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

[ericmark]

The problem is we can't use BS7671 definitions as they would class a FCU as a new circuit. ... So in the house all electrical equipment is supplied from the DNO fuse so it is all one big circuit with sub-circuits taken from it. ... OK before you shout I know that's not what it means. But it would be one way of interrupting it. If a FCU is a sub-circuit then why is the consumer unit not also producing sub-circuits? ... So if we can't use BS7671 definitions then it becomes a free for all.

I'm not going to 'shout', because I agree with you. What you're calling a 'free for all' is what I've been calling a 'grey area', where the individual undertaking electrical work has (if(s)he is concerned about 'notifiability') to make a judgement, based on his/her individual interpretation (maybe aided with discussions such as this) of the meaning of 'new circuit'.

I've made my suggestion, which seems to correspond to common sense to me. For a start, I don't think that it's sensible or helpful (in context) to regard the whole of an installation as 'one circuit' because it's all protected by the DNO fuse. Secondly, I only think in terms of 'primary' OPDs - i.e. those in CUs or switch-fuses etc. supplied directly from 'the origin of the installation' (meter in a domestic instal) - hence excluding any 'sub-circuits' potentially created by FCUs, 'sub-CUs' or whatever. That is obviously just my way of looking at it and, as you will point out, it's not exactly what BS7671 says - but it seems to make pragmatic sense. You, or others, may well have different ideas - and it's for each of us to apply whatever interpretation we feel is appropriate when deciding whether electrical work we do should be regarded as notifiable.

The English language is unlike most others in that the dictionaries show how the word is used rather than what the word means.

To be fair, decent dictionaries usually do both.

Kind Regards, John

I agree with you. So to clarify if you replaced a shed so using the original supply from house you would consider the new consumer unit fitted in the new shed would not need notifying to LABC in England. Not that it helps me I live in Wales.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with you. So to clarify if you replaced a shed so using the original supply from house you would consider the new consumer unit fitted in the new shed would not need notifying to LABC in England.

I'm not sure I completely understand. Are you talking about using a pre-existing feed to a shed and connecting a new 'shed CU' to it? If so, then, yes, I would personally suggest that would not now be notifiable in England - the feed is not a new circuit, and (as just explained) nor would I consider circuits connected to that 'sub-CU' in the shed to be new circuits, either - and 'provision of' a new CU (rather than 'replacing a CU') is not something which is now said to be notifiable. Others may well disagree with me!

Not that it helps me I live in Wales.

Why do you say that - because of the 'provision of a CU' (in the shed)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Out of interest I decided to look up "Consumer Unit" and I considered the Oxford Dictionaries to be one which would likely be accepted so it says:-

Definition of consumer unit
noun

an apparatus in the electrical supply at the point it enters a domestic property, which contains devices such as a switch and circuit-breakers.

So it would seem any distribution or automatic disconnection devices after the point where the electrical supply enters the building are not classed as consumer units. I have looked at Consumer Unit and Distribution Board and the type testing and incorporated double pole isolation on the incomer seems to be main difference.

Consumer unit (may also be known as a consumer control unit or electricity control unit). A particular type of distribution board comprising a type-tested co-ordinated assembly for the control and distribution of electrical energy, principally in domestic premises, incorporating manual means of double-pole isolation on the incoming circuit(s) and an assembly of one or more fuses, circuit-breakers, residual current operated devices or signalling and other devices proven during the type-test of the assembly as suitable for such use.

Distribution board. An assembly containing switching or protective devices (e.g. fuses, circuit-breakers, residual current operated devices) associated with one or more outgoing circuits fed from one or more incoming circuits, together with terminals for the neutral and circuit protective conductors. It may also include signalling and other control devices. Means of isolation may be included in the board or may be provided separately.

So with a consumer unit with IET definition if I do not fit MCB/RCBO's manufactured by the maker of the box then it's no longer a consumer unit as the assembly has not been type tested.
I personally think the new English Part P is very sloppy and it is now so hard to show that any work is non compliant due to not registering. It does however give some teeth to help stop sub standard work. But really there is no change as I have not read of a single case where some one has been taken to court for purely not registering work. For claiming to be a scheme member when they were not yes, for sub standard work yes, but not for purely not registering the work.

