Notifiable or not?

[whistler]

I am having a garage conversion done soon and as part of the preliminary work, I have had the consumer unit replaced. All fully tested and certified!

The cu is in the garage and currently I have one socket and one light fitting in the garage. These were connected to their own circuits in the cu.

When the garage conversion is done, I require an additional light and three or four sockets adding to the existing ones.

In reality, the existing light and socket cabling will be removed and complete new cabling installed. My question is, as the light and socket circuits already exist, is this regarded as modifications or additions to existing circuits and therefore not notifiable? [/u][/b]

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not notifiable.

 

[securespark]

As a completely new circuit?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

In reality, the existing light and socket cabling will be removed and complete new cabling installed. My question is, as the light and socket circuits already exist, is this regarded as modifications or additions to existing circuits and therefore not notifiable? [/u][/b]

In reality if you are removing the old circuits and installing new cabling, then that would sound to me like a new circuit rather than an old one. I doubt very much that the new cable replacing the old circuit would be a true representation of what was originally existing, therefore I would conclude in saying this was not a new circuit would be a little cheeky !

 

[EFLImpudence]

Sounds more like replacing cable to me.

If anyone wants to pay up to £400 for what is debatable then that is their choice.

 

[securespark]

With you.

 

[mfarrow]

As it will be part of notifiable work (garage conversion) the electrics will also be notifiable. At least it is round here.

Just another way to sting you.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Sounds more like replacing cable to me.

Sounds like ripping out and installing a completely newly designed circuit or two to me!

 

[ericmark]

The LABC notifying goes in bands the start band in my area is £2000 and so work costing a few hundred gets changed same fee as work costing £1999 which is where the problem lies. Where the electrics is part of a larger job often including them will not affect the total LABC charge so may as well include them.

As for if notifiable one can always find an excuse why they are not from planned before 2004 to only replacing existing but the question is if the LABC are involved will they accept that excuse? If they are not involved then it's more important that they are safe than if they need notifying and as long as person doing the work issues a Minor Works Certificate then no problem.

 

[JohnW2]

Sounds more like replacing cable to me. If anyone wants to pay up to £400 for what is debatable then that is their choice.

Quite so - I agree.

If anyone were 'nervous' about that interpretation, they could always replace parts of the old circuit 'bit by bit' (on different occasions) - in which case it would surely be difficult to argue that any of those bits of work constituted 'installing a new circuit'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

In reality if you are removing the old circuits and installing new cabling, then that would sound to me like a new circuit rather than an old one. I doubt very much that the new cable replacing the old circuit would be a true representation of what was originally existing, therefore I would conclude in saying this was not a new circuit would be a little cheeky !

In common sense terms,I would be inclined to agree with you, but the law is not about common sense. Don't forget that, under current laws in England, provided it is not in a special location, you can modify/extend an existing circuit as extensively as you like (potentially to the extent that it hardly resembles the original circuit) without it being a 'new circuit' that requires notification. In any event, to apply your 'common sense' approach would require drawing a line somewhere - where would you draw it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ekmdgrf]

If a broom has two new heads and three new handles, is it the original broom?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Trigger said it was.

 

[JohnW2]

If a broom has two new heads and three new handles, is it the original broom?

As I said, we're talking about the law, not common sense!

What if the replacing of a single component of a broom was not deemed to result in creation of a 'new broom'? Replace the head today, and it's not a 'new broom'. Then, in 5 years time, replace the handle. Has it now become a 'new broom'? If the notification laws for electrical work related back to the 'original' state of circuit at some point in the (possibly very distant) past, that really would be an unworkable situation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

In reality if you are removing the old circuits and installing new cabling, then that would sound to me like a new circuit rather than an old one. I doubt very much that the new cable replacing the old circuit would be a true representation of what was originally existing, therefore I would conclude in saying this was not a new circuit would be a little cheeky !

The CU in the garage exists.
It has two circuits which exist.

The cable of these circuits can be replaced - not a new circuit.
The circuit itself can be extended - not a new circuit.

Whichever is done first is irrelevant.

After the work there will still be two circuits.
They will be longer and consist of new cable but neither of them is new.

Abiding by the law is admirable.
Thinking of ways to be constrained by it when it is reasonable not to be is silly.