DIY cable management of consumer unit

[Igi]

Hey all,

Used this forum for many years and this is the first time I've been unable to find an existing thread with an answer so finally made an account to post myself.
Summary
I'd like to know if tidying up the wiring inside a consumer unit is considered notifiable. As per Part P, I know that all the following is notifiable:

(a) installation of new circuit
(b) replacement of CU
(c) addition/alteration in special location

And it clarifies that the following is non-notifiable:

addition/alteration to existing installations outside of special locations, and replacements, repairs and maintenance anywhere.

I know everything needs to comply with BS 7671 for installation and testing, notifiable or not. But, from my understanding, a simple cable tidy up inside an existing CU (would involve some re-terminating and possibly some wagoboxes if things need extending) and making sure the circuits are all marked/labelled properly would not be notifiable work? Or is that possibly dancing the line a little as far as building control goes?

Background/Context
I bought this property a couple years ago and it had the old rewireable fuses in. I got these promptly replaced and we've now got a bog standard contactum split load unit setup which has since been spurred off a smaller unit that has an MCB for the EV charger before coming off the supply isolation switch.
The trades that fitted the unit (BritishGas did the work as they supplied the property when we moved in and it had a prepayment meter fitted so we couldn't switch to Octopus for a while) made a right mess of it with spaghetti junction of cabling crammed into the box and loose wagos to extend old circuits hanging out.
The EV charger installer (top guys at Octopus Energy) did a gorgeous job with everything nice and tidy with everything all labelled up using the nice little plastic cable markers.
Anyway, that's me rambling... The whole point is I want the space to get some CV clamps onto some circuits (grand smart home plans in the long run) and I also will be looking at a partial rewire at some point for the older circuits (not doing that myself, nobody panic... I haven't got the time or energy for that either way ). I want a nice and clear circuit diagram of the full house with everything properly labelled and neatly organised just to make everyone's lives easier for future work.
So, all I plan on doing is making sure all the cabling is tidied up, routed properly, terminated with slack for future work, and marked up. No commissioning new circuits and no alterations to the layout of the board otherwise.
I will say, I feel like calling up a sparky to complain that my CU is too messy and asking them to tidy it up would be a laugh.

Bonus question
Would swapping out an MCB for an RCBO be notifiable? I guess it could be argued that's not like-for-like maintenance of an existing install and could be classed as notifiable. Our CU is a high integrity one and could have a circuit shifted off the RCDs onto an RCBO. Both of our socket circuits are on a single RCD and it's a pain in the ass when something trips and the entire house just shuts off. Doesn't exactly happen often but there has been times were a lot of devices on the circuits have caused enough leakage current to trip things. Long term plans would be to have a full RCBO board but unless some money falls out of the sky then that won't be happening any time soon.
The other option would be to get the extension (my office/workshop room) onto it's own circuit (currently on the downstairs sockets) as that is the main culprit of such devices but that would be a bit of a wasted cost as long-term (more ideal) plan is to have a workshop down the garden with a dedicated circuit off the main CU and it's own board for distribution... but lofty plans for future.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Firstly, I should like to say that you seem a very intelligent person and as such are as qualified as anyone else to work out what the regulations mean.
They are generally quite poorly written.

I'd like to know if tidying up the wiring inside a consumer unit is considered notifiable. As per Part P, I know that all the following is notifiable:
(a)the installation of a new circuit;
(b)the replacement of a consumer unit; or
(c)any addition or alteration to existing circuits in a special location.

Does any of that say tidying up the wiring?

And it clarifies that the following is non-notifiable:
addition/alteration to existing installations outside of special locations, and replacements, repairs and maintenance anywhere.

After reading (c) why would anyone think it worth writing that?
Although they seem to have overlooked the replacement of consumer units which is notifiable.

I take it you are reading Approved Document P (guidance); not Part P of The Building Regulations (Law) which merely states:

and Regulation 12 which contains the notifiable work.

The Building Regulations &c. (Amendment) Regulations 2012

These Regulations amend the Building Regulations 2010 (“the Building Regulations”), the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010 (“the Charges Regulations”) and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 2010 (“the Approved Inspectors Regulations 2010”).

www.legislation.gov.uk

Approved Document P (and the other letters) is merely a pointless guidance book someone decide to write about the much shorter actual regulations.

I know everything needs to comply with BS 7671 for installation and testing, notifiable or not. But, from my understanding, a simple cable tidy up inside an existing CU (would involve some re-terminating and possibly some wagoboxes if things need extending) and making sure the circuits are all marked/labelled properly would not be notifiable work? Or is that possibly dancing the line a little as far as building control goes?

No, of course it is not notifiable.

Bonus question
Would swapping out an MCB for an RCBO be notifiable?

That is a case where you will have to decide yourself.
The definition of a circuit in our world is:
"Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device(s)."
So - is replacing that overcurrent device making a new circuit?

I guess it could be argued that's not like-for-like maintenance of an existing install and could be classed as notifiable.

"Like for like" never appears in the regulations; the term used is simply "replacements".

