Kitchen ring main cable size

This thread is a joke, a simple post that could have been helpfully answered with the single word "yes"is now 4 pages of argument. I'm not sure to what objective the rest exists.
Sponsored Links
That's why he has been banned by every other forum, he must own this one.
The forum is a joke, thanks to BAS.
Go and complain to the comedians who think that yes, of course an electrician can be expected to say that he was responsible for an unqualified DIYer's design into which he had zero input, and of course he can say he was responsible for the construction when he wasn't even aware it was happening until it was finished, and of course he can tell Building Control that he did the work and it complied with the regulations.

Actually, on the last point, you might instead find that you encounter comedians who say that a new circuit is not a new circuit and is therefore not notifiable.

When you've done that, I suggest you look back at the whole topic, and note that what happened was that I pointed out what the wording on an EIC was, and then a whole bunch of people descended and tried to pretend that it was otherwise, or that a new circuit wasn't notifiable, or that the Building Regulations don't mean what they say but instead mean something which they don't say.

I am not responsible for, and will not be held responsible for, the interminable chuntering of people who wish that regulations said something other than what they do say and act as if we should all pretend that they say what they wish they did.
Sponsored Links
I'm not sure to what objective the rest exists.
If you want to know that, I suggest you ask the people who think that "person carrying out the work" does not mean "person carrying out the work", or that "new circuit" does not mean "new circuit", or that professionals must of course accept responsibility for things which they had zero responsibility for.

Because they are the ones responsible for the length of this topic. They did not have to start posting their mad ideas.
Meanwhile, coming back to the world that most people reside in, they just want to get their work done safely and get on with their life, not read some post with bold writing quoting details of rules they have no need to pay so much attention to making them wish they never asked. Honestly every time I read one of your posts I feel like you're frothing at the mouth and bouncing up and down like a madman. I'm assuming your main job is a lawyer as there's no other place that kind of frantic pedantry is any use.
His day job is in an IT related role. There's a grain of truth in the stereotype of the "IT nerd with no social skills" because there's an element of self-selection where those of us with the traits in the stereotype self-select into IT related positions so as to deal with "logical" computers and less with those "complicated" people.

But you think that their intention was that if there was a CU in place, populated with MCBs etc, and not a single mm of any final circuits, that someone could then come along and install every single bit of the rest of the installation - choose and run all of the cables, install all of the accessories and fixed appliances, and that as long as they avoided putting anything in any bathroom zones none of it would be notifiable.
Well that's what they wrote. It's clear that they decided the previous rules were overly restrictive and counter-productive - I don't think there can be any doubt about that given the relaxation in the rules.
I can't say (I wasn't there) whether they considered that extreme case - but if they did, they probably decided that if someone is going to go to that extreme then they'll probably do the work anyway without notifying so it really makes no difference.
What they clearly decided is that it didn't make sense to make it notifiable to extend an existing circuit (other than in bathroom zones), and as they didn't put any limit on that, presumably they thought that it was a reasonable compromise.

No - there's me again pointing out that you are wrong, again.

I'll be charitable though - I am prepared to accept that you have no idea that you are wrong, on account of you having no idea what you are talking about.
Who is wrong is the idiot who won't accept reality, and keeps on wrecking threads for his own aggrandisement. You say that I am wrong, yet you cannot put forward a single scrap of counterproposal that makes any sense. There is a clear description in BS7671 for "a circuit", there is no definition for it in the BRs. Yet you insist that the authors of the BRs could not possibly have expected anyone to use the BS7671 definition for electrical works when they are working with BS7671 as "the rule book" for said electrical works.

So, put forward a logical counter-proposal. Call upon published definitions that are relevant to the scope, and show that they must have meant something else. All we've got so far is what YOU want them to have meant - something you criticise others for.
Hello i need to run a new kitchen ring main which is on a 32 amp MCB. Is 2.5mm twin and earth cable the correct size as it will be running through wall mounted plastic trunking and not under the floorboards as the existing one is. It will be connected to the consumer unit by a qualified electrician once i have run all the new cables through the trunking etc:
Hi, yes 2.5mm (x2) .

