Can they can't they

[JohnW2]

I was chatting a while back with a guy at an IET lecture about, amongst other things, the description of a new circuit. He described connecting to a vacant FCU as being identical to connecting to a vacant fuse/MCB in a CU, especially if the CU is a submain.

Electrically speaking, that's obviously true.

However, in terms of "what was in the minds of" those who wrote the 'notification rules' even pre-2013, when very much more electrical work was notifiable (as it still is in Wales), one of the few things which explicitly was not notifiable was the addition of an FCU (and connection of something to it) to an existing circuit - so I really don't believe they intended that the massive 'relaxations' of notification requirements (in England) in 2013 should have the effect of making such (previously non notifiable) work suddenly become notifiable!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

If a Gasman is competent to wire up from the FCU to the boiler, he can also do the same from the CU. Flameport homed in on that.

I would say that depends on your definition of competent.

If you mean competent, as in he knows what to do, then there is every possibility that he would know how to wire to an fcu, but not know how to do the same from the CU.

If you mean the "legal" definition of competent, then yes, I imagine that they should be able to do both.

 

[ericmark]

Law wise if I enter into a contract that says I am or am not permitted to do some thing while at work, that is law, and I worked for Laing as an Electrician before and after the building of the second seven crossing, but on the second seven crossing I was employed as a foreman mechanic, I would told insurance would not cover if I worked on any electrical work unless I had some one employed as an electrician with me.

I had cross trade knowledge, and was competent in both, but due to the way the insurance was worded I could not work without another electrician being with me, it was as broad and long as if I had been employed as an electrician I could not do the mechanical part without another mechanic with me, the insurance did not cover multi-trade.

With other Laing jobs there was no such restriction, it was simply down to the insurance on that job. Or at least the way some one had read the document. It would of course be very easy to on the next job where multi-trade was allowed to in error say I could not work on electrical equipment.

Also there is the lone working rules, I could go to a set of portable traffic lights on the side of the road and repair them on my own, but if I needed to return to the depot to do some work in middle of the night, I had to call out a second guy to be with me.

 

[hard-work]

Electrically speaking, that's obviously true.

However, in terms of "what was in the minds of" those who wrote the 'notification rules' even pre-2013, when very much more electrical work was notifiable (as it still is in Wales), one of the few things which explicitly was not notifiable was the addition of an FCU (and connection of something to it) to an existing circuit - so I really don't believe they intended that the massive 'relaxations' of notification requirements (in England) in 2013 should have the effect of making such (previously non notifiable) work suddenly become notifiable!
Kind Regards, John

Addition of an FCU. Vague. That could mean a cable to the CU fitting an MCB and FCU. In many cases it is easier to connect to a CU that has a spare slot, adjacent to a boiler, say in the basement, than attempt to cut into a cable elsewhere. That would be the addition of an FCU which is not notifiable?

As Flameport highlighted, if you can do the FCU onwards, you can do any cable backwards.

 

[ericmark]

I think it was an unfortunate selection of terms when it was called the competent persons scheme, it implies those who have not become a member are not competent, which it not true.

There is also the phrase new circuit, to make a circuit current needs to flow, normally controlled by a switch or rely, once it has flowed once, if it flows again it's not new, and the book says a circuit is considered formed when an over current device is used, i.e. fuse/MCB/RCBO it is not clear if a RCD forms a circuit as it is an over current device, but not through the circuit, but from the circuit to something outside the circuit. However the way it says circuits must be created to "reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation" it would seem it is considered as forming a circuit, but is this an IET definition or a government definition?

So if you plug in a new device that has never been used before it forms a new circuit, however one would hope every appliance sold is tested before being sold, so at least some parts will have been forming a circuit some time in the past, so it is not a new circuit, but an old circuit modified, in other words to form a new circuit in the home is rather rare. However we know this is not what the law maker intended when they used the phrase "new circuit" so the law needs to be added to using case law, so some court has to rule as to if adding a FCU is a new circuit.

As normal scheme providers, and other what we consider official bodies have tried to clarify the law, but putting it simple, they can't, it needs to be a court, so if a scheme provider tells its members fitting a FCU is not considered as a new circuit we do not need to issue a compliance certificate for that work, likely courts of law would accept that as coming from an expert witness. So they would rule the same, but until a court has ruled, then we simply don't know, we can only guess.

We have had some daft laws, the one on import of peanuts is the one normally given, normally thought as gobbledygook, and we are seeing this at the moment over travelling into Wales to exercise, so you can't take a run around Chester football ground as part is in England and part in Wales, but likely the ground is all locked up anyway, so it will never happen.

The same with what is a circuit, unless some very officious council guy takes some one to court, the court will never rule on it, and faced with £100 plus vat to notify the work or a court case, it is highly unlikely there ever will be a court case. However I have said so many times, few people want to be involved in a test case, there are some, the women who broke into the nuclear submarine for example, but most don't, so likely in 20 years time the same questions will still come up, what is a "new circuit" and we will have the same answer, no one knows.

 

[JohnW2]

Addition of an FCU. Vague. That could mean a cable to the CU fitting an MCB and FCU.

If that were all it said, then you would be right but, as I said, one of the few things that were allowed withjout notificatin pre-2013 (and still today in Wales) was to add an FCU (and, by implication, whatever was connected to it) to an existing circuit. If you want the actual 'chapter and verse', it said that things which could be done without notification included ...

"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;"

In many cases it is easier to connect to a CU that has a spare slot, adjacent to a boiler, say in the basement, than attempt to cut into a cable elsewhere. That would be the addition of an FCU which is not notifiable?

No - as abopve, it would only be non-notifiable if it were connected to an 'existing circuit' - which most definitely would not be the case if it originated at what had been 'a spare slot' in a CU.