 

[ericmark]

@EFLImpudence has given a good answer, I only have an old copy of BS 7671 in fact 2008, and it says circuits designed after and the date, so it seems it is down to date designed, not the date installed.

But really is does not matter what the regulations say, you know anything touched needs inspecting and testing once complete, My son had all my test gear, so I did by a new insulation tester cheap enough at £35 and a clamp on ammeter also £35 which can measure down to 1 mA, but the RCD tester and the loop impedance tester are expensive, I do know some one who will lend them to me, but it means no traceable record for the calibration.

The main problem is the RCD protection be it a RCD or RCBO, I have found in the past the strain exerted by the cables can be enough to cause them to fail, even a plug in socket tester with loop and RCD test cost £50 and the loop is often 1.9Ω and past mark is 1.39Ω and the RCD test does not show time, and you can't measure 40 mS with a stop watch.

So is it really worth tidying up when you can't test after.

 

[JohnW2]

@EFLImpudence has given a good answer, I only have an old copy of BS 7671 in fact 2008, and it says circuits designed after and the date, so it seems it is down to date designed, not the date installed.

Yes, but, for a start, that's only related to compliance with BS767 - but, more to the point, it surely has absolutely no relevance to what is, or is not, notifiable - either in 2008 or today, does it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Igi]

Firstly, I should like to say that you seem a very intelligent person and as such are as qualified as anyone else to work out what the regulations mean.
They are generally quite poorly written.


Does any of that say tidying up the wiring?


After reading (c) why would anyone think it worth writing that?
Although they seem to have overlooked the replacement of consumer units which is notifiable.

I take it you are reading Approved Document P (guidance); not Part P of The Building Regulations (Law) which merely states:

View attachment 335295

and Regulation 12 which contains the notifiable work.

The Building Regulations &c. (Amendment) Regulations 2012

These Regulations amend the Building Regulations 2010 (“the Building Regulations”), the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010 (“the Charges Regulations”) and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 2010 (“the Approved Inspectors Regulations 2010”).

www.legislation.gov.uk

Approved Document P (and the other letters) is merely a pointless guidance book someone decide to write about the much shorter actual regulations.


No, of course it is not notifiable.


That is a case where you will have to decide yourself.
The definition of a circuit in our world is:
"Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device(s)."
So - is replacing that overcurrent device making a new circuit?


"Like for like" never appears in the regulations; the term used is simply "replacements".

Hey!
Thank you for your time and I really appreciate the thorough response. I've seen your replies on many threads over the years and they've always been extremely detailed and beyond helpful.
You are correct, I was referencing Approved Doc Part P in my post. I wrongly assumed that it was a word-for-word reference to the building regs. I appreciate the clarification on that and I'll be sure to take the extra effort to refer to the regs themselves in future. I do agree, in hindsight, it is a pretty pointless doc when you read the actual regs...

I'm glad my interpretation of the regs was correct in regards to if the work is notifiable. I wanted to be extra sure as I couldn't find any example cases anywhere stating as such.

The definition of a circuit in our world is:
"Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by
the same protective device(s)."
So - is replacing that overcurrent device making a new circuit?

Again, looks like my initial assumption would be correct here in that a simple swap of the MCB with an RCBO of equal rating should be perfectly fine. It does look like this specific question has actually been answered on these forums before but I threw this one in there before checking so apologies for that.

---

@EFLImpudence has given a good answer, I only have an old copy of BS 7671 in fact 2008, and it says circuits designed after and the date, so it seems it is down to date designed, not the date installed.

But really is does not matter what the regulations say, you know anything touched needs inspecting and testing once complete, My son had all my test gear, so I did by a new insulation tester cheap enough at £35 and a clamp on ammeter also £35 which can measure down to 1 mA, but the RCD tester and the loop impedance tester are expensive, I do know some one who will lend them to me, but it means no traceable record for the calibration.

The main problem is the RCD protection be it a RCD or RCBO, I have found in the past the strain exerted by the cables can be enough to cause them to fail, even a plug in socket tester with loop and RCD test cost £50 and the loop is often 1.9Ω and past mark is 1.39Ω and the RCD test does not show time, and you can't measure 40 mS with a stop watch.

So is it really worth tidying up when you can't test after.

Thank you for the response and I do entirely agree with you. However, if I were to undergo this work (likely not any time soon as I need to pre-plan and have the time for it), I would be sure that it was thoroughly tested by calibrated professional equipment.
I trust my experience and abilities, and haven't much regard for myself; but I care more about the safety of those who also live here and the property itself. Blazin' in like a cowboy and calling it good is not something I'm comfortable with, regardless of my abilities.
I have some calibrated test equipment myself and qualified acquaintances that can help out with the rest and/or the testing itself. Or, failing that, an EICR on this place probably wouldn't be a terrible idea anyway, especially if I do plan on getting any rewiring done.

---

Again, I thank you all for your time and speedy responses.
If I ever undergo any of this work I'll be sure to post some pretty pictures of the setup for anyone interesting in that kind of boring stuff like me

 

[Notch7]

Another way of looking at it is this:

If you tidied up the CU then subsequently sold the house, would the survey pick up any notifiable electrical work which has no accompanying certificate? A = no.

