Extending a ring - Notifiable or not?

[Hmm]

I have looked at Part P General Guidance Table 1 & Additional Notes, and searched this forum, but still not clear whether extending a ring circuit (not in a 'Special Location or Installation') is in fact Notifiable.

Is it that just inserting sockets isn't, but inserting sockets and additional cable is?

 

[plugwash]

i would consider adding stuff to include adding the cable needed to add said stuff (otherwise it would have been rather pointless allowing it at all).

 

[Hmm]

Yes, what you say seems reasonable, but it could argued adding cable is more complicated in that it may bring Regs into play re maximum circuit lengths/voltage drop etc and therefore a good case for being notifiable?

 

[Spark123]

I agree with Plugwash in it is not notifiable, it does still however have to comply with P1 of part P in that it has to comply with "P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury." In other words your best way of showing compliance will be to comply with the iee regs. (AFAIK none of the other eu states have ring circuits).

 

[RF Lighting]

I would agree with non-notifiable, as you are extending an existing circuit in a non-special location. However the work still needs to comply with BS7671, and must be tested and the apropriate certificate issued upon completion of the work.

 

[Hmm]

Seems that non-notifiable wins the day - thanks for that.

Re RF's comment on need for "appropriate certification" - whilst obviously desirable, particularly when looking to sell a house, is this certification mandatory for non-notifiable minor work, no matter how compliant a DIYer's work might be?

If so, and bearing in mind forum comments that electricians probably wont want to turn up just to certify someone else's work, it would seem pointless for DIYers to ever bother extending a ring no matter how minor it might be. Am I picking this up right?

 

[Softus]

However the work still needs to comply with BS7671...

I can see this is A Good Idea™, but surely "needs to comply" with this single specific standard is not what the law requires?

 

[RF Lighting]

However the work still needs to comply with BS7671...

I can see this is A Good Idea™, but surely "needs to comply" with this single specific standard is not what the law requires?

[/pedant]

Sorry maybe "needs to comply" was the wrong choice of words. perhaps it should have read something more like "Compliancy with BS7671 is by far the easiest and most common way keeping the installation legal."

 

[Softus]

[/pedant]

Aw shucks, you're just saying that, you tinker.