Clarification of regs -adding socket to ring. What required?

[BrotherKennyH]

Hi guys,
Thanks again for the replies. I may come here more often.

Paul_C,
I appreciate your point about testing any point in the circle, but when I imagined testing I was thinking about testing a complete or current installation. If you test at a socket or junction box anywhere for continuity around the ring then you already break the ring at your point of test. So the only way to test the whole ring is to break in at the MCB, otherwise your testing 2 halves of a ring connected at the CU. Plus from that point you can move around the ring from socket to socket until you get continuity and at that point you know you have just passed the bad connection. Not sure if that makes sense to an electrician, but it does to me

PrenticeBoy,
Yup the board is RCD protected, or at least half of it is. The house was supposedly rewired in 1999 so most of it isn't that old. There are just odd bits which I am surprised to see considering the house was rewired. Such as a round pin plug from ages ago connected to a lighting circuit and unnecessary junction boxes. I have started to get the impression that some wiring was done and the CU was changed, but I don't really think it should have been called rewire.

JohnW2,
What you say is pretty much how I had taken it. I just wanted someone elses opinion to improve my confidence a little. Basically I want to extend the ring to put a socket up to the loft and possibly another that will require taking the ring further into a rear bedroom.

Cheers

Kenny

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I appreciate your point about testing any point in the circle, but when I imagined testing I was thinking about testing a complete or current installation. If you test at a socket or junction box anywhere for continuity around the ring then you already break the ring at your point of test. So the only way to test the whole ring is to break in at the MCB, otherwise your testing 2 halves of a ring connected at the CU.

For basic continuity can you explain how there's a difference between disconnecting the conductors joined at an MCB terminal and at neutral/earth bars, and testing a ring composed via all the outlet/JB terminals, and disconnecting at any of the outlet/JB terminals and testing a ring composed via all the other outlet/JB terminals and the MCB & neutral/earth bars?

The only snag would be that as you trundled around to obtain the maximum R1+R2 figure you wouldn't be able to plug in at the CU.

 

[Stoday]

Installing a RCD at the board will then become notifiable work.

You could replace an existing MCB with an RCBO. Replacements are not notifiable.

 

[securespark]

[Dives for cover]

 

[Electrifying]

Installing a RCD at the board will then become notifiable work.

You could replace an existing MCB with an RCBO. Replacements are not notifiable.

It's not a replacement - you are changing the characteristics of the protective device for the circuit - a replacement would be like for like.

As far as I am concerned, nothing in Schedule 4 says that 'extending' a (ring or radial) socket circuit is notifiable (provided it's not in a kitchen or special location). As you say, the addition of sockets or fused spurs is explicitly indicated as non-notifiable, and what is that if it is not 'extending' the circuit? It's obviously implicit that the (non-notifiable) addition of sockets includes new 'fixed cable', so that clearly does not make the work notifiable

You are right in recognising that a very lengthy 'extension' of a socket circuit could introduce some electrical/engineering issues that should be considered - but I see nothing in Schedule 4 that says that adding sockets to an existing circuit would ever be notifiable, even if the cable were 50 metres long!

Kind Regards, John.

I think everyone is confusing whether this work is 'notifiable' with whether it requires 'Inspection, Testing and Certification'.

Regardless of whether you think the work is notifiable or not, what the OP is describing here:..........

Basically I want to extend the ring to put a socket up to the loft and possibly another that will require taking the ring further into a rear bedroom.

Cheers

Kenny

..........will require the integrity of the RFC to be tested on completion - i.e. the full 'figure of 8' testing.

As there isn't a facility to note these results on a MWC, it will have to be an EIC.

He will also need to IR test, Zs at each socket outlet and cofirm supply characteristics and the adequacy of his earthing arrangements.

As the OP is having trouble grasping the fact that you can split a ring final anywhere with the same results as doing it at the board, I personally don't think he's competent to do this.

A lot of fully trained electricians can't grasp the RFC three part testing, FFS.

So just telling him that 'Schedule 4' doesn't say it's notifiable is giving the wrong impression............that just means he doesn't have to pay the LBC or a qualified spark - it doesn't mean he can go ahead and do the work with his little 'socket and see' tester in his back pocket.

Out of curiosity - and anyone can answer this........

What advice would you give him if his current RFC consisted of 3 single socket outlets and he wanted to extend this RFC upstairs and add a further 6 double socket outlets??? (Still not notifiable!!)

Just plug your 'socket and see' in each one and 'jobs a good'n'???? Christ!

 

[Paul_C]

It's not a replacement - you are changing the characteristics of the protective device for the circuit - a replacement would be like for like.

