Definition of 'new circuit' (new notifiability - England)

[riveralt]

What if you've split an existing ring, rather than adding a new one ?

Assuming you mean simply chop the ring in half, with both halves becoming radials supplied by the same MCB then, IMO, still not a new circuit.

One would hope that the MCB (normally 32Amp for RFC) is replaced one that now reflects the new Radial final circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

What if you've split an existing ring, rather than adding a new one ?

Assuming you mean simply chop the ring in half, with both halves becoming radials supplied by the same MCB then, IMO, still not a new circuit.

One would hope that the MCB (normally 32Amp for RFC) is replaced one that now reflects the new Radial final circuit.

Sure, as you say, one would hope that would be the case. However, I was merely commenting on whether I thought it involved any 'new circuits' - which, in terms of the interpretation I'm using, it doesn't. I certainly don't think that changing an MCB (even to one of lower rating) creates any 'new circuits', and nor would such a change, per se, be notifiable under current (England) rules (there might have been some debate under pre-April, or current Welsh, rules).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

So in real terms the new circuit is a non starter. Any DIY guy is going to say something like "It was for an old immersion heater I just re-routed for another function.

In general, it's not really a 'non-starter'. If it is completely new wiring which originates from a new (previously not present) MCB/RCBO in the main/only CU, then I don't think that any of us could find a way of arguing that it was not a 'new circuit'.

OK yes new all (including MCB/RCBO) clearly is new circuit. I was overdoing it there.

So next is the scheme member electrician. Here we have something very different. This guy is not controlled by Part P he is controlled by the scheme provider. So he has to inform his scheme provider with what they say he has to do. It is down to the scheme operator to say what is a circuit. ... So if the scheme operator says a FCU is not a new circuit then that's that.

I very much doubt that a scheme operator can 'over-ride' the Building Regs.

I was not advocating the scheme operator could over-ride however they can under contract law enforce members to do things not required by civil law. So even if the law does not require notification for new sockets in a kitchen the scheme operator could demand they are notified. They can ask for more than required by civil law.

If it were to be determined (e.g. by a Court) that the law is to be interpreted as meaning that a fused spur is a 'new circuit', then the scheme operator would be stuck with that.

Yes most laws are case law rather than statue law and once there is a case things will be clarified but I some how don’t think a case is likely to be brought which will clarify.

The scheme operators obviously can (and maybe do) offer guidance to their members as regards the interpretation of these 'grey areas' of the legislation (and their guess is as good as ours!) - and I suppose that they could even make that 'guidance' binding on their members, so long as it did not conflict with the law.

That is exactly what I am saying. They should support their members and that support should include clarifying the grey areas.

This has been done many times with IET regulations where for example they told members two RCD’s are enough to comply with regulations.

Until a body with some authority be it a court or electrical safety council or other makes a statement as to what they consider is required in the grey areas to comply we can hardly advise anyone on how to read the requirements. It could even be a local authority building inspector who says there is no need to register that. But however much we try to interrupt what has been stated in the “Approved Documents” we are not really in a position to past this on to others. It is up to anyone doing the work (scheme member) or having the work done for them (when not using scheme member) to decide for themselves what requires notifying.

If the electrical safety council issued guidance on their website and it was followed then some LABC decided to take that person to court it would be a good defence that they had taken the advice given on an official website. In the same way as dealing with lights with no earth wire. However it does need some organisation to clarify.

So what do the scheme providers tell their members. Can the instructions be reproduced here or a link provided so we can read them please.

It would certainly be interesting to know what (if anything) the scheme operators say to their members about these things. Given that what we're actually talking about is interpretation of the law, I rather suspect that they will be careful 'not to stick their necks out' too far, and therefore may be very guarded/limited in terms of what they say about interpretation of the law. Indeed, for all I know they might totally pass the buck, and simply say that things must be notified if the law says they are notifiable - i.e. effectively passing the buck to the electrician.

Kind Regards, John

The scheme operators owe it to their members to give guidance as to what is required. However of course in many cases the more that is done through the scheme the more the scheme operator makes.

So does ever the scheme operator inform the member "You don't need to tell us about that"?

 

[EFLImpudence]

By definition 'guidance' cannot be enforced.

The schemes have no authority to enforce any rules they may 'make up'.

They do not (NICEIC may try) as far as I can remember tell us to do anything other than follow BS7671 so that they can check what you have done and the certificates you have completed.

I have only once asked them for advice relating to electrical work and as it was not a black and white answer related to a regulation, which was why I was asking, I got the distinct impression that a commitment was being avoided.

 

[JohnW2]

I was not advocating the scheme operator could over-ride however they can under contract law enforce members to do things not required by civil law. So even if the law does not require notification for new sockets in a kitchen the scheme operator could demand they are notified.

But that surely is not the role of operators of self-certification schemes? As I understand it, they exist so as to allow their members to self-certify work which the law requires to be notified to LABC and, indeed, they pass on confirmation of that notification to the relevant LABC.

As you say, I suppose that they could additionally demand (as a condition of membership) that members of their schemes 'notified' to them (but not to LABC) work which was not required (by law) to be notified to LABC, but what would be the point of that, and do you really think they would do that? It certainly would be going beyond the concept of a 'self-certification scheme'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

What if you've split an existing ring, rather than adding a new one ?

Assuming you mean simply chop the ring in half, with both halves becoming radials supplied by the same MCB then, IMO, still not a new circuit.

Actually I meant break the ring and add extra cables to make the two radials back into rings - but the end result is the same.

 

[JohnW2]

Until a body with some authority be it a court or electrical safety council or other makes a statement as to what they consider is required in the grey areas to comply we can hardly advise anyone on how to read the requirements. It could even be a local authority building inspector who says there is no need to register that. But however much we try to interrupt what has been stated in the “Approved Documents” we are not really in a position to past this on to others. It is up to anyone doing the work (scheme member) or having the work done for them (when not using scheme member) to decide for themselves what requires notifying.

