Non-notifiable work - extending a ring

[jhs14]

Afternoon all,

Been lurking here for a while and am impressed with all your knowledge.

I'm looking to extend the ring in an upstairs bedroom by adding a double socket. I'm confident that I know what I'm doing here - safe zones, accessibility etc. I'm just a bit confused as to what 'non-notifiable work' actually entails.

From reading up on the subject even very minor works such as these need to be tested and certified by a qualified person by way of a minor works certificate. And as I understand it, electricians are understandably reluctant to certify DIY work so really I'd have to get the electrician to install it all in the first place.

My question is, do people actually do this? Am I being irresponsible in considering just going ahead and extending the ring myself and thinking no more about it? Is this a dangerous attitude or do millions of homeowners around the country do the same thing?

My thinking has always been that notifiable work is best left to the pros whereas non-notifiable work is OK to get on with yourself on a DIY basis - as long as you're confident in your own abilities and know your limits of course. I'm very happy to pay an electrician to come and do work that I know is beyond my capabilities - for example I recently had a new CU and cooker circuit fitted. I'd never consider doing those jobs myself. But I'm confident in being able to safely extend a ring and am happy to just get on with that myself.
Is this an unreasonable atttiude?

Cheers all.

 

[JohnW2]

From reading up on the subject even very minor works such as these need to be tested and certified by a qualified person by way of a minor works certificate. And as I understand it, electricians are understandably reluctant to certify DIY work so really I'd have to get the electrician to install it all in the first place.
My question is, do people actually do this? Am I being irresponsible in considering just going ahead and extending the ring myself and thinking no more about it? Is this a dangerous attitude or do millions of homeowners around the country do the same thing?

As you obviously realise, this is a rather 'sensitive' topic, with some limitations on what it is appropriate to say in a public forum.

Firstly, the requirement (for non-notifiable work) is not that testing and certification (issuing of a MWC) be undertaken by a 'qualified' person - but, rather, that it be undertaken by a 'competent' person (in the everyday sense of the word) [proposed changes in the regs for next year will make things a bit clearer by changing that to 'electrically skilled person']. If you are adequately competent (everyday sense) and have (or can acquire) the required equipment and skill to undertake the required tests, then you could undertake the testing and issue the MWC.

Having said that, testing is usually the main problem, even for those who are highly competent to actually undertake the work (other than testing) in question. The vast majority of DIYers undertaking 'minor works' do not have the equipment and/or skill to undertake the testing that is technically required by the regulations, but nevertheless undertake the work. It is therefore a fact of life that "...millions of homeowners around the country do the same thing?" - and views as to whether that is a "dangerous attitude" will vary widely!

You may possibly have to 'read between the lines' a bit in interpreting some of the responses you may get in this discussion!

Kind Regards, John

 

[richardrich79]

I too wonder about this, my neighbour's property is used as a student let and he has done all the work, electrical, plumbing moving the kitchen upstairs etc. himself. He is not trade in any way and to top it all has altered a first floor window to a door to open onto a balcony (yet to be built) over the back return. There's no way planning would be approved for that as we are in a conservation area.
The University inspection passed the property no problem and he says he 'just had to pay for the various certificates'
So I wonder why people worry.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The only way to know it didn't need testing is...???

 

[jhs14]

As you obviously realise, this is a rather 'sensitive' topic, with some limitations on what it is appropriate to say in a public forum.

Firstly, the requirement (for non-notifiable work) is not that testing and certification (issuing of a MWC) be undertaken by a 'qualified' person - but, rather, that it be undertaken by a 'competent' person (in the everyday sense of the word) [proposed changes in the regs for next year will make things a bit clearer by changing that to 'electrically skilled person']. If you are adequately competent (everyday sense) and have (or can acquire) the required equipment and skill to undertake the required tests, then you could undertake the testing and issue the MWC.

Hi John, thanks for your reply. Yes I was aware that qualifications were'nt required a such, I think by 'qualified' I meant being able to demonstrate competence through qualifications, rather than that being the requirement itself if you see what I mean.

Having said that, testing is usually the main problem, even for those who are highly competent to actually undertake the work (other than testing) in question.

I think that's the key problem here - I naturally don't have the proper testing kit therefore I wouldn't be able to self-complete an MWC, regardless of any self-percieved or even actual competence! I'd essentally be relying on the existing circuit having been tested and that my alteration being so minor as to not affect the integrity of that circuit.

Of course, this being a recently purchased house I have no guarantee that the existing wiring has been tested anyway! (Aside from the general tests undertaken upon installation of the new CU, I suppose). Not to mention the junction boxes taking spurs from the ring that were nicely hidden under the floorboards, but that's a different matter.. My thinking was also that while extending the ring in that location I could move the spur cable to an existing socket and do away with the innaccessible junction box altogether..

 

[JohnW2]

The only way to know it didn't need testing is...???

Quite - but unless we were to essentially bans DIY electrical work (or, at least, electrical work undertaken by those who cannot undertake adequate testing, which is not much different), we will be stuck with the massive divide between what is desirable (in the interests of safety)(and effectively required by regulations, hence law) and what actually happens in the real world.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ekmdgrf]

The only way to know it didn't need testing is...???

Do a half-arsed job, then you know it would fail without having to test?

 

[JohnW2]

Hi John, thanks for your reply. Yes I was aware that qualifications were'nt required a such, I think by 'qualified' I meant being able to demonstrate competence through qualifications, rather than that being the requirement itself if you see what I mean.