Schedule 4 doesn't impose a condition that the characteristics aren't changed for a replacement. As debated recently here:

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=286025

 

[JohnW2]

As far as I am concerned, nothing in Schedule 4 says that 'extending' a (ring or radial) socket circuit is notifiable (provided it's not in a kitchen or special location). As you say, the addition of sockets or fused spurs is explicitly indicated as non-notifiable, and what is that if it is not 'extending' the circuit? It's obviously implicit that the (non-notifiable) addition of sockets includes new 'fixed cable', so that clearly does not make the work notifiable
You are right in recognising that a very lengthy 'extension' of a socket circuit could introduce some electrical/engineering issues that should be considered - but I see nothing in Schedule 4 that says that adding sockets to an existing circuit would ever be notifiable, even if the cable were 50 metres long!

I think everyone is confusing whether this work is 'notifiable' with whether it requires 'Inspection, Testing and Certification'.

I'm certainly not confusing anything, and I'm not quite sure why you shoud be apparently be using a quote of my message to make that point - since (as what you quoted demonstrated) I was explicitly and exclusively writing about what was, or was not notifiable.

So just telling him that 'Schedule 4' doesn't say it's notifiable is giving the wrong impression............that just means he doesn't have to pay the LBC or a qualified spark - it doesn't mean he can go ahead and do the work with his little 'socket and see' tester in his back pocket.

If you look at the context, I was specifically responding to his comment/question about what is and is not notifiable, following BAS's post which had consisted of just a link to 'Schedule 4'. Unless I've completely misjudged him, I think the OP will understand that my comments explicitly about notifiability, in response to his comments/questions about notifiability, did indeed relate to notifiability, and not to any other aspects about what he could/should be doing. As you are demonstrating, there are plenty of people around here more than willing to add their input in relation to those other matters.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Yes, I realise that John - I was using your post to hi-light my point.........which was that people seem to be missing what the OP is getting at.

He is confusing 'notifiable' with safety & regs requirements - in other words, by getting you (and others), to confirm the work isn't notifiable, he thinks that means he can do it himself.

I was pointing out that it wasn't so.

I was addressing everyone interested in the thread - not you personally

Schedule 4 doesn't impose a condition that the characteristics aren't changed for a replacement. As debated recently here:

Well, unless I'm reading a different 'Schedule 4'.

On two of the 'exemptions from notification' that it lists it states the words:

'...where the circuit protective measures are unaffected.'

Now, because they specifically mention that in relation to those two circumstances - I'm guessing they don't want you altering the circuit protective measures at any time.

Or do you think that it means only when 'replacing enclosures.....' and that if you add socket outlets your welcome to change the circuit protective measures without notification???

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

....people seem to be missing what the OP is getting at. He is confusing 'notifiable' with safety & regs requirements - in other words, by getting you (and others), to confirm the work isn't notifiable, he thinks that means he can do it himself.

I think you are probably misjudging the OP. In his initial post, he wrote:

While this work and other such work in non-notifiable am I correct in assuming that work like this requires a minor works certificate? And if so does that mean that other non-notifiable electrical works also require a minor works certificate ....?

To my mind, that indicates that he is not confusing notifiability with other requirements.

Well, unless I'm reading a different 'Schedule 4'. On two of the 'exemptions from notification' that it lists it states the words: '...where the circuit protective measures are unaffected.'
Now, because they specifically mention that in relation to those two circumstances - I'm guessing they don't want you altering the circuit protective measures at any time.

That one has been done to death here fairly recently, and there are a good few whose interpretation/'guessing' is opposite from yours - i.e. they feel that since the Schedule has chosen to explicitly mention alteration to circuit protective measures in two specific areas (neither of which relate to the type of work we're discussing), they would have done so in relation to other exemptions if they had wished to again exclude alteration of those protective measures. After all, we're talking about legislation, in which the word, not one's 'guess' of what the word was meant to be, is what counts .....

Or do you think that it means only when 'replacing enclosures.....' and that if you add socket outlets your welcome to change the circuit protective measures without notification???

As above, that's what the word of the law appears to say - no matter how daft you and I may believe that to be!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

I think a degree of common sense needs to be applied - the reason changing a protective device for a circuit is notifiable is because it is beyond the scope of a DIYer or amateur to do correctly and safely..........slightly more difficult than changing or adding a socket outlet.

I mean, how silly do we want to be when interpretting??

Let's take my house -

If I got an electrician round to replace my old wylex 4-way plus shower with a nice new Wylex dual RCD.

If I got him to split the tails and fit the new CU feeding two double pole isolators, two bayonet lamp-holders and two single socket outlets (6 circuits, all in cupboard under the stairs)

I could then rewire my house without notifying, as all I'm doing is extending the existing 'new-cu' circuits from under the stairs.

