mcb / rcbo

[JohnW2]

I have had experience of working with people who draft legislation and feel they haven't got a clue.

I, too, have a little experience of working with them in relation to highly technical legislation (as well as knowing some socially!). They certainly don't usually have any clue about the technical aspects of what they are writing about (hence my past involvement in providing 'technical input') but, in my limited experience, the more experienced of them are fairly good (and 'do their best') in terms of the clarity/ambiguity/loophole side of things.

I say they haven't got a clue but in relality the civil servants drafting the legislation followed a standard mantra to any of the 'what if scenarios' we raised - that mantra was 'let the courts decide'. Clearly the same mantra has been applied for the Building Regulations including Part P.

Yes, that's common - but when they want to work to that mantra, they deliberately leave things 'open to interpretation'. As far as I can make out, the relevant parts of the Schedule we're talking about are very explicit (hence largely tying the hands of the courts) in all but one aspect - namely the definition of 'replacement'.

So no matter what you, Paul_C, Sparticus, myself or anybody else contributing to this discussion says or believes no one is right or wrong because there hasn't been any case law on it.

I wouldn't really say that. In the absence of case law, the explicit word of Statute obviously applies, and remains the 'right' unless/until some case law arises.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

FWIW, as far as BS7671 is concerned,a CU is a Type-tested DB.

Does that mean if a DB were installed in a house this would NOT be notifiable?

 

[JohnW2]

That raises another issue with regard to the interpretation of schedule 4, since nowhere in the building regulations does it actually define what is meant by the term consumer unit, which appears only in 1(a) of schedule 4. Does it mean as defined by BS7671? .....If it ever came to it, would it be held that "consumer unit" means as defined by BS7671, or that it also includes some other type of distribution panel?

Quite. Since the Building Regs are silent on this definition, this clearly would be an issue which only a court could decide - but goodness knows what a court would decide. One might hope that common sense in terms of the (presumed) spirit of the regs would prevail, and that 'CU' would be deemed to refer to any sort of DB (or 'equivalent'), but I certainly wouldn't put my shirt on that!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

FWIW, as far as BS7671 is concerned,a CU is a Type-tested DB.

Does that mean if a DB were installed in a house this would NOT be notifiable?

See my response to Paul's post.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Or perhaps "Dormermike V buildings insurance company" when insurance company try not to pay for fire damage on a technicality that a "change" was made with no LABC notification. Where said insurance company interpret schedule 4 in their favour.

Yes, that's one way in which it could be tested in court (assuming that the insurance company's case was that the "change" was notifiable).

Of course, insurance companies are (within limits) free to put whatever they like into their policies - so it's far from impossible that they would include requirements (for the policy to remain valid) which went beyond the requirements of the law.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

- but, even there, I'm not totally clear as to what people think .... take yourself. You originally expressed the view that replacing an MCB is not notifiable - and I think we probably all have to agree that is what the law says.

Agreed I take the view that replacing an MCB like-for-like is not notifiable because there are no changes in the characteristics of the related final circuit or of the consumer unit as a whole system. I personally have and probably still do take the view that "altering" the related final circuit and the consumer unit as a whole system should be notifiable. By altering I mean specifically swapping an MCB for an RCBO thus "adding" additional capability which although I agree will barely ever degrade the final circuit or the consumer unit may be perceived/argued as doing so in a "significant" insurance claim.

However, subsequently we have more-or-less agreed that it is not logical for 'replacement of a CU' to be notifiable, but replacement of all (or virtually all) of the contents of a CU to not be notifiable. So where would you personally draw the line? Two MCBs, 4 MCBs, MCBs + RCDs/main switch, or what?

Ah I see your point. In my opinion if one or more (incl all) of the component parts where changed like-for-like then I vote not notifiable. If one or more of the active component parts are "altered" by way (for example) of changing an MCB to an RCBO then I would vote notifiable.

Why do I take such views?
1) Because I appear to have misinterpreted the building regs - I have no shame
2) Much more importantly to me (and possibly the property owner) I sleep better at night knowing that I have notified a change which although extrinsically inert may (under duress of a failed insurance claim) become a point of contention. Admittedly premised on my poor understanding (admitted above) of the interpretation of schedule 4 but nevertheless would cause me to "worry"
EDIT: An important point
3) Because I have asked 2 LABCs their view and their view is that changing an MCB to an RCBO is notifiable (I know they can't impose their own laws but it is another point that could come up in a rejected insurance claim)





Now I accept it is easy for me to say I sleep better at night for submitting a notification that costs £2.50 and recognise it is not such an easy decision (as had been said) if the cost was £150 - but if I were in such a position I think I would want something in writing from the LABC formally telling me that I did not need to notify.

