Can they can't they

[hard-work]

My point was the first post. A competent Gassafe man can put a J box in circuit run 50 yards of cable to a boiler. Fit the FCU and boiler wiring. All legal and non-notifiable.

A common scenario.. A cylinder is being removed with the immersion FCU still on the wall. A combi is going in the same cupboard.
Now. The Gassafe man replaces the 16A mcb with a 6A mcb or RCBO. Then replaces the FCU, with a 3A fuse, connecting up the combi. All legal. Using an existing circuit. Non-notifiable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

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

It is nothing to do with Part P.
Introduced in 2005, it has not changed.


The notification requirements from 2005 were in The Building Regulations Schedule 4 in England and Wales.
Wales is still the same.
Since 2013 in England they are in Regulation 12.

 

[JohnW2]

My point was the first post. A competent Gassafe man can put a J box in circuit run 50 yards of cable to a boiler. Fit the FCU and boiler wiring. All legal and non-notifiable.

IF the junction box is connected to an existing circuit then, yes (provided he is competent to do it safely), but as I keep saying, notifiable (hence not 'all legal' if not notified) if it comes from an MCB/RCBO in the CU which is not (and has not been) supplying something else - which seemed to be what you were suggesting when, in your first post, you wrote:

.... He was adamant they cannot run a cable back to a CU

A common scenario.. A cylinder is being removed with the immersion FCU still on the wall. A combi is going in the same cupboard. Now. The Gassafe man replaces the 16A mcb with a 6A mcb or RCBO. Then replaces the FCU, with a 3A fuse, connecting up the combi. All legal. Using an existing circuit. Non-notifiable.

Yep, few people would disagree with that - but there would be no point in replacing the 16A MCB. However, that's different from 'running a (new) cable back to the CU'.

I presume you realise that regulations are not meant to make sense, or necessarily to be logical (or necessarily even sensible)

 

[EFLImpudence]

My point was the first post. A competent Gassafe man can put a J box in circuit run 50 yards of cable to a boiler. Fit the FCU and boiler wiring. All legal and non-notifiable.

Well, allowable and not notifiable but he might not do it legally; i.e. complying with Part P.

A common scenario.. A cylinder is being removed with the immersion FCU still on the wall. A combi is going in the same cupboard.
Now. The Gassafe man replaces the 16A mcb with a 6A mcb or RCBO. Then replaces the FCU, with a 3A fuse, connecting up the combi. All legal. Using an existing circuit. Non-notifiable.

Some might argue that changing the MCB is creating a different, therefore new circuit. It's up to you.

You can either make excuses why things are not notifiable or make up reasons why things are notifiable.


Also, the Gas safe man will tell you the FCU with 3A fuse is an electrical requirement; it is not.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I presume you realise that regulations are not meant to make sense, or necessarily to be logical (or necessarily even sensible)

I am beginning to think they are intentionally made ambiguous to allow 'wriggle room'.

 

[hard-work]

Some might argue that changing the MCB is creating a different, therefore new circuit.

There may be a mcb with 1 foot of cable coming from the CU. Extending the cable 50 mtrs is not installing a new circuit. Replacing an mcb, which is just a part of a circuit, is not installing a new circuit.

 

[hard-work]

there would be no point in replacing the 16A MCB.

He wants to do it because he thinks an RCBO is safer - his choice, nothing wrong with it. So he does some work inside the CU - changing the mcb, a part of an existing circuit, with an improved mcb, the RCBO. The RCBO makes sure any faults on his work does not interfere with other circuits, as would be the case with a generic RCD. Testing is also easier.

All legal and non-notifiable. All this assumes the man is competent.

 

[hard-work]

I am beginning to think they are intentionally made ambiguous to allow 'wriggle room'.

I think so too.

 

[JohnW2]

I am beginning to think they are intentionally made ambiguous to allow 'wriggle room'.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with such a suggestion - although, in this case, I suspect it's a case of not thinking things through very well. Indeed, those who write the notification rules may not even be familiar with the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit'!

