Does anyone disagree with Chapeau's view ?
By the way Chapeau, why do you see the answer to 2) as "Probably Yes" ? - what are the issues ? Thanks
Does anyone disagree with Chapeau's view ?
By the way Chapeau, why do you see the answer to 2) as "Probably Yes" ? - what are the issues ? Thanks
Sponsored Links
what do you want to be told?
You are altering the circuit feeding the bathroom, do you agree?
The fitting i assume is less that 1 cm deep from the ceiling so therefore it falls into Zone 2
You are altering the circuit feeding the bathroom, do you agree?
The fitting i assume is less that 1 cm deep from the ceiling so therefore it falls into Zone 2
I do.
Spark123 does.
Flameport does.
Please read Schedule 2B, you'll see that you don't get exemption from notification in Para 1, as your changes will involve new fixed cabling, nor Para 2 because the location is in one of the Zones defined in BS 7671:2001, nor Para 3.
So it's notifiable.
IHNI why he does - it's definitely notifiable.
A
Atilla
no it`s not ...............
Sponsored Links
P
Paul_C
The wording of the regulations is somewhat vague in places, but by my interpretation both jobs are, strictly speaking, subject to notification.
But of course, if you would prefer not to give £100, £200 or even more to your local council for them to waste, who's going to know? I really can't see most people handing over that sort of money just to make a minor wiring change at a lighting outlet or to replace an MCB with an RCBO.
But of course, if you would prefer not to give £100, £200 or even more to your local council for them to waste, who's going to know? I really can't see most people handing over that sort of money just to make a minor wiring change at a lighting outlet or to replace an MCB with an RCBO.
OK - please show us where in Schedule 2B there is an exemption which would apply to swapping MCBs for RCBOs.
A ceiling rose, a round junction box and the round base on the majority of modern light fittings are all pretty much the same size. The only difference with some lights is that you might have to provide one extra connection block.
How about:
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;
(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only;
Replacing an MCB with a RCBO is not providing a consumer unit.
As for replacing the rose with a junction box, that would normally be possible without adding any new cabling. Even if it did, you could pedantically damage a bit of cable with a hammer to justify its replacement.
All irrelevant anyway, since the people who ask 'is this notifiable' probably have no intention of notifying even if it was required.
So changing one thing to something very different counts as "replacing"?
Particularly when they look at a 3:1 majority in favour of it being notifiable and then indicate a strong desire for the 3 to be wrong...
P
Paul_C
That's why I claim that much of the wording in the list of notifiable vs. non-notifiable work is very vague, even though I feel sure that the official position would be that this is notifiable.
But to analyze the precise wording of the legislation, one could certainly argue the point.
Does the wording in schedule 2B say that the replacement item has to be exactly the same as the original? No. Neither does it specify any sort of boundary point at which mere replacement would be considered provision of something new.
So to take a few more examples, which would you consider to be replacements under schedule 2B and thus non-notifiable?
1. Changing a Crabtree light switch for an MK light switch.
2. Changing a regular 1-way light switch for a dimmer switch.
3. Changing a pendant light & ceiling rose for a flush-mount light fitting.
4. Changing a switched socket outlet for an unswitched socket outlet.
Obviously in most locations those things could be covered by other exemptions from notification anyway (provision of extra lighting points not in a special location etc.), but it rather illustrates the point.
More on the consumer unit angle, would anyone really consider notifying building control and paying the extortionate fee to - say - replace rewireable fuses with BS1361 cartridge fuses in Wylex Standard board?
So as stated, it's really academic for the majority of people. Frankly, anyone notifying for such a minor replacement - whatever the official interpretation of the exemptions might be - is either paranoid about the possible consequences of the "unauthorized" work being carried out, or must be a card-carrying Communist who actually sees no problem with a dictatorial government regulating his life to such minute detail and charging exorbitant sums of money for doing so.
P
Paul_C
Oops! Accidental double post.
Well part p regs aren't well written often so sometimes it's not a black and white case. Though I am one who believes it's your house and you can do anything you like in it which is safe unless the law specifically stops you. Others on here will say you can do nothing in your own house unless the law specifically allows you.
Property rights vs nanny state.
Anyway.
This isn't a democracy so you need to look at the poster and his argument and you can safely ignore many on here.
So I would argue that :
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;
Specifically allows you to do it. You are replacing a CB with an RCBO and there is no fixed cabling which would mean something you might clip to a wall.
However.
If you look at the spirit of Part P (poorly written as it is) there is a lot of evidence that you cannot install/change the protective device of a circuit. Doesn't say so specifically, but many of the other provisions point to this.
(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;
(d) providing mechanical protection to an existing fixed installation, where the circuit protective measures and current carrying capacity of conductors are unaffected by the increased thermal insulation.
No new circuits either. When you think that you can add sockets to an existing circuit, the only main difference is what you do back at the consumer unit, i.e. put in a protective device.
So you can argue that 1 (a) specifically allows you to replace the breaker, whereas the spirit of part p doesn't.
So 'probably notifiable'.
Of course, I am a property rights person, so I know what I would do. And although I take a risk by saying so, as last time I did I got called stupid, it's going to be a safer circuit with an RCBO protecting it rather than a bog standard MCB.
Perhaps.
I expect "replace" to have its normal meaning, i.e. that the replacement undertakes the same (electrical) function as that which is replaced. Thus a fused spur could replace a socket and fused plug, a fluorescent light a filiament light. And an RCBO could replace a MCB. All providing the current rating is the same as or lower than the original.
If "replace" meant "the same as before", the phrase "like-for-like" or similar would have been used. If it meant "similar to before" it would have said so. Neither restriction applies, so it's reasonable to assume the normal meaning of "replace".
A
Atilla
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
Sponsored Links
