I guess that is the question, does replacing failed/worn out parts with replacements to the same specification count as alteration or not.I look at:-
When one replaces even a simple light switch one has altered the installation.The requirements of Sections 631 and 632 for the issue of an Electrical Installation Certificate or a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate shall apply to all the work of the additions or alterations.
Correct Approved Document P which is what people find when they look for the parts of building regulations. Personally I feel all the government information released on Part P leaves a lot to be desired.I'm not familiar with that particular version - but, to the best of my knowledge, Part P has never changed (in either England or Wales), and has never had 'sections'. I suspect that you are probably talking about Approved Document P, which is entirely different - and is guidance, not law.The Part P old 2006 version section 1.9 uses phrase "simplest of like for like replacements." as not requiring a minor works. It does not appear in the new English version.
Kind Regards, John
Given that we are talking primarily about requirements for testing and certifying the work which has been undertaken, common sense would suggest that the answer is probably 'yes'. Even if one is replacing an existing part with 'one to the same specification', there is still scope for that work to be undertaken incompetently/unsafely, just as much as if it were being replaced with something of a slightly different specification.I guess that is the question, does replacing failed/worn out parts with replacements to the same specification count as alteration or not.
It may be what people often find, but (as it states itself) Approved Doc P is merely 'guidance', not law (i.e. not part of the Building Regs).Correct Approved Document P which is what people find when they look for the parts of building regulations. Personally I feel all the government information released on Part P leaves a lot to be desired.
It certainly does.Personally I feel all the government information released on Part P leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, we've always discussed that. As EFLI said:MINOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WORKS CERTIFICATE NOTES:........
As his says, it is the "may" which stops that being a clincher in this discussion, but I personally agree with him that it is logical to regard it as including 'maintenance' works (however one defines them!).MEIWC (p394) "This Certificate may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires, ... . Appropriate inspection and testing, however, should always be carried out irrespective of the extent of the work undertaken".I suppose it does say 'may' and is in an appendix but it does seem rather comprehensive and it would seem illogical to omit 'maintenance'..
Does not the problem start with Part P itself, which is so short (1 sentence) and vague that it essentially is necessary that there are other documents which give some specific detailed guidance - in particular, Approved Doc P which repeatedly indicates that compliance with BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P? Without that, no two people would have exactly the same views as to what constituted 'reasonable provisions', so that a lot of people wouldn't know what they had to do to comply with Part P and, perhaps more importantly for a bit of legislation, if would be next-to-impossible to ever enforce it.There is no need for Approved Documents <etc. etc.> because they are written by different people, contain inaccuracies and (mis)interpretations leading to the confusion which abounds.
Not really. We have the Wiring Regulations (as you go on to say).Does not the problem start with Part P itself, which is so short (1 sentence) and vague that it essentially is necessary that there are other documents which give some specific detailed guidance
So, all it needs is another (one) sentence.in particular, Approved Doc P which repeatedly indicates that compliance with BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P? Without that, no two people would have exactly the same views as to what constituted 'reasonable provisions', so that a lot of people wouldn't know what they had to do to comply with Part P and, perhaps more importantly for a bit of legislation, if would be next-to-impossible to ever enforce it.
I don't really know as other standards are allowed but I was always mystified why, in every C&G test it asks "Which of the following is NOT statutory?" <a list containing BS7671>.It would have been much simpler and clearer if Part P has simply made it a legal requirement to comply with BS7671, but I suspect that legal, commercial, political, bureaucratic or whatever considerations preclude a British Standard being used as the basis of legislation in that sort of fashion - stillp may be able to tell us a bit about that.
As I said, it would be so much simpler if the law simply required compliance with BS7671 - so the fact that it doesn't suggests to me that it's because of one of the (legal, commercial, bureaucratic etc.) reasons I mentioned. One obvious problem of having a law which says nothing other than "thou shalt comply with" a Standard published by an independent organisation is that, at least in theory, there can be no guarantee that the organisation will continue updating and publishing the Standard - so the law could end up 'meaningless'. It could also be that the BSI would be 'unhappy' about a piece of legislation which relied entirely on one of their Standards. As I said, stillp would seem to be a person who might be able to give some insight into these issues.Not really. We have the Wiring Regulations (as you go on to say). ... So, all it needs is another (one) sentence. ... I don't really know as other standards are allowed but I was always mystified why, in every C&G test it asks "Which of the following is NOT statutory?" <a list containing BS7671>. ... It always made me think that they were emphasising for some reason that it was NOT statutory.Does not the problem start with Part P itself, which is so short (1 sentence) and vague that it essentially is necessary that there are other documents which give some specific detailed guidance
Not in the latest version.Approved Doc P which repeatedly indicates that compliance with BS7671 is a way of demonstrating compliance with Part P
It might, but I doubt that the same considerations would have prevented legislation requiring ".... shall be carried out in compliance with any national standard of any member state of the EU ...." or however it needed to be worded.It would have been much simpler and clearer if Part P has simply made it a legal requirement to comply with BS7671, but I suspect that legal, commercial, political, bureaucratic or whatever considerations preclude a British Standard being used as the basis of legislation in that sort of fashion - stillp may be able to tell us a bit about that.
Agreed - but, as you say, there are repeated statements that things should comply with, or be done in accordance with, BS7671 (e.g. in 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.10 & 3.13).Yes, AD P does still refer to BS 7671 for definitions, and to say thing like "should comply with", but the crucial part about how to ensure compliance with the legislation now says this: ....
No mention of any need to comply with any particular EU or CENELEC, or EEA standard.
As you say, I'm sure that it would be legally/constitutionally possible - there are plenty of examples of legislation which include requirements to comply with various Standards etc. The main thing I was suggesting was that it would be 'dangerous' to have legislation which said nothing other than "thou shalt comply with BS7671", since that would leave the entirety of that legislation 'at the mercy' of the continued existence of (and continued acceptability of the contents of) that Standard - things that would be beyond the control of legislators.OK - IANAL, but to be honest I don't think that there has ever been anything out of our control which would have prevented us from mandating compliance with BS 7671 if we had wanted to.
I've never read a german regs book either but It's pretty easy to think this through from first principles.The Schuko socket is a major problem our regulations do not permit them but they are an European standard.
I have never read a German regulation book but I think likely there are other things which must be done to make the use of Schuko safe likely something like the use of twin pole MCB's.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local