That's what I said - it's always ultimately going to be down to the person undertaking the work (and not a 'scheme operator' or anyone else) to make a decision/judgement as to whether or not the work requires notification. However, although it's obvious that none of us can 'advise', I would suggest that discussing these grey areas, in the way that we are doing, is a very healthy way of helping those who have to make these decisions to formulate their own opinion on the matter, don't you? No-one is going to spoon-feed them with 'the answer'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

What if you've split an existing ring, rather than adding a new one ?

Assuming you mean simply chop the ring in half, with both halves becoming radials supplied by the same MCB then, IMO, still not a new circuit.

Actually I meant break the ring and add extra cables to make the two radials back into rings - but the end result is the same.

Oh, I see. Having two ring finals off the same MCB is a bit unconventional. I can't see that as being any worse, electrically, than a single ring final - but since ring finals (with the usual combination of cable CCC and OPD rating) are only allowed by virtue of a specific 'dispensation' in the regs, I guess there would be some debate as to whether having two of them hanging off the same MCB would be compliant (since such a design is not explicitly mentioned in the 'dispensation'). However, if it were compliant, I presume that could be done without changing the MCB. As riveralt said, if you literally just chopped the ring, changing it to two radials, and assuming it was 2.5mm² cable, you'd have to change the MCB, probably to a 20A one.

Kind Regards, John

 

[jamesmcbride]

What if you've split an existing ring, rather than adding a new one ?

Assuming you mean simply chop the ring in half, with both halves becoming radials supplied by the same MCB then, IMO, still not a new circuit.

Actually I meant break the ring and add extra cables to make the two radials back into rings - but the end result is the same.

Oh, I see. Having two ring finals off the same MCB is a bit unconventional. I can't see that as being any worse, electrically, than a single ring final - but since ring finals (with the usual combination of cable CCC and OPD rating) are only allowed by virtue of a specific 'dispensation' in the regs, I guess there would be some debate as to whether having two of them hanging off the same MCB would be compliant (since such a design is not explicitly mentioned in the 'dispensation'). However, if it were compliant, I presume that could be done without changing the MCB.

And how would you record this on the certificate? Just the highest of the r1, r2 and rn values?

If they are two rings coming back to the cu, then they should be on separate protective devices. And the new circuit should be notified

 

[EFLImpudence]

And how would you record this on the certificate? Just the highest of the r1, r2 and rn values?

I think that would do but you could record both and explain.

If they are two rings coming back to the cu, then they should be on separate protective devices.

It would be preferable.

And the new circuit should be notified

Is it new?

This is where we came in.

 

[jamesmcbride]

And the new circuit should be notified

Is it new?

This is where we came in.

Oh ok, maybe I misunderstood what was being proposed.

I thought what was being suggested was essentially a new ring running off an existing PD. My point was that this should go to a new PD and therefore should be notified.

Same with "spare" mcb's left in a cu. I think anything connected to these constitutes a new circuit too. The original EIC wouldn't have had any of the characteristics of the circuit connected to that mcb recorded, so therefore it must be new. Or at least that is how I presume the courts would see it if it came to that?

 

[JohnW2]

And how would you record this on the certificate? Just the highest of the r1, r2 and rn values?

Possibly, but since you'd only know which had the highest values by measuring both, you might as well record both. Either way, you'd have to add an explanation. To be fair, I don't think that Simon was suggesting that anyone would convert one ring into two rings connected to thesame OPD (what would be the point?) he was merely using it as a hypothetical step in his argument.

If they are two rings coming back to the cu, then they should be on separate protective devices....

That may be your opinion, but what would be your electrical justification for saying that?

...And the new circuit should be notified

If you connected one of the created 'small rings' to a new protective device, I agree.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Same with "spare" mcb's left in a cu. I think anything connected to these constitutes a new circuit too. The original EIC wouldn't have had any of the characteristics of the circuit connected to that mcb recorded, so therefore it must be new. Or at least that is how I presume the courts would see it if it came to that?

That is what the thread has been discussing.
I'm not sure I've read it all.

IF it IS new then yes.

If you feel it should be notified then notify,
If someone else takes the alternative view then it won't be notified.

As for getting to court ...

 

[ericmark]

I seem to remember we are supposed to check for a figure of 8 with a ring and the figure of 8 is not permitted. I have questioned why but no real answer given. To use one MCB to feed two rings could be considered to be a form of figure of 8 so not permitted. However I can't find a regulation saying no figure of 8 should be used just the testing procedure checking there is not a figure of 8 in Book 3.

I do see of course splitting a ring into two radials even though one would be fitting an extra MCB would not really be a new circuit.

Also correcting a fault like two rings on the same MCB to having a MCB for each ring would also not be a new circuit. Again in spite of using an extra MCB.

To do a job in two parts in order for it not to be considered as a new circuit would be morally wrong but if one as I tried to say before fitted a spur from the consumer unit then later moved it to it's own MCB then it would not be a new circuit but if originally connected to it's own MCB it would.

Had an electrician been writing the rules I am sure it would have simply said work on a consumer unit. Or fitting new devices into a consumer unit.

The problem is the new document says what you can't do without notifying but old one said what you could do without notifying this means it is far easier to twist it into saying what you want it to say.

 

[JohnW2]

That is what the thread has been discussing. I'm not sure I've read it all. IF it IS new then yes.

Exactly my view. As I keep saying, my interepretation is that if the ciurcuit has a new (previously absent, or previously unused) 'primary' OPD, then it's a 'new circuit'. Otherwise it isn't. Simples.

Kind Regards, John