Talking of "regulations which are not meant to make sense", I realise that it's a totally different type of 'regulation', and that it no longer matters to you what is going on in the UK, but ...

... if my understanding is correct, as of yesterday I am 'allowed' to leave my home ('without good excuse') and go and spend as much time I like in an open space such as a park, together with an unlimited number of other people, so long as everyone keeps at least 2m apart, PROVIDED THAT all of those other people (or, at least, all-but-one of them) are strangers. However, if two or more of these other people qualify as my 'friends or family', then I am seemingly not allowed to be there

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The RCBO makes sure any faults on his work does not interfere with other circuits, as would be the case with a generic RCD. Testing is also easier.

There's certainly no reason why an RCBO should not be used - although, as EFLI has said, some people would say that changing the circuit's protective device from an MCB to an RCBO could constitute 'creating a new circuit' - with the notification implications that come with it.

As for 'testing is also easier', if you mean 'fault finding', then that is true in some circumstances, in that it will immediately identify which circuit has a fault, but it can also be an impediment to fault finding, since the RCBOs normally used give no indication as to whether they have tripped because of over-current or residual current, so that work will sometimes have to be done to determine the nature of the fault (which would not be necessary if an MCB or RCD had tripped).

 

[JohnD]

Well, allowable and not notifiable but he might not do it legally; i.e. complying with Part P.

The 28 words of requirement P1 should always be complied with.

There is no requirement P2.

 

[ericmark]

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

I apologise for error, in the old days of BAS he had posted it so many times to show what it didn't say, the new circuit rule however is a little daft, it is rare to complete a total new circuit, in most cases some part of it has formed a circuit in the past. But the main point is if you enter into a contract in the main that is legal binding, so to follow it is law. It does not matter if that is gas safe, the insurance company, or his employer, as long as the contract does not ask him to do some thing illegal, then it is law.

This is why I think with an EICR the regulation should be quoted which is broken and it should say why it is broken, I have been given a old PIR before name changed, and have tried to actually see why it has fail, and can't see what rule has been broken, and following best practice guide it showed items plugged in, i.e. not part of the installation as being a reason for the failure. I would have said that was beyond my remit.

So in this case we have the same, the gas man has not said what law stops him, I remember my dad having new central heating installed, and the plumbers would not connect to the FCU and plugged it in until next day when electrician arrived and connected it to the FCU, after testing it. This was back in about 2005 so Part P was in, but had not been going long. I will guess, but only a guess, that it was because the boiler was in the kitchen.

 

[securespark]

However, if two or more of these other people qualify as my 'friends or family', then I am seemingly not allowed to be there

As long as you are 2m apart, I can't see anything in the CV Regs 2020 that disallows it.
Don't forget, the verbal D that spewed forth from the PM is NOT what is in the legislation.
Which is why the police got so much stick for banging on about "shopping for essentials".

 

[CBW]

This thread is quite interesting to me. I work for a housing landlord, and the electrical manager allows us to connect to the fcu, and I have replaced the switch plates on fcu’s, and sometimes have to decommission the old thermostat from it if installing a new wireless one. Now I always use my Martindale ez650 to check the sockets (looking for good earth), then what I’m told is the earth fault loop impedance after work is carried out (I’ve never seen our electricians do any of this). I’ve never been asked to fill out a mwc or notify the work. Would anyone say this is incorrect? Against the law? I was also told the wiring regulations aren’t enforceable?

 

[JohnW2]

As long as you are 2m apart, I can't see anything in the CV Regs 2020 that disallows it. ... Don't forget, the verbal D that spewed forth from the PM is NOT what is in the legislation.

Hmmmm (my emphasis).....

4. Visiting public places
You can exercise outside as often as you wish and from Wednesday 13 May, you can also sit and rest outside – exercise or recreation can be alone, with members of your household, or with one other person from outside your household, while keeping two metres apart at all times.

From Wednesday 13 May, you may drive to outdoor publicly accessible open spaces irrespective of distance, but should follow social distancing guidance whilst you are there.

Are you saying that the government's published guidance document does not correctly reflect whatever relevant legislation they may have created?

Kind Regards, John