Kind regards,

If you have a ring final with nothing plugged in and working, then you have no circuit. The BS7671 does move away from that and in essence says if it's there ready to be used, it is a circuit, it also defines it as having a overload device, so take a 12 volt bulb and a pair of cables and connect to to a battery and that is not a circuit, as it's not protected from overload. We all know it is a circuit, but not a BS7671 circuit. Using a FCU with BS7671 creates a new circuit, but clearly not with building regulations. So in real terms circuit is simply not defined, and so as with any law it is up to the courts to decide, once a court case is fought, then that case will start the case law system and will define a circuit.

So until there is a court case, you have to consider is it likely that I would be taken to court over the work I am doing? For DIY that means to start with assuming it's your own house, some one will have been injured or killed. Even then looking at court cases the court looks at the skill of the person doing the work. So if I was to do some electrical work in my house which resulted in death because I am a trained electrician I would likely get a custodial sentence, but if some one who was not trained did exactly the same work and they caused a death, it is very unlikely they would get a custodial sentence, they could get away with it completely.

The law uses words like "reasonable" and is it reasonable to charge more to register and inspect work than it costs to do the work? Had the threshold for payment with local council been £100 worth instead of £1000 worth so paying 10% the minimum charge would have been £10 plus vat rather than £100 plus vat then Part P may have worked. But the massive minimum charges actually went up, with councils being allowed to pass on charges where they employed outside contractors to test and inspect. So the minimum charge was hitting the £200 mark.

There is also the point, the councils were not actually doing the inspection and testing, as far as I am aware, there has not been a court case to date, where the LABC has been taken to court over the safety of the work they have been over seeing? I can see how when the same guy registers work with the LABC week after week, how they are reasonably satisfied the work will be OK so only inspect 10% of his work. But the first job any person does should be inspected before the completion certificate is issued, and my work was not inspected never mind tested before the certificate was issued. Therefore in real terms Part P is a tax and job creation scheme, it does not ensure work is to standard.

So for the forum what is more important is to guide people on how to do safe work, rather than bang on about rules and regulations. There is also of course the direct question about regulations and rules, a question starting "Can I" should mean rules and regulations are quoted, that is what is being asked, so if the question was can I buy a gun and shoot my neighbour if taken literally the answer is likely yes, if you hunt hard enough you can I am sure buy a gun, however if the question was am I allowed to do it then of course the answer is no, however we tend to consider "Can I" and "Am I allowed" to mean the same. So question can I ripe out all the wires in my house and replace them with new, well we know physically they can, so the answer is if you do XYZ then you can.

But the question is what is reasonable to expect a DIY person to do as far as inspecting and testing go? If a DIY person swaps a single socket for a double socket, should we instruct them how to inspect and test involving delving into the consumer unit? Or are we subjecting them to unnecessary danger asking them to do that, should we simply say plug in a socket tester?
Sounds great, so assuming people are up for it, shall we approach Admin with a view to setting up a code of conduct for this section based on the above? Who even is Admin? Are they a regular poster or just a company?
Meanwhile, coming back to the world that most people reside in, they just want to get their work done safely and get on with their life, not read some post with bold writing quoting details of rules they have no need to pay so much attention to making them wish they never asked.
Meanwhile, coming back to the world in which people with decency and morality live in, people asking questions here should be told what the rules and regulations are.

Go back and look at post #2. All I did was to say that if there's to be an electrician involved then ask him what cable to use, ask him where/how to run it, and make sure that he is happy with the arrangements for his client to do some of the work himself.

This is advice which lots of other people have given many times.

But for some reason, people then decided to start arguments about what being "responsible for" means. Simon decided to start arguing about what the Building Regulations mean by a phrase which he wishes they did not use, even though that had no relevance this topic. He also decided to start arguing about what they mean by "new circuit" and how therefore when someone says "I'm installing a new circuit" they are not installing a new circuit.

Honestly every time I read one of your posts I feel like you're frothing at the mouth and bouncing up and down like a madman.
You ought to take your imagination back for a refund or a replacement - yours is broken.

I'm assuming your main job is a lawyer as there's no other place that kind of frantic pedantry is any use.
And there it is.

The last ditch defence by someone who has realised that because what I'm saying is correct, all he can do is to claim that the truth is pedantry.

How do you propose that regulars give visitors to the site advice about how to do a job?

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

Sponsored Links