcb as it is, and judging by the comments here, I think I'd do better to add another b16 mcb and run 3x 2 gang sockets off that instead, obviously protected by the rccd.

I have a friend who may be able to test for me as he was into fire and burglar alarm installed and maintenance in Poland. Does BS7671 direct what tests should be done, so I can ask him to bring the relevant kit from Poland if he has it when he goes in August?

Finally if you hadn't guessed already, I'm in that rare 5% who a) like to ensure they have the ability to do a job correctly before starting, and b) like to ensure regs testing, and above all safety are adhered to. Many reasons for this, but mainly I don't want to be liable for my, or anyone elses demise or injury from work that I do, especially as I am sight impaired (but don't let that scare you, I was accepted into the electricians course at the local college but decided not being able to drive was too big a hurdle to a successful career!).

Thanks again,
Dan

 

[acmedone]

No, Part P says nothing about having to follow BS7671 - although, IIRC, Approved Document P indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way of demonstrating compliance with Part P. As I said, for the great majority of non-electricians, that's the only way they could hope to demonstrate compliance with Part P.

When testing to BS7671, is this just to keep a record of results or is there a failure criterion?

For instance, if a spur is added and it works (perhaps doing basic checks with a multimeter before energising), what value is parametric testing expected to add?

If there is a problem not found with simple tools (lets imagine a loop impedance too high for a short to be detected by breakers), how often does it actually happen? How many RCDs come with parametric failures straight from the box (as distinct from obviously broken)? etc

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was careful not to date BS7671 as there seems to be some confusion as to which version Part P requires.

There can't be any confusion like that, as it doesn't require it at all.

This is Part P:

 

[JohnW2]

No, Part P says nothing about having to follow BS7671 - although, IIRC, Approved Document P indicates that compliance with BS7671 is one way of demonstrating compliance with Part P. As I said, for the great majority of non-electricians, that's the only way they could hope to demonstrate compliance with Part P.

When testing to BS7671, is this just to keep a record of results or is there a failure criterion?

The certainly are pass/fail criteria in relation to virtually all aspects of testing (and inspection) prescribed by BS7671.

For instance, if a spur is added and it works (perhaps doing basic checks with a multimeter before energising), what value is parametric testing expected to add?

When you say "it works", I presume you mean that when an appliance is plugged in, it functions? In terms of the work actually done, testing could reveal problems such as incorrect polarity, absent CPC continuity, low insulation resistance, high loop impedance. More generally, it may reveal the existance of any of those problems (together with RCD malfunction etc.) which were not due to the new work but were pre-existing in the circuit prior to adding the spur.

If there is a problem not found with simple tools (lets imagine a loop impedance too high for a short to be detected by breakers), how often does it actually happen? How many RCDs come with parametric failures straight from the box (as distinct from obviously broken)? etc

You would have to get an answer to that from a practising electrician (which I'm not). Whilst I'm sure you are right in implying that neither of the things you mention are not everyday happenings, I'm equally sure that both (particularly the former) do happen. We've often discussed all this at length. The risks (of not doing any/much testing, particularly after minor works) are, undoubtedly, in reality very small - but we live in a society/culture that worries about small risks, particularly when those risks can impact on people other than the one undertaking the electrical work.

Kind Regards, John.