I am told the Welsh Assembly is monitoring how the changes effect the safety of work completed in England before following suit. However I would suspect job public is unaware of the changes anyway so very little is going to change with DIY work.

What is more interesting is professional work. Will kitchen fitters re-start doing kitchen electrics? And will insurance companies insure them to do the work?

 

[JohnW2]

Out of interest I decided to look up "Consumer Unit" ...

Yes, I suppose that was always going to be the 'next thread'! As you say, on the basis of available definitions (none of which are in the Building Regs), one can argue that something is not a CU if it is not a 'type-tested' DB containing only approved components, or even because it is not at the origin of the installation.

I personally think the new English Part P is very sloppy and it is now so hard to show that any work is non compliant due to not registering. It does however give some teeth to help stop sub standard work.

Also you talk of 'Part P', I presume that (given the context) you are actually referring to the issue of 'notifiability' ('Part P' hasn't changed, even in England). If so, then I agree it is 'sloppy', but only in one respect, namely the absence of full and very clear definitions of the terms used (e.g. 'new circuit', 'consumer unit'). Without that there will always be uncertainties (what you called a 'free for all'), which is not satisfactory. As things stand, there are (in England) now only three things specified as notifiable, and there are uncertainties regarding definitions and/or clarity for all three! Given that, for better or worse, it has clearly been decided (in England) that they now only want a very small number of things to be notifiable, it seems to make sense for the regulations to state what is notifiable, rather than what is not notifiable - but clear definitions are crucial to consistent interpretation (and that should be very easy, since there are so few things which they need to define).

I am told the Welsh Assembly is monitoring how the changes effect the safety of work completed in England before following suit.

Yes, I noted that earlier, but I fear that it's probably just an excuse for putting off a decision - since, in reality, I see little if any hope that they will be able to ascertain what effect (if any) the changes have had on safety, no matter how much 'monitoring' they do!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Before I go and get the popcorn, how would people consider this scenario ...

New CU is installed, with some spare ways, and the spare ways are populated with "likely" fuses/MCBs, with a tail of cable terminating in a junction box.
Later, someone comes along and connects <something> to the tail by means of the junction box.

I think that looking at people's opinions, they would consider this as extending an already existing circuit - as a circuit already existed (the OPD, length of cable, and JB).

Whilst it might be considered a bit OTT to install a new CU, with nothing but a load of such tails (and a double socket for the builders to use while they build the rest of the house), I have seen this done. Specifically I recall a farmer I used to work for many years ago had the house fully rewired. As the fuse boxes were in a bit of an awkward location, he did exactly as I've described and left two circuits with JBs in a more accessible location - one of which later got extended to supply the tool shed.

Also, if I were adding a new circuit - and hence having to pay LABC fees - then I'd do exactly that if I could foresee any further requirements. For the cost of a breaker and some cable, it's an investment against future LABC fees.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s). So in the house all electrical equipment is supplied from the DNO fuse so it is all one big circuit.

No, because the DNO fuse does not protect the equipment and cables in the house, it protects the DNO cable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I personally think the new English Part P is very sloppy

Oh, the irony of that.

You make that complaint, yet your use of the term "Part P" is about as sloppy as it is possible to be, and it's a sloppiness which you repeat over and over and over again, no matter how many times people tell you that you are misusing it.

 

[JohnW2]

Before I go and get the popcorn, how would people consider this scenario ...

Before I go on, just to be clear, my reason for starting this thread was not to explore ways in which people could 'wriggle out' of the need for notification under the new (England) rules - but, rather, to try to achieve a consensus (if one exists) on how people think those rules ought to be 'normally' (and 'reasonably') interpreted - i.e I suppsoe an attempt to decide what the regs 'intended'.

New CU is installed, with some spare ways, and the spare ways are populated with "likely" fuses/MCBs, with a tail of cable terminating in a junction box. Later, someone comes along and connects <something> to the tail by means of the junction box. I think that looking at people's opinions, they would consider this as extending an already existing circuit - as a circuit already existed (the OPD, length of cable, and JB).