So the only arbiter of compliance is your conscience

 

[JohnW2]

I'm glad my interpretation of the regs was correct in regards to if the work is notifiable. I wanted to be extra sure as I couldn't find any example cases anywhere stating as such.

Indeed.In fact,although it might not be easy to find,it's a topic which has frequently been discussed in this forum.

In England (Wales very different), the situation is very straightforward since, as has been said, only three things remain notifiable - but even the wording of those three things has not been thought through properly.

For example, as regards CU, only replacement of a CU is notifiable - so, in the eyes of the law, installation of an additional CU would presumably not be notifiable. Furthermore, although some would undoubtedly argue about this, having installed an additional CU, I personally do'tr see why one could then not transfer all of the existing circuits from the 'old' CU to the 'additional one'. Some would argue that they then became 'new circuits' (hence notifiable) but I don't personally see that - if one goes by the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit', it excludes the OPD (MCB or RCBO) - so, if nothing else about the circuit has changed, I don't see why/how it would/could qualify as a 'new circuit'. One small complication is that the Building Regs do not define 'circuit' (let alone 'new circuit') so I don't see what one can do other than rely on the BS7671 definition!

Again, looks like my initial assumption would be correct here in that a simple swap of the MCB with an RCBO of equal rating should be perfectly fine. It does look like this specific question has actually been answered on these forums before but I threw this one in there before checking so apologies for that.

Indeed, it follows from what I've written above that changing MCBs or RCBOs should not be notifiable, since it constitutes neither 'replacing a CU' or 'installing a new circuit', and certainly is not in a 'special location'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[pcaouolte]

For example, as regards CU, only replacement of a CU is notifiable - so, in the eyes of the law, installation of an additional CU would presumably not be notifiable. Furthermore, although some would undoubtedly argue about this, having installed an additional CU, I personally do'tr see why one could then not transfer all of the existing circuits from the 'old' CU to the 'additional one

So, can we shove an additional CU in near the existing CU, transfer all the circuits to it and then immediately install another additional CU exactly where the original one was (to keep the cables tidy)?

 

[Taylortwocities]

So, can we shove an additional CU in near the existing CU, transfer all the circuits to it and then immediately install another additional CU exactly where the original one was (to keep the cables tidy)?

All those circuits, and the consumer unit, will be notifiable.

 

[JohnW2]

So, can we shove an additional CU in near the existing CU, transfer all the circuits to it and then immediately install another additional CU exactly where the original one was (to keep the cables tidy)?

As I wrote, "some would undoubtedly argue about this" but, following the logic I described above (based on the stupid way that the law has been worded), I personally don't see why that could not be done (without notification) - and the law says nothing about "removing a CU"being notifiable

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

All those circuits, and the consumer unit, will be notifiable.

As I implicitly asked, why? If one uses the BS7671 definition of a circuit (since the Building Regs don't offer one), then 'a circuit'; excludes the OPD - so if nothing else has changed, I don't see how any of the circuits could qualify as 'new', can you?

I think we all know "what they intended" but when it comes to legislation, what (all) that matters is what they have written (even if it doesn't correctly state their 'intention'), and not even a Court can over-ride that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

Why? Well, like so many, having spent years being qualified, buried in regulations, piled up with calibrated expensive test equipment, paid to join the notifications club, insured and do everything according to the requirements of LABC etc.

I will, at every chance, object to anybody who expects to be able to grab a get out of jail free card.

 

[JohnW2]

Why? Well, like so many, having spent years being qualified, buried in regulations, piled up with calibrated expensive test equipment, paid to join the notifications club, insured and do everything according to the requirements of LABC etc.

I don't really understand what any of that means in relation to the requirements for notification stated (very badly!) in the legislation.

I will, at every chance, object to anybody who expects to be able to grab a get out of jail free card.

Are you saying that you object to legislation which has been worded in such a (very bad) way that it can be argued that it enables "CU work" to be undertaken without having to pay someone who has "spent years being qualified, buried in regulations, piled up with calibrated expensive test equipment, paid to join the notifications club, insured and do everything according to the requirements of LABC etc." (or, alternatively,pay the LABC for notifying it themselves) ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[pcaouolte]

Or alternatively, like many people, buy a cheap CU from one of the DIY sheds, bung it in without any testing and hope for the best.

 

[JohnW2]

Or alternatively, like many people, buy a cheap CU from one of the DIY sheds, bung it in without any testing and hope for the best.

Sure, plenty of people are happy to break the law, and good few of them don't seem to care (or don't realise that there is a need to care) about their own safety and the safety of those around them.

It is not appropriate in a place like this (or anywhere, really) to suggest either that people should break the law or that they should undertake electrical work which they are not competent and/or adequately equipped to undertake it safely, but I know which of those two I consider to be the more important.

Indeed, if they undertake the work competently and undertake adequately testing (but do not notify) then they would have satisfied the important part of the law (Part P of the Building Regs), with the only bit of the law they will have broken being their failure to notify the work (which, let's face it, is only there to confirm that work complies with Part P).

Kind Regards, John