But guess what - that's not how I'd interpret it. Would you?

 

[JohnW2]

I think a degree of common sense needs to be applied - the reason changing a protective device for a circuit is notifiable is because it is beyond the scope of a DIYer or amateur to do correctly and safely..........slightly more difficult than changing or adding a socket outlet.

As you say, that's total common sense - but is it the law?

I mean, how silly do we want to be when interpretting??

'Interpretation' of laws only becomes an issue (or possible) if there are ambiguities, lacks of clarity or unaddressed issues. If the word of the law is clear, then I'm not sure that even the highest court in the land has the authority to interpret it in a manner different from what the words say - even if that court believes the words to be contrary to common sense, or even 'natural justice'.

If I got an electrician round to .... I could then rewire my house without notifying, as all I'm doing is extending the existing 'new-cu' circuits from under the stairs. But guess what - that's not how I'd interpret it. Would you?

Again, although it may offend against common sense, that appears to be what the word of the law says, without any need for 'interpretation'.

I think you have admirably illustrated why, no matter how well intentioned, the implementation of Part P has been incompetant. It could be that it was never going to be practical to implement/police effectively, but it would at least have stood some chance had the legislation been drafted in an even half-sensible fashion. As things are, as you have illustrated, a lot of it just clashes with common sense.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[securespark]

Like you, who often contributes pointless waffling many sided meaningless bollerx.

Like you, who often contributes pointless waffling insults.

 

[Electrifying]

I'd have to agree with that, John.

If I had my way there wouldn't be any DIY 'allowable' electrical work ....apart from the swapping of like for like accesories - any 'domestic' electrical work would have to be done by a registered spark or notified to LABC by a qualified/competent spark.

To be honest, it would probably be better to do away with the LABC 'notification' bit and make all domestic electrical work have to be done by a registered spark.

As BAS has proven time and time again - too many people come on here thinking it's so easy and are totally oblivious to the dangers.

DIYers definitely shouldn't be allowed to go poking around in consumer units.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[Paul_C]

Well, unless I'm reading a different 'Schedule 4'.

On two of the 'exemptions from notification' that it lists it states the words:

'...where the circuit protective measures are unaffected.'

Now, because they specifically mention that in relation to those two circumstances - I'm guessing they don't want you altering the circuit protective measures at any time.

If that it is what was intended, then wouldn't you expect that to be what it says? But as schedule 4 stands, it doesn't say that.

As noted in the other thread, the condition of "where circuit protective measures are unaffected" appears in 1(c) & 1(d), but not in 1(a). As the condition was written explicitly into 1(c) & 1(d) for replacing enclosures and providing mechanical protection, it's reasonable to assume that had that condition been intended to apply to replacements as well, then it would also have been included in 1(a).

At the very least, even if the original intent was for it to apply to replacements, clearly that intent did not get translated properly into what schedule 4 actually says. That's not our problem; we are expected to abide by the legislation as it is written, and not to try and second-guess what the intent was when it was drafted.

Or do you think that it means only when 'replacing enclosures.....' and that if you add socket outlets your welcome to change the circuit protective measures without notification???

I think that's exactly what it says. You can replace items (e.g. an MCB) without notification by virtue of the exemption in 1(a). You can extend a circuit and add sockets (kitchens etc. excepted) without notification by virtue of the exemption in 2(c).

Is it illogical to permit that without notification but require notification for something like the current carrying capacity of a cable being reduced as described in 1(d)? Yes, certainly. But then it's also illogical to permit somebody to add a socket to a circuit in his living room without notification but not in his kitchen.

I think a degree of common sense needs to be applied - the reason changing a protective device for a circuit is notifiable is because it is beyond the scope of a DIYer or amateur to do correctly and safely..........

Beyond the scope of some DIY'ers or amateurs. But then extending a circuit to add a socket is also beyond the scope of some DIY'ers or amateurs to do correctly and safely. Conversely, there are many DIY'ers and amateurs who have a much better understanding of the fundamentals than some supposedly "qualified" electricians. I've seen statements from the latter on various forums which indicate that some clearly have very little grasp of some basic principles.

If I had my way there wouldn't be any DIY 'allowable' electrical work ....apart from the swapping of like for like accesories - any 'domestic' electrical work would have to be done by a registered spark or notified to LABC by a qualified/competent spark.

Absolutely not. As a basic principle I would never countenance anything which attempted to prevent a homeowner from carrying out any work he wishes on his own home.

Besides, it doesn't work. It's been tried in places like Australia and New Zealand with no improvement in accident statistics. Just the reverse in fact.