Have we not largely done that one to death in the past? The situation hasn't really changed much as a result of the April changes in 'the rules'. Both before and after April, 'extension' of most existing lighting and sockets circuits could be undertaken without notification. Since April, one can argue that any 'circuit' can be 'extended' without notification (except within bathroom zones), so it's now just a bit 'wider' - but the concept is the same.

Of course, this all takes us back to my OP, since it comes down to the (unstated) defintion of 'a circuit' (and 'a new circuit') that the law intends. If the Building Regs actually included a decent definition, we would know the intent - and a sensible/clever person writing that definition may well have written it such as to exclude a bit of cable connected to a JB. Let's face it, a 'real circuit' subsequently connected to that JB is, in common sense terms, a 'new circuit', and the chances are that those amending the legislation thought that they were making such work notifiable - even if they probably have not achieved that with the wording they've used!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Before I go and get the popcorn, how would people consider this scenario ...

New CU is installed, with some spare ways, and the spare ways are populated with "likely" fuses/MCBs, with a tail of cable terminating in a junction box.
Later, someone comes along and connects <something> to the tail by means of the junction box.

I think that looking at people's opinions, they would consider this as extending an already existing circuit - as a circuit already existed (the OPD, length of cable, and JB).

This does happen and when the builder provides cooker connection units we would not think of informing (In England) the LABC before connecting the cooker.

This really points out the problem with the English used. Until some current using equipment is turned on there is no circuit. Once turned on once any use there after is of course not new. The testing of the installation using a earth loop impedance or a RCD meter will mean a circuit as been completed so after that point it will no longer be a new circuit.

This means also the results will be recorded and for the first time in this discussion I can see some way to define a new circuit.

So here goes:-
New Circuit - A circuit for which there is no previous record in the schedule of test results.

It would seem we got hung up looking for definition of "circuit" rather than "new circuit" what I now wait for is what the others consider.

 

[JohnW2]

This does happen and when the builder provides cooker connection units we would not think of informing (In England) the LABC before connecting the cooker.

Indeed - and not just that. It's by no means unknown for (at the time of re-wiring) 'provision to be made for' things that are not currently needed, but may be in the future (cookers, showers, outdoor lighting, even outhouse supplies).

This really points out the problem with the English used. Until some current using equipment is turned on there is no circuit.

As I keep saying, I agree that the whole subject is crucially dependent upon definitions (which the legislation does not provide), but I don't really agree with what you say there. As far as I am concerned, a circuit is a circuit, whether or not it has ever carried current.

So here goes:- New Circuit - A circuit for which there is no previous record in the schedule of test results.

I think that one probably fails 'at the first hurdle', since there will presumably often be no 'previous record'.

It would seem we got hung up looking for definition of "circuit" rather than "new circuit" what I now wait for is what the others consider.

I think I disagree - definitions of both are important (unless, of course, you create a 'combined definition'). Before something can be a 'new circuit', it has to satisfy some definition of being 'A circuit', doesn't it? One of the main issues (in present context) is, as we've discussed, whether a 'sub-circuit' of an existing circuit is a 'new circuit' or not. I have been suggesting that (partially to avoid it catching an FCU situation) a 'sub-circuit' is not a 'new circuit', but others probably disagree!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I do see there is a problem pre-2004 where consumer units could have been fitted without paper work being completed or kept.

However since 2004 any change of consumer unit or adding of circuits should have been notified to the LABC.

Also every 10 years a PIR or EICR should have been carried out so that document would also show what circuits existed.

I was like your self considering the FCU and how that could be considered as not being a circuit so in view of what you have said what about.

New Circuit - A circuit for which there is no previous record in the schedule of test results, Minor Electrical Works, Periodic Inspection Report, or Electrical Installation Condition Report.

I do see a problem in that 314.1 shows splitting into circuits also includes RCD so it could be argued that everything after the RCD was a circuit so many houses have two circuits which are then sub-divided.

What I am putting forward is that we need to consider the word "new" as well as "circuit".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This does happen and when the builder provides cooker connection units we would not think of informing (In England) the LABC before connecting the cooker.

Until the latest amendments, the installation of a new built-in cooking appliance (i.e. not a replacement) was notifiable.