Fair enough but you still say "...demonstrate competence through qualifications...", but qualifications of any sort are not an essential part of the equation, even now. If the expected changes occur next year ("electrically skilled OR electrically trained person"), that will maybe help to make this more clear.

I think that's the key problem here - I naturally don't have the proper testing kit therefore I wouldn't be able to self-complete an MWC, regardless of any self-percieved or even actual competence!

Quite - but, as I said, you're in no different a position from millions of DIYers who do undertake 'minor' electrical work. I can't really say more than that - you have to decide. There is no doubt that not undertaking the 'required testing' can result in some risks, so the people 'on that side' of the argument will always have a case to present - I guess that you have to consider the magnitude of those risks.

People exceed speed limits, and break other safety-related laws, whilst driving. It's a personal decision.

Kind Regards, John

 

[jhs14]

Quite - but, as I said, you're in no different a position from millions of DIYers who do undertake 'minor' electrical work. I can't really say more than that - you have to decide. There is no doubt that not undertaking the 'required testing' can result in some risks, so the people 'on that side' of the argument will always have a case to present - I guess that you have to consider the magnitude of those risks.

Yes, that's what it comes down to I think. I just wondered whether this is something that is commonly done or not. I suspected it was.

But then, how far does this go? I take it that changing a light fitting (i.e. rewiring the rose) technically requires an MWC? And what proportion of the general population would consider paying an electrician to come in and do that? It's quite an interesting area I think. It's not that I have any wish to not comply with the regulations, I just like to work within my own abilities and would only attempt jobs that I feel comfortable with doing. Looking at some of the work that previous owners have done in this house (electrics and otherwise) almost anything I do will be an improvement!

 

[EFLImpudence]

The only way to know it didn't need testing is...???

Quite - but unless we were to essentially bans DIY electrical work (or, at least, electrical work undertaken by those who cannot undertake adequate testing, which is not much different), we will be stuck with the massive divide between what is desirable (in the interests of safety)(and effectively required by regulations, hence law) and what actually happens in the real world.

Being pragmatic may be reasonable but so is having the right tools to do the job.

You cannot repair the car with just a hammer and mole grips.
You should not do electrical work with just a screwdriver and a pair of scissors.

I am not implying that everyone needs a MFT but a cheap multimeter will ensure it is a ring, has correct polarity and even do a basic insulation check.

I find it strange that so many people seem really worried that a policeman may come and take them away for not notifying work whilst not caring if their CPCs are actually connected to anything.

 

[jhs14]

I find it strange that so many people seem really worried that a policeman may come and take them away for not notifying work whilst not caring if their CPCs are actually connected to anything.

It's not as simple as that though. I'm well aware that I could do what I like with my electrics and no-one will ever find out. It's the principle of doing things by the book that worries me. And I'd make sure that the CPC on any new extension is connected properly to the existing CPC. I may not be sure that that CPC is connected to anything, but I certainly won't have made it less safe!

 

[ekmdgrf]

I find it strange that so many people seem really worried that a policeman may come and take them away for not notifying work whilst not caring if their CPCs are actually connected to anything.

That would be strange, since as a civil, rather than criminal matter, the plod wouldn't get involved</pedant>

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, that's what it comes down to I think. I just wondered whether this is something that is commonly done or not. I suspected it was. But then, how far does this go? I take it that changing a light fitting (i.e. rewiring the rose) technically requires an MWC? And what proportion of the general population would consider paying an electrician to come in and do that?

Quite. As you say ,technically it requires testing and the issue of an MWC, but I think we all know the answer to your second, virtually rhetorical, question!

It's quite an interesting area I think. It's not that I have any wish to not comply with the regulations, I just like to work within my own abilities and would only attempt jobs that I feel comfortable with doing. Looking at some of the work that previous owners have done in this house (electrics and otherwise) almost anything I do will be an improvement!

I think you have a pretty reasonable and responsible attitude. If it's compromise you're after, I would suggest you heed the comments that EFLI has just made and, whilst you are (presumably) not going to acquire the equipment and skill necessary to undertake the 'full tests' required for a MWC, you should at least consider undertaking (hence learning how to undertake) basic tests with a cheap multimeter - which, frankly, would pick up a high proportion of the problems that more sophisticated testing would identify.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That would be strange, since as a civil, rather than criminal matter, the plod wouldn't get involved</pedant>

True but frequent posts such as "Is it illegal for me to change a socket?" would imply that people think it possible that, if not plod then, the heavy mob will be round.

 

[JohnW2]

Being pragmatic may be reasonable but so is having the right tools to do the job. You cannot repair the car with just a hammer and mole grips. You should not do electrical work with just a screwdriver and a pair of scissors.

All true. However, continuing that analogy, I have in my time have undertaken extensive work on, for example, car braking systems - all the way up to completely replacing a braking system. I've had the knowledge, skill and all the appropriate tools to undertake that work, but I have never had a means of formally testing the braking system after the work was completed.

I am not implying that everyone needs a MFT but a cheap multimeter will ensure it is a ring, has correct polarity and even do a basic insulation check.

As I've just written to the OP, I think that's probably a very reasonable compromise. Indeed, if were one to supplement the multimeter with a plug-in tester that could give a rough indication of EFLI (and acquired the appropriate knowledge/skills), one would be well on the way to being able to pick up most of the issues that would be identified by 'proper testing'.

Kind Regards, John