As Flameport highlighted, if you can do the FCU onwards, you can do any cable backwards.

No, he said the opposite - that if you were NOT competent to do work safely upstream of a FCU to the satisfaction of EAWR, then the same law would say that you were also NOT cont competent to do work safely downstream of the CU. However, as I keep saying, even if you are competent to work in compliance with that law (EAWR), that does not remove your need to abide by the other law (the Building Regulations) which require you to notify notifiable work.

 

[ericmark]

Addition of an FCU. Vague. That could mean a cable to the CU fitting an MCB and FCU. In many cases it is easier to connect to a CU that has a spare slot, adjacent to a boiler, say in the basement, than attempt to cut into a cable elsewhere. That would be the addition of an FCU which is not notifiable?

As Flameport highlighted, if you can do the FCU onwards, you can do any cable backwards.

The common question is "can I" and 9 times out of 10 the answer is yes, you can, it may not comply with laws and regulations, but if you ask can I drive a diesel car wheel driven at 350 MPH then as long as you can buy the JCB Max yes you can. We all consider adding a FCU is not notifiable, and adding a garage or shower consumer unit is, but in real terms they both form circuits, so there is no good reason why that should be the case. As to consumer unit, if you use non approved MCB, simply wrong make, then it is technically not a consumer unit, and with the shower version where it supplies just one item it could not even be called a distribution unit, and what we ask is where is the demarcation line, clearly the homes main distribution unit be it technically a CU or not, should be notified when fitted or changed, but if a gas fitter feels adding a FCU forms a new circuit I can't find any test case to show he is wrong.

Personally I think of the house ring as a ring final, so since it has that word final, anything coming from the ring final can't be a new circuit, or we would call it a ring not a ring final, but that is a personal thought, I have no way to prove I am right or wrong, so if the gas man when he cometh says it does form a new circuit then I can't really say he's wrong.

 

[ericmark]

If that were all it said, then you would be right but, as I said, one of the few things that were allowed with out notification pre-2013 (and still today in Wales) was to add an FCU (and, by implication, whatever was connected to it) to an existing circuit. If you want the actual 'chapter and verse', it said that things which could be done without notification included ...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;"

No - as above, it would only be non-notifiable if it were connected to an 'existing circuit' - which most definitely would not be the case if it originated at what had been 'a spare slot' in a CU.
No, he said the opposite - that if you were NOT competent to do work safely upstream of a FCU to the satisfaction of EAWR, then the same law would say that you were also NOT cont competent to do work safely downstream of the CU. However, as I keep saying, even if you are competent to work in compliance with that law (EAWR), that does not remove your need to abide by the other law (the Building Regulations) which require you to notify notifiable work.

This is not what the law says, it is what the approved document writers consider the law means, and the quote is only now valid for Wales.

 

[JohnW2]

This is not what the law says, it is what the approved document writers consider the law means, and the quote is only now valid for Wales.

Eh? It's nothing to do with any Approved Document - as I said, it's a direct "copy and paste" of what the law (Schedule 2B of the Building Regulations) said (for both England and Wales) prior to 2013 and, as you say, what the law still says for Wales even today.

Your quote above is from the law. If it also appears in an Approved Document, it is because it has been copied from the law, not produced by the "approved document writers".

As you would understand if you've been following what I've been saying, since the law (in England) prior to 2013 explicitly allowed an FCU to be added to an existing ring final or radial circuit without notification, it is essentially impossible to believe (despite what they wrote, perhaps without thinking about the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit') that their intention was that the the extensive relaxation of notification requirements (in England) should make such work (previously not notifiable) notifiable - don't you agree?

Kind Regards, John

 

[hard-work]

I suppose it is having a list of what today is not notifiable.

 

[hard-work]

No, he said the opposite - that if you were NOT competent to do work safely upstream of a FCU to the satisfaction of EAWR, then the same law would say that you were also NOT cont competent to do work safely downstream of the CU.

Which implies the converse. If you are competent to do one side of a FCU, then you are competent to do the other.

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose it is having a list of what today is not notifiable.

Today's (post-2013) list for England lists just three things which are now notifiable (one of which is a 'new circuit'). Pre-2013 in England (and still today in Wales) there was a list, almost as short, of the things which did not require notification.

 

[hard-work]

https://electrical.theiet.org/bs-76...england-and-wales/frequently-asked-questions/
What types of electrical work are notifiable?

The introduction of the latest version of Part P was introduced on 6 April 2013, the range of works requiring notification has been reduced.

Notifiable works

• The installation of a new circuit
• The replacement of a consumer unit
• Any addition or alteration to an existing circuit in a special location

Non-notifiable works

• All other work is considered non-notifiable, namely additions and alterations to existing installations outside special locations, maintenance, replacement and repair work.

Special locations and installations

• A room containing a bathtub or shower
• A room containing a swimming pool or sauna heater.

A special location means:

• A room containing a bath or shower, the space surrounding a bath tap or showerhead where the space extends vertically from the finished floor level to a height of 2.25 metres or the position of the showerhead where it is attached to a wall or ceiling at a height higher than 2.25 metres from that level or horizontally where there is a bathtub or shower tray, from the edge of the bath tub or shower tray to a distance of 0.6 metres. Or where there is no bath tub or shower tray from the centre point of the shower head where it is attached to the wall or ceiling to a distance of 1.2 metres.

 

[JohnW2]

....The introduction of the latest version of Part P was introduced on 6 April 2013, the range of works requiring notification has been reduced. ...

Indeed. That's exactly what I've been saying - so what is your point?

 

[JohnW2]

Which implies the converse. If you are competent to do one side of a FCU, then you are competent to do the other.

True - but, as I said, the requirement for law-abiding citizens to also comply with the law about notification is always there, regardless of compliance (or not) with EAWR.