 

[JohnW2]

I do see there is a problem pre-2004 where consumer units could have been fitted without paper work being completed or kept. ... New Circuit - A circuit for which there is no previous record in the schedule of test results, Minor Electrical Works, Periodic Inspection Report, or Electrical Installation Condition Report.

[I presume you mean pre-2005]. The problem is that the reality is that, for whatever reasons, there is going to be an absence of previous 'paperwork' (including absence of notification) for an awful lot of installations, no matter when work had been undertaken on the installation. A definition of 'new circuit' based on paperwork would therefore be frought with practical problems. Are you suggesting that, in the absence of any 'previous paperwork', that all circuits would have to be regarded as 'new'? That surely would be unrealistic! The other crucial issue with your proposed definition is that, as I keep saying, until you define what a 'circuit is', there's no real way of defining a new circuit - the first two words of your proposed definition are 'A circuit....'!

Nor would your definition address many of the issues we've been discussing. Consider that other thread which stimulated me to start this one. If 'previous paperwork' showed a circuit going to a mini CU in an outhouse, and it was now proposed to run a feed from that mini CU to a second outhouse, would that new work, by your definition, be a 'new circuit' or not?

What I am putting forward is that we need to consider the word "new" as well as "circuit".

That sounds like the same as I said. First one has to define 'circuit' and then define 'new circuit'. As your proposed example above illustrates, to attempt to define 'new circuit' without also defining 'a circuit' cannot really work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

New CU is installed, with some spare ways, and the spare ways are populated with "likely" fuses/MCBs, with a tail of cable terminating in a junction box. Later, someone comes along and connects <something> to the tail by means of the junction box. I think that looking at people's opinions, they would consider this as extending an already existing circuit - as a circuit already existed (the OPD, length of cable, and JB).

Have we not largely done that one to death in the past? The situation hasn't really changed much as a result of the April changes in 'the rules'. Both before and after April, 'extension' of most existing lighting and sockets circuits could be undertaken without notification. Since April, one can argue that any 'circuit' can be 'extended' without notification (except within bathroom zones), so it's now just a bit 'wider' - but the concept is the same.

OK, so what if I disconnect that piece of cable and connect a new piece that serves the equipment ? Does that change anything, and why ?

And suppose I did remove that piece of cable, I now have an empty fuse/MCB - to which I now connect <something>. How is this different to a situation where the cable wasn't installed in the first place ?
So why should connecting <something> to a spare MCB already installed be different to connecting that <something> to a tail that's been installed ?

So why should it be different connecting to an empty MCB compared to connecting to one that used to have a piece of cable in it ?


And to finish off, does adding an MCB to a CU create a new circuit if there is nothing connected to it ?

 

[JohnW2]

OK, so what if I disconnect that piece of cable and connect a new piece that serves the equipment ? Does that change anything, and why ?

You're really asking me to answer questions about a set of rules which is so imprecisely written that the answers are always going to be "your guess is as good as mine" ... Anyway, which end of the cable are you talking about disconnecting - the fuse/MCB end or the JB end? Whichever, I agree it would be totally daft to believe that there was a difference, but I've been suggesting an interpretation which would mean that connecting 'a circuit' to the JB end would not be 'a new circuit', whereas to connect it straight to the fuse/MCB would. As I said, daft!

And suppose I did remove that piece of cable, I now have an empty fuse/MCB - to which I now connect <something>. How is this different to a situation where the cable wasn't installed in the first place ?

See above. Daft though it may be to suggest such a difference, I imagine that most people would say that a circuit, which hadn't been present previously and which was connected to a 'spare' fuse/MCB would be a 'new circuit'.

So why should connecting <something> to a spare MCB already installed be different to connecting that <something> to a tail that's been installed ?

See above.

So why should it be different connecting to an empty MCB compared to connecting to one that used to have a piece of cable in it ?

See above. None of this makes any logical sense.

And to finish off, does adding an MCB to a CU create a new circuit if there is nothing connected to it ?

An easy one, at last, I think. No, I don't think that an MCB alone creates a new circuit - so I don't think that adding an MCB to a CU (but not connecting anything to it) is now notifiable in England (even though there would be no conceivable point in doing it!).

Kind Regards, John