PS, I use the term like-for-like only for clarity and recognise that it may not be used in the building regs.

 

[sparkticus]

duplicate error

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are we forgetting the difference between notification an certification - or are we just talking about 'Joe Public' doing the work 'illegally' because of not notifying?

The fact that an insurance company may contest an issue because it was not 'notified' would surely be less likely to succeed were the appropriate certificates in order and the 'failure' to notify was because of interpretation of the wording.

 

[JohnW2]

Ah I see your point. In my opinion if one or more (incl all) of the component parts where changed like-for-like then I vote not notifiable. If one or more of the active component parts are "altered" by way (for example) of changing an MCB to an RCBO then I would vote notifiable.

Thanks for clarifying.

Why do I take such views?
1) ....
2) Much more importantly to me (and possibly the property owner) I sleep better at night knowing that I have notified a change which although extrinsically inert may (under duress of a failed insurance claim) become a point of contention. Admittedly premised on my poor understanding (admitted above) of the interpretation of schedule 4 but nevertheless would cause me to "worry"
3) Because I have asked 2 LABCs their view and their view is that changing an MCB to an RCBO is notifiable (I know they can't impose their own laws but it is another point that could come up in a rejected insurance claim)

Whilst such 'CYA' measures clearly are applicable to a non-electrician (and may seem to give some comfort to an electrician), do they really mean much in relation to a self-certifying electrician? If a self-certifying electrician does notify, nothing is going to happen to 'check' his/her work - which (s)he is going to certify him/herself. A sensible court (if that's not a contradiction in terms!) ought therefore to realise that the presence or absence of notification (of work undertaken by a self-certifying electrician)was irrelevant to issues relating to, say, a fire insurance claim, shouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkticus]

Are we forgetting the difference between notification an certification - or are we just talking about 'Joe Public' doing the work 'illegally' because of not notifying?

Good question, I was focussed on notification.

There is no question in my mind that "altering" any active component part
of a fixed wiring system should be "certified" whether that be a minor works certificate or an EIC.

The fact that an insurance company may contest an issue because it was not 'notified' would surely be less likely to succeed were the appropriate certificates in order and the 'failure' to notify was because of interpretation of the wording.

Or the contest would redirect from cliant V insurance company to client V contractor?

 

[sparkticus]

If a self-certifying electrician does notify, nothing is going to happen to 'check' his/her work - which (s)he is going to certify him/herself. A sensible court (if that's not a contradiction in terms!) ought therefore to realise that the presence or absence of notification (of work undertaken by a self-certifying electrician)was irrelevant to issues relating to, say, a fire insurance claim, shouldn't it?

Well, a self certifying electrician is exposed to having work checked on a yearly basis. With the exception of the first registration (where the contractor offers samples of work for inspection) all follow up surveillance visit are are "selected" by the inspector and may or may not include notified work) I recognise that is not your point but some LABCs do some sort of rendom or sample checking of notified work - of course that could be anything structural, pressured hot water, insulation and electrics.

I tend to agree that if the work is "certified" by a self-certifying competent person than that may reduce the significance of not notifying but in today's "litigation rich" world it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it simply brings the contractor under pressure.

 

[SimonH2]

Ah, but what if it's just the plastic box which has been damaged and you replace only that part, transferring the existing busbars, MCB's, RCD's, etc. into it? Then one could argue that the exemption in 1(c) is applicable:

1. Work consisting of—

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

It just shows how crazy and nonsensical schedule 4 is.

Indeed, thanks for pointing that out.
So I can replace the plastic box one day, and make a note for when I come to sell so I know what non-notifiable work has been done when.
Then later I can replace the parts within it. Again. making a note of the non-notifiable work done.

And so CU changed without it being notifiable. Does anyone else have Johny Cash singing One Piece at a Time in their heads now ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Also if I may expand the discussion -

How daft is 1(b) replacing a damaged cable for a single circuit only

Is there a time limit between circuits?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The new schedule 4 groups together all exemptions from notification for the entire set of building regulations, not just Part P.

So did the old 2B.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Where's Ban when you need him ?

I was on my way to a restaurant.